Talk:Ebionites/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Featured Article Nomination

Loremaster, I propose that we ask IZAK and/or Jayjg to give the article one more look and ask one of them to nominate the article for review to become a Featured Article. Is this acceptable? Ovadyah 20:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Loremaster 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I contacted IZAK and asked him to review the article. Hopefully, he can find the time. Ovadyah 05:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I also contacted Jayjg and asked him to review the article. Slrubenstein made several suggestions of potential reviewers that are knowledgeable in this area. I will follow-up with them shortly. Ovadyah 16:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Great news! James Tabor has responded to my request, and he will be joining us (soon?) to review the article. I am looking forward to hearing his current thinking on the Ebionites. Ovadyah 17:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted Haldrik; CTSWyneken; and Wesley per Slrubenstein's suggestion to get a talented group of reviewers together with diverse points of view. Welcome all to the Ebionites article! Ovadyah 11:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! --Loremaster 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the History sub-section

Summarizing suggestions made by Alec and Montana:

More secular history to put them in the correct subculture and geographic region would be helpful: Who were the Ebionites, in terms of geography, chronology, and ethnicity. What world did they live in? Were they centered around Jerusalem, scattered throughout Palestine, or confined to remote rural areas? Why did the Ebionites lose the battle for orthodoxy? Is there any archeological evidence for any of the claims being made about Ebionites?

Now that I am satisfied with the current revision of the article, I may take a break from editing the Ebionites article. So who else can work on this? --Loremaster 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Great job on the article! I will spend some time working on it next week. Then I will need to take a break from editing myself. The short-term priority, as I see it, is to have a well-written, stable article that meets the "Good Article" standard of quality. I would like to see it continue to be improved to the level of Featured Article. Hopefully, some of the other editors I contacted previously will pitch in. Ovadyah 14:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I am very happy with the work that has been done so far. Please remember that if and when Ebionites becomes a Featured Article, we will have to be extremely watchful during that entire day because the page will be vandalized by trollers and Christian cranks. --Loremaster 17:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Another thing, maybe a lower priority. We seem to have quite a few references that don't connect back to anything in the article. I'm wondering if these are "dead references" that people added during the formative stages of the article. Should we remove them?
Yes. --Loremaster 19:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I will work on sorting through and removing the references that don't tie back to any citations in the article. Ovadyah 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Actualy what you have with many of the older references are actual online varifible sources that counterdict the present artical's POV and the many non-varifiable references the present frudulant artical depends on. I do see your interest is severing any remaining ties with reality regarding the Ebionite artical. --NazireneMystic
I don't know if you were aware of this, but Keith Akers posted a rather harsh review of the Ebionites article on his website, based on an August version, with point by point criticisms of the contents of the entire article. Maybe there is something in all the polemics that could be used to improve the article. Ovadyah 19:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this but I've been wondering for a long time what his reaction might be of the 3rd paragraph of the Beliefs and practices section. Do you have a link to the blog post in question? --Loremaster 19:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's the link to Keith's webpage: [3] Ovadyah 22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Old news... Keith already voiced most of these criticisms on this talk page months ago. I think our collective editing of the article since then has addressed the important ones in a satisfactory manner. Do you disagree? --Loremaster 23:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow Loremaster! You threw down a gauntlet with the Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus sentence you added. It will be interesting to see the reaction. BTW, did you know that the historical Ebionites are mentioned in the Jews for Judaism anti-missionary handbook? Ovadyah 23:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm just stating a fact which is backed up with a source. ;) That being said, I wasn't aware of the Ebionite mention you speak of. Can you quote from the handbook or do you have a link to it? --Loremaster 23:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This should not be reproduced in the article without permission of the author(s), but here's what it says:

"The belief that Jesus was G-d and did away with the commandments was due to the influence of the apostle Paul, and later, the political authority of Constantine and the Roman Empire. They created a religion that Jesus himself would not recognize. It was specifically the dictatorial influence of the Roman Empire that led to the religion's widespread acceptance and popularity. A careful study of the New Testament, which takes into account the prevailing circumstances and the perspectives of the numerous groups that co-existed at the time, also validates this opinion.
Additional substantiation can be brought from the Ebionite Christian sect, who existed as late as the fourth century and who denied the divinity of Jesus and believed they were obligated to keep the Torah. There is evidence that the Ebionites were direct descendants of the original followers of Jesus and were maintaining their original beliefs in a human Messiah. The Ebionites were excommunicated from the Roman church for refusing to accept the non-biblical doctrines put forth in the Nicene Creed." [4] Ovadyah 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Despite the fact that I didn't and don't intend to reproduce this in the article, I find it very interesting. On a different issue, although you don't have to work on this now, is there enough information out there to expand the History sub-section according to the suggestions of our colleagues? --Loremaster 14:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Direct archeological evidence of Ebionites doesn't exist as far as I know. Chronology could be tightened up a bit. I mentioned dates for the two earliest witnesses in the article (ca 140 and 180). These are now buried in the Notes section. There is probably testimony of Hegesippus from the second century that is related by Eusebius. Ovadyah 19:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Add whatever you can and I will edit if needed. --Loremaster 02:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've edited the article to reflect the suggestions as much as the information (or lack of) we have on Ebionites can provide. I consider 17:30, 23 December 2006 revision final. :) --Loremaster 19:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on recent changes

By the way, what do you think of the article as it currently is? I've tried as much as possible to take NazireneMystic's criticisms into account. --Loremaster 17:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a few comments, some on wording, some on links to other articles. I'll start at the top.

I have three problems with this sentence:

1. The link to "holy man" is just a link to other links. We had something better before.

Fixed. --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

2. The link to "adoptionism" is not consistent theologically with Ebionism. It is completely Christian. Jesus was chosen to be a prophet at his baptism, not turned into a divine being.

Fixed. --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

3. The "kingdom of heaven" link is a Christian conception of heaven. We had something else here before that fit much better.

Fixed. However, the concept of the "kingdom of heaven" is in the Gospel of Matthew. --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
True. But the Greek Matthew we know is Paulinized. Symmachus specifically refuted it as a fake. I think this is much closer than the Christian version: [5]. The Ebionite distinction is the social justice you mention in the article. Ovadyah 23:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

An important point to remember is that there were Christians in the 2nd century who believed in an adoptionist Christology, such as Theodotus the Cobbler, where Jesus became divine at his baptism. They did not follow Jewish Law, however, and had no relation to Ebionites.

I knew that. --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence above could use a little word-smithing. My issue with the next sentence is not the addition of theosis per NazireneMystic. It is the notion that Gentiles could achieve this by following Jewish Law. From an Ebionite perspective, a Gentile would have to convert to Judaism. The sentence sounds a lot more Universalist than it should. Ebionites were not about inclusion. We know from Justin Martyr that they did not even have table fellowship with Gentiles. If we are going to leave theosis in there, we should reference Hippolytus.

Hmmm... I've done some word-smithing and referenced Hippolytus but I disagree with your view of this passage since its fairly obvious that following Jewish law implies conversion to Judaism, especially in light of the first sentence of the next paragraph. --Loremaster 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ebionites held a form of "inaugurated eschatology" which posited that the ministry of Jesus has ushered in the Messianic Age so that the kingdom of God may be understood to be present in an incipient fashion, while at the same time awaiting consummation in the future age following the coming of the Jewish Messiah, to whom Jesus was only a herald.[4]

How does James Tabor know all this? There is not one source that informs us of the Ebionite view of the kingdom of heaven. How does James know the Ebionites thought Jesus was only a herald? This is nothing but speculation.

I'm guessing that Tabor is basing his speculation on his interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. We simply need to make it clear that this is Tabor's suggestion. --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the Ebionites practiced communion, restricted or otherwise. Maybe the problem here is the link to Christian communion.

Fixed. What is the Jewish word for "table fellowship"? --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm searching for the right word in Hebrew that describes this. The Greek word that comes closest is koinonia. Ovadyah 23:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Once you do find the Hebrew word and hopefully the Wikipedia article on the subject, we will redirect the link to table fellowship page towards it. --Loremaster 00:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have inserted table fellowship for now. Ovadyah 00:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Good. --Loremaster 02:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Epiphanius, however, claims that Ebionites rejected traditions, which they believed had been added to Mosaic Law, including scribal alterations of the texts of scripture; and that they had a greater interest in restoring the more anarchist form of worship reflected in the pre-Mosaic period of Judaism.

Did Epiphanius claim "they had a greater interest in restoring the more anarchist form of worship reflected in the pre-Mosaic period of Judaism" or James Tabor? This sounds like something JT would say.

Fixed. --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Scholar Hans-Joachim Schoeps, however, argues that the primary influence of Ebionites on mainstream Christianity was to aid in the defeat of gnosticism through counter-missionary work.[7]

Did Schoeps actually say this? NazireneMystic contends that Schoeps said something quite different. I am particularly sceptical about the counter-missionary part.

Removed. So what did Schoeps actually say? --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't own a copy of Schoeps, so I can't tell you. Ovadyah 23:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if Shemayah Phillips said this, do you really want to call Messianic Judaism blasphemy? Wouldn't it be enough to say it's Pauline Christianity and has no relation to Judaism? I'm concerned someone will go nuts over this in the review.

Removed the potentially inflammatory word "blasphemously" which was mine. However, I took the rest of the sentence from the Messianic Judaism and Jews for Jesus articles so it would be ridiculous for someone to be offended. --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've made all the changes you recommended, what do you think of the current version of the article? --Loremaster 23:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I now approve of the current version of the article. See my specific replies above. Ovadyah 23:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. --Loremaster 00:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Schoeps and Clementine literature

While we are waiting for someone with a copy of Schoeps, I'm going to retrieve an earlier version this section, along with NazireneMystic's proposed addition. Ovadyah 01:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Just post it all here so we can review it together. --Loremaster 01:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this version has everything we need to discuss the issues with Schoeps. Ovadyah 01:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

For example, Epiphanius describes them as rejecting parts or most of the Law, as vegetarians, as opposed to animal sacrifice, and quotes their gospel as ascribing these injunctions to Jesus (Panarion 30.16.5, 30.18.7-9, 30.22.4). This is in agreement with numerous passages found in the Recognitions and Homilies (e.g. Recognitions 1.36, 1.54, Homilies 3.45, 7.4, 7.8).). Hans Joachim Schoeps states that the Clementine literature's nearest parallels are to be found in the book of Jubilees and Enoch

How does this passage relate to the issue of Ebionite influence on Christianity? --Loremaster 01:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence is fine. I removed the second sentence, citing various passages from the Clementines, because none of the citations have anything to do with Ebionites. I stand by that decison. I think the intention was to try to build a linkage between Epiphanius and the Clementines, and then use that linkage build another one between the Clementines and Jubilees and Enoch. The reason presumably was to imply that all these things are (gnostic) Ebionite.
The problem is that Epiphanius likely used a version of the Homilies as a source document, so of course there would be similarities. Akers tried to position this as the convergence of two independent pieces of evidence. But, Koch states in his manuscript on Panarion 30 that there is extensive evidence of dependence, so I corrected this mis-impression later in the Writings section of the article. Ovadyah 02:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
With the second sentence about the Clementines citations removed, the third sentence regarding Schoeps was just dangling in the article. It doesn't tie back to Panarion 30 or anything about Ebionites. That was why I removed it. All it does is link the Clementine literature to centuries earlier pre-Christian works attributed to the Essenes. I suppose that was the purpose of adding this info, but as you just stated, what does this have to do with the issue of Ebionite influence on Christianity? Imho, nothing. Ovadyah 02:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand now. I've now edited the article to say the following:
Tabor relies on Epiphaneus's description of Ebionites as rejecting parts or most of the Law, as religious vegetarians, as opposed to animal sacrifice, and as engaging in daily baptism; and his quotations of their gospel as ascribing these injunctions to Jesus the Christ seen as the adopted son of God and the incarnation of the first archangel. Most of this is in agreement with numerous passages found in the Clementine literature which Epiphanius used as a source[citation needed] Scholar Shlomo Pines counters that all these heterodox doctrines originate from the works of the Fathers of Christian Gnosticism and are characteristics of the Elcesaite sect, which have been mistakenly or falsely attributed to Ebionites by Epiphanius or others. Without a consensus among scholars, the issue remains contentious.
Do you have a problem with this version? If not, can you fix the citation? --Loremaster 02:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The only problem is, where are these numerous passages in the Clementines that are in agreement? Of all the citations that were given, only the first one (I think it was R 1.36) had anything to do with ending sacrifices in the temple. It is addressed to Jews in general, and it has nothing to do with vegetarianism. I can look up the exact words, but I believe it is about the coming of Jesus making the sacrificial system unnecessary. This is no different than a lot of other Christian material. Ovadyah 02:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. I will remove the mention of Clementine literature. --Loremaster 02:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

About Pines

Here are two quotations from Shlomo Pines manuscript, The Jewish Christians Of The Early Centuries Of Christianity According To A New Source, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities II, No. 13 (1966) that shed light on the Ebionites described by Abd al-Jabbar:

The doctrines of Epiphanius' Ebionites are held to approximate to those of the Jewish Christian portions of the Pseudo-Clementines. Thus, they are said to believe in one true prophet appearing in various shapes and forms throughout history, to delete texts occurring in the Old Testament as being false, to reject bloody sacrifices and to consider that their abolition and the prohibition of the eating of meat were part of Jesus' mission. None of these teachings, which deviate from those of the less speculatively inclined Jewish Christians who seem to have been, in the main, content to practice traditional Jewish piety, are professed by the original authors of our texts. As has already been noted, they considered that Jesus approved of the observance of the Jewish sacrifices. In a passage concerning Mani (which is translated below, see Excursus I) they mention that this heresiarch quoted passages from the Gospels which prohibit sacrifices and the eating of meat; but they clearly considered that these passages were not authentic.
There are issues concerning both Epiphanius catch-phrase "Ebionites" for differing messianic groups, and also the Pseudo-Clementines, which contain several strata of development, are late, and represent not Ebionite, but rather an Elkasite tradition. See, G. Strecker's introduction to Kerymata Petrou, in New Testament Apocrypha, Edgar Hennecke, W. Schneemelcher, Vol. 2, pp. 102-111; cp. pp. 532-5. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965). Also both the Pseudo-Clementines and Kerygmata are largely Greeks works, i.e., in a language which Abd al-Jabbar's messianics disdained in favor of Hebrew.
  1. Who are "the orginal authors of our texts" that Pines is refering to?
  2. Which texts is Pines is refering to?
  3. Who are the people who "clearly considered that these passages were not authentic"?
  4. Who is responsible for these disputed passages?

--Loremaster 02:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The original authors, according to Pines, were Ebionites that wrote in Syriac (Eastern dialect of Aramaic) and presumably lived in or around this region (Eastern Syria / Parthia).
2. The texts are underlying source documents that Al-Jabbar translated into Arabic and overlayed with his own polemics. Pines notes that the grammar and vocabulary are very unlike Al-Jabbar's religious commentary. There may be several source texts. He attributes one of them about Jesus' death to the Karaites.
3. Pines is saying the same authors considered the passage by Mani as inauthentic. Maybe he is inferring this from the overall content of their writing. I don't remember the specific passage.
4. Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, an Eastern Gnostic religion. I think Pines is saying they rejected the teachings of Mani, such as the prohibition of sacrifices and the eating of meat, which are very similar to what is found in the Pseudo-Clementines. Ovadyah 04:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank your for these clarifications. So my question now is did Epiphanius encounter 1) Ebionites who embraced Gnostic beliefs, 2) Gnostics who he mistakenly believed were Ebionites, or 3) Ebionites to whom he falsely attributed Gnostic beliefs? --Loremaster 17:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the answers are not quite so easy. As several scholars have noted, including Koch and Van Voorst, Epiphanius uses the term Ebionites in the general sense to mean all Jewish-Christian groups. What matters is what our verifiable sources think. Most go with option 2, but some like Schoeps suggest there were two different groups of Ebionites. I don't know of any scholars that think there was only one group and that group was gnostic. Ovadyah 18:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This was my impression as well. Thank you. --Loremaster 18:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of God

Loremaster, you brought up a very important point about the Kingdom of God on Earth. Another point to mention is that the earthly kingdom is supposed to begin with the restoration of Israel, if we can find it in a source. Ovadyah 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, modern Ebionites, Jews, and conservative Christians all believe this. Ovadyah 02:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Careful! My understanding of what the Kingdom of God on Earth might have been for Ebionites comes from this article. Comments? --Loremaster 17:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "careful", but I will carefully read this over tonight. I don't think it's a stretch for historical or modern Jews to see a restoration of Israel as part of the Kingdom with Jerusalem as it's capital. The intersting part is that many modern conservative evangelical Christians share this view based on the Apocalypse of John. Ovadyah 19:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I am arguing that Ebionites embraced a form of "inaugurated eschatology" (similar to the one held by evangelical Christian scholars) which posits that Jesus, through his ministry, has ushered in the Messianic Age so that the kingdom of God may be understood to be present in an incipient fashion, while at the same time awaiting consummation in the future age following the coming of the Jewish Messiah (who might be someone other than Jesus)... --Loremaster 19:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm basing the argument above on the following statement in Ancient Judaism: Nazarenes and Ebionites: "Jesus as the Prophet like Moses, or True Teacher (but not to be confused with YHVH God of Israel), who will anoint his Messiahs on his right and left hand when he is revealed in power following his rejection and death. These two figures, the Davidic Nasi (Prince of the Yachad) and Priest, will rule with him in the Kingdom of God." --Loremaster 23:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, the messianic scroll that predicts these three figures is 4Q175. Ovadyah 22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a very interesting discussion we should keep pushing forward. A similar view was expounded by Michael Goulder in St. Peter vs. St. Paul: A Tale of Two Missions, where he argues that Peter understood the Messianic age as being here already (realized eschatology), having been ushered in by Jesus, whereas Paul thought the Messianic age had not yet begun but was coming soon (imminent eschatology). Ovadyah 14:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
There are 2 messianic DSS about the Last Days that speak directly to this. Both mention the Yahad, so they are sectarian, and both anticipate an "Interpreter of the Law" who is not the Davidic Messiah. I'll have more specifics on this in a few days. Ovadyah 14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Good! I too would like to push this discussion forward. --Loremaster 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The two DSS I mentioned are 4Q174 and 4Q177. According to The Dead Sea Scrolls - A New Translation by Wise, Abegg and Cook, 2005, the relevant passage in the 4Q174 pesher says:
"Moreover the Lord declares to you that He will make you a house," and that "I will raise up your offspring after you, and establish the throne of his kingdom forever, I will be a father to him, and he will be My son" (2 Sam 7:11c, 12b, 13b-14a). This passage refers to the Shoot of David, who is to arise with the 'Interpreter of the Law', and who will arise in Zion in the Last Days, as it is written, "And I shall raise up the booth of David that is fallen" (Amos 9:11). This passage describes the fallen Branch of David, whom He shall raise up to deliver Israel.
4Q177 is much more fragmentary. In addition to mentioning the 'Interpreter of the Law', this pesher mentions the symbols of "the horn", "the trumpet" and "the sword". The horn is the first book of the Law, the trumpet is a second book of the Law that was rejected, and the sword is men of an unknown party. Ovadyah 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Fascinating. Well, as you already know, I've added a summary of all of this in the Beliefs and practices section a while back and refined it ever since then. I consider it to be the most important part of the article. --Loremaster 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Contention

I've replaced the sentence "Without a consensus among scholars, the issue remains contentious" with "The reliability of Epiphanius' claims, which is refuted by some scholars, is extremely contentious for various sects of modern Ebionite revivalists" since this is what I originally meant when I wrote the former. This is an opportunity to cite all the scholars in question. --Loremaster 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I interpreted this sentence to mean that the issue remains contentious among scholars, which is why I had a cite here before. I removed the cite because I thought it was obvious from the context of the preceeding paragraph. A neutral source reporting a conflict between the two groups is unlikely. Ovadyah 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I've reworded the sentence. We need to cite scholars who refute the reliability of Epiphanius. --Loremaster 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
See The Ascents of James in Archive 2. Van Voorst states this, and so do Klijn & Reinink, which is what I had there originally. Ovadyah 19:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Good. Please add them as citations. --Loremaster 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. Ovadyah 20:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Origen on Ebionites

All these quotes of Origen are from Jacob Rabinowitz's manuscript. I'll validate them later. Ovadyah 03:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Jews, and the Ebionites who differ from them not at all, accuse us of being transgressors of the Law because we don't think the scriptures should be understood according to their obvious meaning. On Matthew, 4.12. Ovadyah 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

..those of the Jews who believe in Jesus have not left the ancestral Law. Against Celsus, 2.1.

..to this day the Ebionites attack Paul with abusive language, following the example of the High Priest Annanias who ordered Paul to be struck. Homily on Jeremiah, 19.12. Ovadyah 03:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with what we were taught by him - that there is one Israel according to the flesh and another according to the Spirit - we do not accept at face value the Lord's saying 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel', as do those who only understand material reality - I mean the Ebionites, whose name comes from the Hebrew evyon, meaning poor. De Principiis, 4.3.8.

The Ebionites deny this, saying that Jesus was born of a man and a woman in the same way we are. Homily on Luke, 17. Ovadyah 03:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Origen doesn't seem to be saying anything different or new. Do you still feel we should include him in some way? --Loremaster 08:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Only for De Principiis, where he actually states that evyonim means poor, and the mention of Annanias. Ovadyah 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's include his mention of their name but leave out the mention of Annanias. --Loremaster 18:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Add it and I will edit if necessary. --Loremaster 20:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. Ovadyah 21:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Good. --Loremaster 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Question: Are Annas and Annanias the same person? --Loremaster 10:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm checking into it. Ovadyah 14:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Origen is referring to an incident in Acts 23.2, where Annanius ben Nebedeus struck Paul during his trial in Jerusalem. So, they are clearly not the same person. My mistake. Ovadyah 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern Ebionites in North Africa?

On 21st February 2006, a member of the Ebionite Jewish Community sent me the following message:

"This is concerning a quotation about two years ago:

However, there is an ancient Ebionite sect in North Africa that claims to have no broken links dating back to Y'shua and they are actually messianic. They accept he full messiahship of Y'shua. There was a special on 60 minutes a few years back where they interviewed this ebionite sect and on their tombstones they had the Mogan David as well as the cross. Judaism rejected them as a valid form of Judaism because of their messianic leanings. As well, these North African Ebionites claimed to have direct descendence of Levite bloodlines. 60 minutes did extensive gene sampling and found it to be a true claim.

Anyway I was wondering if you remembered any details about this or could provide proof of such things. I saw your post and was intrigued by it, but Shemayah Phillips thinks it is a hoax."

Ovadyah, have you ever heard about this? --Loremaster 19:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't. Ovadyah 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you email Shemayah to find out if he ever got any information confirming or refuting this claim about modern Ebionites in North Africa? --Loremaster 00:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I just sent him an email. Ovadyah 01:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --Loremaster 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Summarizing his comments, he doesn't have any additional information and still thinks it's a fake. Ovadyah 02:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review for FA

I consider the current version of the Ebionites article to be stable enough. Should we go through peer review again? --Loremaster 19:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, however, this time we should focus on the changes needed to bring it up to FA standards. Ovadyah 21:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. You can trigger the process. --Loremaster 22:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the help. That was a little confusing! Ovadyah 01:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem. --Loremaster 01:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't get rid of the redirect per the instructions. Can you fix the path? Ovadyah 01:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Everything seems fine. What are you refering to exactly? --Loremaster 02:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. :) Ovadyah 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. --Loremaster 09:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... The second peer review seems very quiet (possibly because of the holidays). How long should we wait? --Loremaster 09:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I would wait a week and then discuss our options. People are traveling. Ovadyah 17:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Let's wait a week. --Loremaster 17:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of what we decide, I would be ok with you nominating the current version of Ebionites for Featured Article. --Loremaster 10:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I will nominate the article for FA if you will be available to help implement the changes. Ovadyah 17:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
When you do nominate it, I will try to make myself available to implement the changes if there are any. --Loremaster 17:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Loremaster, the nomination for FA is on hold. We are going backwards. Ovadyah 05:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? --Loremaster 09:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I mean we should continue to work with deliberate speed towards FA, but hold off on the actual nomination until this CS business is resolved. Ovadyah 16:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Understood. I agree. --Loremaster 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ovadyah, now that the issues raised by CS have been resolved, should we close the second peer review and move towards FA? --Loremaster 18:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If people haven't responded by now, they are not likely to. Do you feel that FA is feasible given the contentious editing environment? FA candidate articles are supposed to be stable and free of edit wars. We had that situation until recently. Ovadyah 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless Micheal is planning on surprising us with a massive revision of the article, I think the edit wars are over. I say let's standardize the footnotes section using Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines and move on to FA nomination. --Loremaster 20:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Loremaster, I can't support nominating the article for FA at this time. I feel that the quality of the article is going backwards. What some people interpret as a POV suppression of facts was an effort to maintain some kind of minimal editorial standards. Imho, we are now below that threshold. The article is increasingly taking on the characteristics of a tabloid. I propose asking Slrubenstein to take another look at the article. He's a senior editor that actually knows something about the subject. Failing this, I'm ready to take it to ArbCom. Ovadyah 16:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you feel that way since the only possibly controversial change to the article since you last approved of a previous version was the addition of the following sentence:
Some scholars such as James Tabor and Martin A. Larson have argued that Ebionites may have been Qumran Essene revivalists, first led by John the Baptist,
Is this what you have a problem with? If not, what content do you see as being tabloid-like that you would like modified or deleted? In the meantime, can you close to the second peer review? --Loremaster 10:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
All of the linkages to Qumran and John the Baptist seem like pseudo-scholarship to me because they are based on very thin circumstantial evidence or no evidence at all. The evidence linking Ebionites and the Qumran Community is tenuous, and the idea that John the Baptist was the leader of a group of Qumran revivalists was completely made up by Tabor. I have archived the second peer review. Ovadyah 17:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Re completely made up by Tabor: I'm not sure what your problem is with the John the Baptist material. I assume you don't have Tabor to hand or you would see he provides sources for both the Essene - Ebionite connection and the John the Baptist - Essene connection, and that both these claims are supported by others in the field.--Michael C. Price talk 12:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I also have a problem with assertions that James the Just was the leader of the Ebionites during his lifetime, as though this is an obvious fact. There is no supporting evidence based upon historical testimony of witnesses like Josephus. Having someone claim that they "know" this based upon their readings of Acts is like NM and his group saying that they "know" the true history of the Ebionites based upon the recollections of their past lives. Ovadyah 17:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't since there are plenty of secondary sources (Tabor, Eisenman, Rabinowitz....) that say James the Just was the leader of the Ebionites. Can you find a single secondary source that says otherwise? --Michael C. Price talk 18:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Show me a reputable secondary source that explicitly says that James was an Ebionite, and I will promptly withdraw my objection. I'm not convinced by the transitive argument that James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church, and the Jerusalem Church was Ebionite, therefore James was the leader of the Ebionites. I can't support this linkage because I don't see the equality Jerusalem Church = Ebionites in the literature. Saying that the Jerusalem Church is in some way related to the Ebionites is a lot different than saying the two are the same. Ovadyah 19:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
But that is what the sources say, that the early Jerusalem Church = the Ebionites (Tabor 2006, p375) and James the Ebionite leader (Eisenman 1997, p4 ff). Rabionowitz etc etc --Michael C. Price talk 22:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
These claims have been made by some sources which have not gained currency within the scholarship community. Regardless, they have been mentioned in the History section. --Loremaster 22:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Find me a source that supports this POV.--Michael C. Price talk 22:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to convince you of this "POV". The claims you are pushing are mentioned in the article. So there is no OR problem. --Loremaster 22:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting for Ovadyah to make good on his promise.--Michael C. Price talk 22:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't owe you anything Michael. You can't prove a negative. There would be no sources saying James wasn't and Ebionite because there are no reputable sources to refute that explicitly claim he was one. Ovadyah 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Please be explicit:
  • which of the three sources I've cited are disreputable?
  • which of the 3 sources don't claim that James was the leader of the early Jerusalem church?
  • which of the 3 sources don't claim that James was the Ebionite leader?
  • which of the 3 sources don't claim that the early Jerusalem church was Ebionite?
--Michael C. Price talk 23:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ovadyah please be explicit on exactly which link in chain is a problem for you and I will provide the exact quotes.--Michael C. Price talk 10:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Ovadyah, but it doesn't work that way here. Every source we have seen so far associates James with the Ebionites. I have seen many others besides. This is the standard view that you see everywhere, but you call any source that makes this claim "unreputable" and demand a "reputable" source. This is again "setting the bar impossibly high" because as soon as another source is found making this claim, it automatically gets declared "unreputable" on your authority. So on one side, the view that James was closely connected with the Ebionites, we have numerous sources (and you can add Larsen to that list with all the others). In the other corner, for the view that he wasn't, we have: one or two wikipedians' opinion, that's it. Guess who wins whenever that happens. Wikipedia is an transparent, open book, not a tyranny, and this article cannot continue to be a micro-tyranny for very much longer. I fully support mentioning James in the intro, because that is the first thing almost any book you will pick up about the Ebionites says about them. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Since primary sources do not support the notion that John the Baptist and James were leaders of the Ebionites, and secondary sources are speculating rather than reporting historical facts, I stand with Ovadyah on opposing the mention of John and James in the intro. Since they are both mentioned in the History section, there is no neutrality, factual accuracy or original research problem with the article as it currently is. --Loremaster 23:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Primary sources? You still don't get WP:OR, do you? --Michael C. Price talk 23:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I do. I was simply detailing all the reasons for my stance. I would also add that since the Lead section is supposed to be a consise overview of the article, there are obviously many things that must be left out. It is only logical to include some of the majority views that are widely accepted and exclude minority views that are not widely accepted. Despite the fact that we must sthrive to present multiple points of view, I have rarely seen the Lead section of good and featured articles present multiple points of views for every single statement written in it. They tend to be a straight-forward account of the facts sometimes followed by notable controversies. It is for all these reasons that Ovadyah and I think that there should be no mention of John the Baptist and James the Just in the Lead especially in light of the fact that they are mentioned in the History within an appropriate context. --Loremaster 23:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
No you don't; it's not a question of multiple viewpoints. There are PLENTY of secondary sources that say James was the Ebionite leader after Jesus and NONE that say otherwise. --Michael C. Price talk 00:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
My point is stil that it is sufficient that this claim about James is only mentioned in the History section. --Loremaster 00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
So you accept that the point about James is valid, now we are only arguing about weighting. James was leader for over ten times as long as Jesus.--Michael C. Price talk 00:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
No I don't. I've always recognized the fact that James the Just was the leader of the Jerusalem Church. However, the connection being the Jerusalem Church and the Ebionites is speculative. This is one of the reasons why I think it is more appropriate to mention him in the history section with the proper contextualization. --Loremaster 05:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The sources and encyclopedias etc. I have been looking up here today treat "Jerusalem Church" and "Ebionites" as if they were interchangeable names for the same thing... You can say it is "speculative", but it's pretty widespread "speculation"... It is getting too late for me to add all the quotes I have indulging in this "speculation", but I will try tomorrow... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide links to these encyclopedias if they are available online? --Loremaster 05:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
So that you can ignore them? --Michael C. Price talk 10:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith. --Loremaster 13:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to play games with semantics, CS. Let's settle this by creating a new section on this talk page. Michael can put the quoted words of his three sources on the page so we are all looking at the same words. Let's get it all out there and decide. Ovadyah 23:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ovadyah, answer the specific questions I've asked you. --Michael C. Price talk 23:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Micheal, I have a question for you: Although I am sure that there is a minority that does, why do the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Jewish Encyclopedia and many other religious encyclopedias not mention James the Just as leader of the Ebionites? --Loremaster 00:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
For the Catholics, probably for the same reason they can't even admit that James was the brother of Jesus. Prejudice. And they don't admit that Jesus was ever their leader -- shall we therefore omit this from the lead???? --Michael C. Price talk 00:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. Catholics view Ebionites as heretics so they would mention anything that confirms that like the heretical belief that Ebionites were the spiritual successor to the original body of believers in Jesus composed of the Apostles and that the apostolic succession was passed on through James rather than Peter. As for secular encyclopedia on religions, your argument doesn't work since they don't have an agenda beyond reporting the facts. Finally, it would be absurd to remove Jesus from the Lead since both primary and secondary sources attest to Ebionite focus on him. --Loremaster 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
And the focus on John the Baptist -- ah, but that doesn't suit your agenda, does it? BTW still waiting for single secondary source that excludes James the Just. And I see you concede that even the Catholics think that the Ebionites regarded the apostolic succession passing down through James, rather than Peter. That would make James their leader, in their own eyes, would it not? --Michael C. Price talk 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
1. Only one primary source mentions John the Baptist but it doesnt claim that they saw him as one of the leaders. It only portrays him as a forerunner for Jesus.
2. I am not planning on providing you with secondary sources that exclude James the Just since this isn't what I am basing my argument on.
3. My whole point was that it would be in the interest of the Catholic Encyclopedia to mention Ebionites believed James was their leader and that apostolic succesion passed through James but it DOESN'T. In other words, catholics don't think this.
--Loremaster 00:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
1) is WP:OR since it is an inference based on primaries.
2) I take this an admission that you have failed to find any secondary sources that support your POV.
3) conjectural and convoluted; just stick to what the sources say, shall we?
--Michael C. Price talk 00:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I am no longer discussing these issues with someone who has now demonstrated his bad faith. --Loremaster 01:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I see my decision to report your behaviour [6] was correct. --Michael C. Price talk 02:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
According to User:Wildnox, both of us appear to have violated 3RR. ;) He suggests we both stop, drop this report, and settle this on talk pages. Now, can you start acting like a mature adult so this dispute can be resolved once and for all? Since I no longer have the patience to deal with you, I'll let you finish this debate with Ovadyah while I continue protecting the article from acts of vandalism. --Loremaster 03:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Continuing ad hominem and refusal to engage in debate noted. As for Ovadyah, my questions to his points are still unanswered; what is the problem with the sources that support the Ebionite role of James the Just? --Michael C. Price talk 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ask him on talk page. --Loremaster 05:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the talk page. Ovadyah? --Michael C. Price talk 11:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant his talk page. --Loremaster 11:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ovadyah can make his response to my/his talk page if he wishes, but wouldn't it be fairer to let everybody join in? :-) --Michael C. Price talk 11:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Everyone can read and post on this talk page if they want to. My point is that people often are more likely to quiclky respond to questions and requests when they are on their talk page. --Loremaster 13:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, you are in no position to lecture anyone on any subject related to ethics. I have been less responsive than usual because I am very busy right now off-Wiki, not because I am trying to surpress evidence or I am unwilling to engage in debate. I told Loremaster this was coming a few weeks ago. However, when I can spend more time on this article, I will search through my sources and attempt to provide the evidence you requested. Ovadyah 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ovadyah, I have never lectured you on your ethics, or made any assumption of bad faith, although if you continue to adopt such a confrontational, ascerbic style I may have to downgrade by high opinion of you. Just address the issues I have asked: find a source that supports your POV about James and explicitly identify (when you're ready) the weak link in the transitive logic as you see it. --Michael C. Price talk 12:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize for my confrontational, ascerbic remarks. That doesn't get us anywhere, and I should know better. I am exasperated over the place we have come to on this project, but no one should be criticized for requesting sources. Again, I apologize. Ovadyah 13:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing the air. --Michael C. Price talk 14:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ovadyah, are you OK with the article as it currently is? --Loremaster 23:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am fine with it now because speculation is represented as speculation rather than truth. Ovadyah 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly the point I have been making in other sections of this talk page so I agree. I've therefore removed the mention of James the Just from the Lead but I've left a revised version of the speculative sentence about Qumram, Essene, John the Baptist and James the Just in the History section since an encyclopedic article should include the speculation of scholars in a proper context. --Loremaster 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I confess to being very surprised that this article is recommended to become a feature. I have seen nothing that convinces me that we should go much further than the ancient evidence tells us. Most of it is hostile, much of it is late. Not all modern writers can be treated as authoritative; citing them without their arguments often leads to disputes I have just read. My own view is that if WP is intended for readers, speculation is not helpful. The article should, in my view be no more than thirty lines long with a few references. The subject is unlikely to yield more good source material. My view is that it is a thorougly bad article at present.Roger Arguile 10:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Less is more, I agree. --Michael C. Price talk 12:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Schoeps, Ebionites and Anti-Gnosticism

Scholar Hans-Joachim Schoeps, however, argues that the primary influence of Ebionites on mainstream Christianity was to aid in the defeat of gnosticism.

Since User:NazireneMystic has disputed the veracity of this sentence (the orginal version of which was added by anonymous user 4.227.194.130 at 16:45, 30 July 2005), we need someone who has access to Schoeops' works to verify it. --Loremaster 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ovadyah, is there anyone you can email to get this info? --Loremaster 00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I will ask around. If that fails, I will purchase the book, if it's still in print, and check for myself. Ovadyah 00:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. --Loremaster 00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I found someone that claims to have a copy of Schoeps. If I don't hear back from them in the next few days, I will look into purchasing a copy. Ovadyah 16:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Good. --Loremaster 00:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the mention of anti-gnosticism for now. --Loremaster 13:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


I have some notes that mention Schoeps; I'm pretty certain it's in this context. Let me find the reference - give a day or two please. --DaXiong 08:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Archaeology section

I think we may have our archaeology section. Anonymous user 69.136.245.176 stopped by (presumably Jacob Rabinowitz) and left a nice paragraph on an archaeological find that appears to link back to Ebionites. We can change the external link he left to an online manuscript into a reference instead. Jacob, stop by anytime. Happy day! :) Ovadyah 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I placed the paragraph in a separate archaeology section and changed the external link into a reference. I have been reading Jacob's PDF manuscript that can be accessed by the weblink. It's great stuff! There are several useful references to Ebionites by Origen. I can use some of them to expand and improve the History section. See in particular p.73 (of the actual manuscript). Ovadyah 17:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read that document yet but is Jacob suggesting that all early Ebionites were Gnostics? If so, aren't troubled by this? --Loremaster 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it's quite the opposite. He is saying they are being falsely portrayed as Gnostics in order to dismiss their relevance to mainstream Christianity. See p.73. Ovadyah 19:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh. This is perfect since the Archaeology section is a great way to expand an article that has been criticized as being too short. --Loremaster 20:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My initial excitement is turning to scepticism, now that I have actually read the manuscript. Despite Rabinowitz's claims, I don't see the symbolic imagery as convincingly Ebionite or even Judaic. And what's with the angel language? I will need to research this more thoroughly and find independent evidence to support his claims. Ovadyah 04:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So if Rabinowitz supports your POV its good but if he doesnt you need more evidence to support his claim? well just use some of the other evidence you have already dismissed and then there you go. Hay lets ad some inline quotes from the artical, hows that? You guys are cracking me up.
NM, Rabinowitz needs as much evidence to support his claims as any other source. We are checking into it, but we can't do everything at once. If we can't verify his claims, out it goes from the article. In the meantime, however, I am assuming good faith, which is more than I can say for you. Ovadyah 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No, you are misunderstanding WP:NOR: it is not Rabinowitz's claims that need verifying -- that would be original research believe it or not; if Rabinowitz's claims are published in a reputable source (have they?) then that is end of the matter, either way. If you think his claims are rubbish then you need to find another source that states this, not allow your own judgement to be the basis of the exclusion. NM is quite correct in this procedural point here. (I don't see any basis for claiming that NM has assumed bad faith here either. Just deal with the issues.) And NM, please, please, please, "artical" should be spelt "article".... --Michael C. Price talk 10:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I would ordinarily agree with you Michael, but this one is trickier to handle than usual. First, it's not clear this is coming from a reputable source. What Rabinowitz linked to looks like his website with a PDF that is self-published. Second, there is only one chapter in the PDF article that matters for this section, the one on archaeology. There rest is just a bunch of commentary (although really interesting commentary, you should read it). The chapter on archaeology is reporting work that he claims is published in an Italian journal. I'm having a hard time verifying that this is a reputable source too. If I could find another secondary source that comments on the journal article or on Rabinowitz's article, I wouldn't hesitate to use it, but so far I can't. If you could find some time to dig into this, that would be great. Ovadyah 15:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
A cursory search indicates that Rabinowitz is not a crank author in the von Danken league; if he says he has published something then I think we should assume he's being truthful until we find evidence of his dishonesty. I will read the PDF as you suggest. (I have no views either way on his POV - or even what it is at the moment.)--Michael C. Price talk 16:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, finished Rabinowitz's Buried Angels. I agree that the weakest part is the archaeology section (chapter 3) where he identifies images as Ebionite, but that is an independent argument from the identification of the Essenes with the Ebionites (chapter 2 "God's Poor"), based on the ancient sources, for which he makes a very good case, IMO. The commentary on sources, as Ovadyah says is interesting. The really exciting thing is his "discovery" of some text from "Q" which Origen attributes to the gospel of the Ebionites. Rabinowitz seems to be saying that the Ebionite Gospel and "Q" are the same documents.... and it looks plausible!! Is that how you read it? --Michael C. Price talk 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
OK. I will wait for your verdict before doing anything to the Archaeology section. --Loremaster 08:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The 3 Messianic Figures

Is there any evidence that some Jewish Christians believed that John the Baptizer was the Prophet like Moses, Jesus was the King like David, and James the Just was the High Priest like Aaron? --Loremaster 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any, but I will look into it. If anything, there were Jews that accepted John as the Prophet like Moses and rejected Jesus as a false prophet. I just picked up Eisenman's new book, The New Testament Code. It's another 1000 page Magnum Opus like James the Brother of Jesus. Maybe I can find something there. Ovadyah 20:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. --Loremaster 21:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Basically, I'm wondering if there any source that would support the inclusion of the following statement in the first paragraph of the Beliefs and pratices section:
Alternatively, Ebionites expected three messianic figures and some may have seen John the Baptist as the prophet like Moses, Jesus the Nazarene as the king like David, and James the Just as the High Priest like Aaron.
--Loremaster 21:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

James Tabor makes an interesting speculation in his new book, "The Jesus Dynasty", pp. 145-148. He claims that the Essenes understood their Teacher of Righteousness to be the Prophet like Moses, and saw the Sabbatical year of 26-27 CE as the time for the coming of the Two Messiahs. James speculates further, that those who accepted John's baptism saw John the Baptist as the Priestly Messiah of Aaron and Jesus as the Royal Messiah of David. Imho, he's out on a limb as far as the evidence goes, but it's an interesting idea. There's nothing in here about James the Just, but I'm sure Eisenman has plenty to say about him. I'll keep reading. Ovadyah 16:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So the question would be who was the Teacher of Righteousness according to Jewish Christians who viewed John as priest and Jesus as king? --Loremaster 22:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Irregardless of who these three figures might be, I think James T. is onto something in terms of the timing. What he is arguing is that the Sabbatical year 26-27 CE marks the beginning of the final 7 year period of the last Jubilee before the End of Days. That would make the final year 33-34 CE, which fits with the gospel of John. Interesting. :) Ovadyah 16:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. --Loremaster 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Tabor also says "The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of mostly Jewish/Israelite followers of John the Baptizer and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions and led by "James the Just" (the oldest brother of Jesus), and flourished between the years 30-80 C.E." So the Ebionites first followed John, then Jesus and later James. IMO the lead is too focussed on Jesus and needs to mention the other two pivotal figures as well (without necessarily discussing their specific messianic roles, which is rather more speculative).--Michael C. Price talk 10:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Although I would have no problem with the re-mentioning of James in the Lead, I would be opposed to the mention of John the Baptist which is speculation on Tabor's part that is not supported by patristic sources which focus on Jesus and, correct me if I am wrong, don't mention James. --Loremaster 11:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I've re-inserted the mention of James that was deleted months ago from the Lead of the article. --Loremaster 11:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, I've added a mention of John the Baptist that I am comfortable with. --Loremaster 12:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Loremaster, imho, you should have stuck to your guns on this point. Adding James the Just and John the Baptist to the lead does nothing to improve the quality of the article. It introduces spurious speculation that has nothing to do with the purpose of the sentence, ie. to compare the received teachings of Jesus vs. Paul the apostate. From my perspective, there is no rational reason to do this (but maybe some irrational reasons). Ovadyah 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the addition of John and James to the end of the sentence about the possible distortion of Jesus's original teachings does not add to the article. The addition is a clumsy attempt at a synthesis (with violates WP:NOR) of different concepts and divergent viewpoints into a monolithic presentation (which violates WP:NPOV, with the unfortunate result that no viewpoint is clearly represented. --Michael C. Price talk 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine. There will be no mention of John the Baptist or James the Just in the Lead since it is supposed to be an overview of the articles devoid of speculative details. However, I have no problem mentioning that Tabor thinks John the Baptist may have been the first leader of the Ebionites in the History section. --Loremaster 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Everything we write about the Ebionites is speculation. Shall I therefore raise an AfD on the entire article?--Michael C. Price talk 01:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You are being unreasonable and bullyish. Most of what we write is based on the commonality within primary sources. --Loremaster 02:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You really don't get WP:NOR, do you? --talk 03:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I do get it but I think you are not getting what I am saying. Since the Lead section is supposed to be a consise overview of the article, there are obviously many things that must be left out. It is only logical to include some of the majority views that are widely accepted and exclude minority views that are not widely accepted. Despite the fact that we must sthrive to present multiple points of view, I have rarely seen the Lead section of good and featured articles present multiple points of views for every single statement written in it. They tend to be a straight-forward account of the facts sometimes followed by notable controversies. --Loremaster 10:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, so you accept that the lead can contain speculation. Good. As for whether a view is really a minority, see CS's recent comments. --Michael C. Price talk 11:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I didnt express myself properly. Of course a Lead section can contain speculation since there are Wikipedia articles on subjects that are entirely speculative such as conspiracy theories. My point is that we should avoid speculative *details*. As for whether or not a view is really a minority, I am refering to whether or not a view is at odds with the current consensus within a particular scholarship community OR the fact that we have to be careful not to give an impression of authoritativeness to the two or three fringe scholars who have bothered to study a subject. --Loremaster 11:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I am glad you have finally expressed yourself more clearly. I agree with your final statement, with the important priviso that the assessment of who is or isn't a fringe researcher is often largely a matter of POV. I for one will not accept ex cathedra statements that X is a fringe reseacher without seeing evidence of this. Especially when X holds a professorial chair in the appropriate subject at a prestigious university. --Michael C. Price talk 11:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I would describe the respective authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and The Hiram Key, who both indirectly mention Ebionites, to be fringe researchers due to their poor scholarship (I've read that university students have been reprimanded or failed for having use them as sources for their assignements). That being said, since most of content of the Ebionites article always had Tabor as its most influential source, the notion that his views were not getting the respect they deserve was fallacious. --Loremaster 13:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your two fringe examples. Whether Tabor's views are correctly represented I shall more to say later. But I am glad that you are not characterising him as a fringe researcher.--Michael C. Price talk 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Good. --Loremaster 04:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I would expect the patristic sources to focus on the Ebionite view of Jesus, but that focus does not necessarily reflect the original focus of the Ebionites themselves (the Panarion quoets from the GoE mentions John the Baptist as much as Jesus). Also it is our task to report research, not judge it (which would be original research): Tabor says the Ebionites originally followed John the Baptist; this is what we should report.--Michael C. Price talk 12:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, mentioning John the Baptist and claiming that he was their original leader is not the same thing. Second, it would be an exageration to claim that sources mention John as much as Jesus. Third, I don't think it would be appropriate to mention Tabor's speculation in the first two paragraphs of the Lead. However the third paragraph (which mentions the opinion of scholars at the end) does so now to an appropriate degree. --Loremaster 12:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In order, first, yes mentioning John the Baptist and claiming that he was their original leader is not the same thing, which is precisely why the lead needs to be more explicit on the subject. Second, I was refering to just the Panarion (our only sources of quotes from the Ebionite Gospel) not sources in general. Third, I don't see why it is inappropriate to mention this in the lead; Tabor leads off with it and so did this article once: perhaps you don't agree with Tabor, but that's original research. We should report the views of others, not judge them. --Michael C. Price talk 13:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
First, does Ebionite gospel mention that John the Baptist was the first leader of Ebionites? Second, one source is not enough. Third, I don't judge Tabor'views. However, I don't think the Lead should focus on his speculation which is his original research. --Loremaster 13:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me but it seems that you are always right and the rest of the world is wrong. Earlier we saw that when the secondary sources suit you, they are right and the patristic sources are wrong, even "irrelevant". But the above conversation shows that when the primary sources suit you, they are right and it is the secondary sources that are engaged in "original research", and not you for making yourself the sole ultimate arbiter of what the ancient Ebionites believed on the basis of some modern day theology. I wouldn't complain, but when you make yourself judge to the point where you are selectively deciding what information to present and what must be suppressed, it is pure information control. In a situation like this where there are only a handful of primary sources, EVERYTHING should be presented, even Epiphanius, along with all of the relevant secondary sources that comment on Epiphanius, instead of cherry-picking what readers are even allowed to hear about in the first place. Which has been my point all along. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly I agree with ፈቃደ -- dismissing a published non-primary source as "original research" and therefore inadmissable is to seriously misunderstand or twist WP policies and speaks of a lack of objectivity. Given the paucity of sources every viewpoint should be presented.--Michael C. Price talk 15:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In the spirit of cooperation, I will put aside the personal attacks and focus on explaining my actions: First of all, I am not a Christian nor a Jew. I am not pro-Ebionite or anti-Ebionite. I am therefore not influenced by modern-day theology of any of these religions. However, I have disclosed on several occasions that my view of Jesus is informed by the work of the Jesus Seminar but I haven't let that view interfere with our duty to present a secular account of Ebionites. Second, secondary sources, specifically scholars, provide 1) academic theories and 2) personal speculation. An encyclopedic article should sthrive to only present their academic theories and avoid their personal speculation. Third, I haven't suppressed any information that can be supported by primary and secondary sources. However, I have and will "control" how this information is presented and contextualized in the interest of fairness and accuracy. With the help of Ovadyah, I've succeeded in getting Ebionites Good Article status so I take your biased criticisms of my work with a grain of salt. --Loremaster 17:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but there is no mention in the guidelines of distinguishing between the "academic theories" and the "personal speculation" in a source. This is a false dichotomy and any attempt to do so is original research and to be eschewed, since it unavaoidably introduces the POV of the editor. Content is to be reported, not judged. --Michael C. Price talk 17:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I obviously disagree with your characterization. Regardless, there are guidelines about not giving minority views undue weight. --Loremaster 20:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Which irrelevant to the issue of whether the guideline support the "academic theories" vs "personal speculation" dichotomy: they don't. If you still clain otherwise then quote the relevant section here. --Michael C. Price talk 20:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't claim any relevance. My point is that Tabor's opinion (whether it be an academic theory or personal speculation) is in the minority and should not be given undue weight in the Lead section of an article. Regardless, John the Baptist and James the Just are now mentioned in the Lead in a way that I think is appropriate in light of primary sources. Anything more would be trying to push a POV. --Loremaster 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I missed this thread. So much to read, so little time. It's not so hard to determine the difference between an academic theory and a speculation. Theories are based upon hypotheses that can be tested and verified. I can speculate that Jesus was the reincarnation of Buddha. That can't be tested or verified. Original research from secondary sources is fine, but we have to use some collective judgement as to the weight to attach to our sources. See the NPOV guidelines regarding Undue Weight here. Ovadyah 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The NPOV guidelines do not say that minority viewpoints should be completelly omitted from the article, which is the situation with regards to the Tabor's view that the Ebionite were originally lead by John the Baptist.--Michael C. Price talk 17:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thus, the collective judgement of the editors is required to reach a decision. I would argue that this process is both necessary and sufficient, since we can't expect to do better than the sum of our abilities. Ovadyah 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That's always true, of course, but you haven't addressed the point I made about undue weight does not imply exclusion. --Michael C. Price talk 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Imho, it does not automatically imply exclusion, but it can mean that if the editor's judge something to be spurious. Alecmconroy gave a great explanation about this previously on one of the old talk pages, maybe I can ask him to comment on this again. That's what we pay the RFC the big money for. :) Ovadyah 02:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Which archive is it in? And I don't think anyone could regard Tabor's views as "spurious", even if they don't agree with them. (Jesus, for example, was commonly regarded by the people and Herod as John the Baptist risen from the dead (Mark 8:28, Matthew 14:2, 16:14, Luke 9:7, 9:19) -- was this because Jesus had replaced the late John's role as leader?)--Michael C. Price talk 10:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC Comments

Alec, can you comment on NPOV, undue weight, and minority opinions along the lines discussed above? Ovadyah 02:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites and Essenes?

I moved this closer to the top because I thought this topic was outside of the line of fire. Silly me. The issue is complicated. First of all, I have great respect for James Tabor. I have read his books and communicated with him personally. That said, he has a tendency to extrapolate beyond his data. James likes to point out what is possible. Linking the Ebionites to the Essenes is a perfect example. There is not a shred of direct evidence tying them together, but it's interesting to speculate that the Ebionites were influenced by the Essenes. I think you stay out of trouble if you preface your remarks, "James Tabor speculates...". However, there is a reasonable limit, such as when an author is out there all by himself. An example of this is Eisenman trying to link the DSS to early Christianity and Paul to the Spouter of Lies. He is utterly alone in the academic community in promoting this view. Ovadyah 15:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's hard to believe, I'm sure I've read lots of authors who connect Ebionites with Essenes... I will have to look in some of my books to see if I can find some others... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Prefacing the remarks with "according to James Tabor" would be fine with me. --Michael C. Price talk 15:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Tabor is not utterly alone. It is the main thesis or conclusion of a 1980 book I have just pulled off my shelf and am lookign at now, entitled "The Essene-Christian Faith" by Martin A. Larson, that the Essene brotherhood reconstituted themselves as the Ebionites and were the core of the Early Christians. Someone here must be famiiar with this work. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I said Eisenman was utterly alone in arguing that the Spouter of Lies in the DSS was Paul. Since you are so quick to demand primary references for everything, I challenge you to come up with one primary source document that ties the Ebionites directly to the Essenes. Lot's of people have opinions on the matter. Talk is cheap. Bring your evidence here. Ovadyah 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Why the insistence on primary sources? Wikipedia prefers secondary or tertiary sources. --Michael C. Price talk 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Because I'm trying to drive home the point that it's all speculation. There is no real evidence. Theories are based on facts and they are also testable. The hypothesis that the Ebionites are connected with the Essenes is not a theory because it can't be falsified. Ovadyah 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It is really pointless to castigate something as inadmissable by labelling it "speculation" -- even the theory of gravity is speculation; the guidelines say secondary and tertiary sources are preferable and that's all we need to know. Larson and Eisenman's views are both notable and admissable, regardless of whatever our views on them are. This is not the appropriate forum for rewriting the rules of wikipedia. --Michael C. Price talk 01:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
According to your inclusive principle of not judging sources, should we include the views of a fringe researcher who argues that Ebionites worshipped aliens? If not, why? --Loremaster 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
They are not my principles, they are Wikipedia's.--Michael C. Price talk 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine. According to Wikipedia's guidelines which include not giving undue weight to minority views, would you approve of the inclusion of the views of a fringe researcher who argues that Ebionites worshipped aliens? --Loremaster 01:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It would depend on whether the source(s) met the various criteria for inclusion. --Michael C. Price talk 01:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Which are? --Loremaster 01:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I am assuming this is a rhetorical question since I do not believe that someone who claims to be one of Wikipedia's most prolific editors can be that ignorant. Also I note that Tabor meets these requirements by your own standards since Tabor is used, multiple times, as a source for the current article. Excluding some of his conclusions because you don't like them, but accepting other of his conclusions, is original research and POV pushing. --Michael C. Price talk 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Micheal, I know what these various criteria are. I want to know if you know and understand them. Regardless, we are justified in excluding conclusions made by Tabor or any scholar that are not based on verifiable facts. The notion that I exclude any views because I don't "like" them is ridiculous in the context of this specific dispute since I was the one who added the mention of Ebionites being followers of John the Baptist and later Jesus months or years ago until I deleted it when some of you made me realize that the majority of sources did not support this speculation. So for the record, the only views I don't "like" are those that a significant number of serious scholars have deemed unreliable and/or not based on evidence. This is not original research or POV pushing. It's common sense. Period. --Loremaster 05:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The statement: Regardless, we are justified in excluding conclusions made by Tabor or any scholar that are not based on verifiable facts. shows that you still don't understand the concept of original research: verfiability refers to the sources, not to the "facts" the research is based on. And minority views are still reported in Wikipedia - it is only extreme minority views (e.g. the belief of one person that the Ebionites worshiped aliens) that are excluded. So both your objections are invalid. --Michael C. Price talk 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael, this is beating a dead horse (see CS's user page). It comes down to deciding when minority views are too minor to be worth reporting. That has to be decided by the collective judgement of the editors, taking into account the criterion of undue weight that we talked about before. There may be, and should be, legitimate disagreements between editors about the weight of various sources. Ovadyah 16:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, an amusing graphic. As for undue weight, consider that Tabor has published widely in respected journals; his viewpoint can hardly be considered a "tiny minority" given the paucity of active reseachers in the field. His views deserve more respect than is accorded here. However the more important issue is the long-standing and widespread violation of WP:NOR going on here; it is not flogging a dead horse to point this out (unless everyone had the same understanding of the issue, which is clearly not the case). There is also a gross violation of WP:NPOV which states:Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. This seems to have been forgotten.--Michael C. Price talk 17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The notion that Tabor's views are not being respected is ridiculous when he is one of the few scholars mentioned by name in this article *and* the one only one who has two paragraphs based on his views. However, the article cannot be about every single opinion that James Tabor has about Ebionites. That would not be NPOV. --Loremaster 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it would be, since this an important opinion. Clearly you understand as little about NPOV as you do NOR. And I quote:
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics.
--Michael C. Price talk 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that it is an important one which is the crux of the debate. As for your repeated quoting of the Wikipedia guidelines, you are engaging in Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. --Loremaster 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I offer the quote repeatedly because you have repeated your claim that everything must be based on verifiable facts, which is not what the NPOV guidelines say, which refer to verifiable sources.--Michael C. Price talk 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to start a new section "NPOV and NOR" so this conversation is not so scrunched up. Let's continue to work on this. Ovadyah 19:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, John the Baptist and James the Just are now mentioned as highly regarded teachers of Ebionites. This nuanced mention reflects the speculative nature of the claim. Since sources don't back up the claim, why push the POV that John the Baptist was the first leader of the Ebionites? --Loremaster 05:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Because it is a POV that meets the admission criteria. Where there is a diversity of sourced viewpoints they all should be reported. It's called balance and NPOV. --Michael C. Price talk 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. An encyclopedic article should not report speculative views that are not based on verifiable facts. --Loremaster 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Once again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of WP:NOR. You are trying to judge content which is expressly forbidden. It is sufficient that the sources be verifiable. --Michael C. Price talk 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Larson's entire 273 page, highly acclaimed book is dedicated to exploring all the similarities between the Essenes and the Ebionites. I highly recommend it if you haven't come across it yet. He leaves no primary account of either group uncited, and discusses not just the vegetarianism but the ritual ablutions, titles and doctrines common to both. Of course since it doesn't mesh in with your views, you may want to obstruct it from even being mentioned at all, even though he even has his own wikipedia article at Martin A. Larson. In the long run, it really doesn't matter if this article is going to be out of touch, since anyone who really wants to research the Ebionites will have plenty of sources out there more reliable than wikipedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you have abundant resources, I'm sure you will have no trouble using them to show us an example of one primary source document that explicity makes this connection, as I requested. Ovadyah 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The Larson book, and other similar scholarship, is about as close as you are going to get to showing exactly what all the connections are... So, have you determined that Martin A. Larson's credentials are not good enough? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Giving up so easily? I didn't when you challenged me to prove the Ebionites believed Jesus to be an ordinary man. I produced multiple primary witnesses. Don't feel you need to confine yourself to Larson. Any reputable scholar in the field will do nicely. Put your facts on the table (if you are able). Ovadyah 22:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem mentioning a possible Essene connnection since I was the first one to do it in an earlier version of the article until it was deleted. --Loremaster 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Loose ends

I don't foresee making any major changes to the Ebionites article. I consider it to be stable and almost perfect as it currently is. --Loremaster 21:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree we are very, very close. There are a couple of things left to look at. I'm going to put some quotations from Origen about the Ebionites on the talk page and work on that. Origen gives direct testimony that he knows Ebionites means "poor men". That is worth adding to the History section. The other thing we can work on is evidence for the demise of the Ebionites in the Roman Empire, presumably soon following the decree of Theodotian near the end of the 4th century. We also need to tidy up the format of the references. Montanabw said something about the Notes section being non-standard. Ovadyah 23:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Let's proceed. However, I think the standardizing the Notes section should be our priority. --Loremaster 23:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Whew! Let's keep the momentum going. Ovadyah 17:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you already have a source for evidence ofr the demise of the Ebionites in the Roman Empire, following the decree of Theodotian near the end of the 4th century or will you have to search for one? --Loremaster 09:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this. No, I don't have one at hand. Just recall from prior reading. Ovadyah 23:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute?

Codex Sinaiticus insist in adding the following sentence to the Beliefs and practices section of the article:

However, it should be noted that the only evidence that the Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus comes from the accusatory writings of those who opposed them the most vehemently, for their continued adherence to Mosaic Laws.

I've removed this redundant sentence several times because the introduction of the History already explains quite clearly that everything we know about Ebionites beliefs and practices comes from the polemical works of the early Church Fathers. --Loremaster 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The article as it stands seems to be pushing the exact same POVs that the enemies of the Ebionites were pushing. It can't be made clear enough that there is no other reason to think Ebionites really denied Jesus' divinity. And no, not "everything" we know comes from polemical works, I'm sure you have seen the section "Ebionite writings". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, since I am the person who has been working the most on making sure that this article has a neutral point of view (that critics could nonetheless accuse of being pro-Ebionite rather than anti-Ebionite), I find your accusation ridiculous. Secondly and objectively speaking, Ebionites denying the divinity of Jesus is probably one of their most realistic beliefs. Are you trying to push the POV that perhaps Ebionites were not as heretical as they were accused of being because they may have embraced the divinity of Jesus??? Thirdly, I am fully aware of the Ebionites writings section since they support the notion that Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus. What's your point? --Loremaster 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You are clearly pushing the POV that Ebionites did reject Jesus' divinity, you just admitted that this is your own opinion. But since it is open to dispute, I feel the article should be neutral and not automatically assume that the anti-Ebionite polemicists were correct. As it stands, it gives the clear impression that they were correct on this point, without offering much other support, thus the NPOV tag. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not pushing any POV. I'm simply presenting the facts in the form they are available to us. Every historical source we have describes Ebionites as rejecting the divinity of Jesus among other Christian doctrines. The article makes it quite clear that most of the sources are polemical in nature. What can be consideredd the anti-Ebionite POV of these sources is Ebionites being explicitly accused of "judaizing" and "heresy" NOT the reporting of what their beliefs actually were. This is why I think the article is neutral. --Loremaster 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the npov-section tag after having improved the Beliefs and practices section. Do you approve? --Loremaster 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no NPOV problem. The article has been thoroughly vetted by an RFC for NPOV, then by a peer review, and finally by the nomination process for GA. Loremaster, this NPOV-dispute nonsense has led to some weasel-words being added to the article. Feel free to remove them. Codex Sinaiticus, if you want to help out, please consider joining the second peer review. Ovadyah 21:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that I have no right to dispute assumptions made in the article that I detect are written from a point-of-view ? Who made you the judge of whether or not a dispute is valid? If there is a POV dispute, and you guys who think the article is your private property just remove the NPOV tag unilaterally, then there will be another RFC. As an editor I have every right to dispute the article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You have a right to dispute assumptions made in the article. However, I think you overreacted. --Loremaster 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course you have a right to dispute assumptions in the article. We have an agreement per the first RFC to try to reach a consensus on the talk page before we make changes to the article. Loremaster and I have abided by this agreement ever since. There is no consensus that the Beliefs and practices section is lacking in NPOV. Ovadyah 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't work like that on any other article. If someone disputes a section and puts up the NPOV tag for any reason, and discusses it on talk, other editors are not supposed to touch the tag until the dispute is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. That's standard courtesy. I don't understand why you think this article is a special case. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for my lack of courtesy. I guess I've encountered so many cranks that use the NPOV tag to further their agenda (not that I ever believed you are the one of them) that it made me forget proper Wikipedia protocol. That being said, now that I've slighty improved the article, do you still dispute its neutrality?
I guess it is improved enough as it stands right now that I won't pursue the dispute any further, but this article seem to be in a constant state of change, it is always on my watchlist with the same two editors, so I can't say what it will look like tomorrow! My real problem is that I will admit, I am not so convinced that Ebionites sect really rejected Jesus' divinity, I suspect they were wrongly lumped together with some other sects that did, by their enemies... And although the only evidence the article provides is the testimony of their enemies, it seemed like it was assuming to give their enemies too much credit. At an earlier stage, the last time I read the article many months ago, it had seemed more balanced in this regard. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Although I am puzzled and in obvious disagreement with your views regarding the Ebionite view of Jesus and how this was and is presented in the article, rest assured that the article will become stable as soon as we finish with the second peer review and the featured article nomination. --Loremaster 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
CS, correct me if I am wrong but the problem with your POV is that there is NO evidence that Ebionites believed in the divinity of Jesus. Until you can provide some, it wouldn't be neutral to imply that there might be. --Loremaster 21:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
CS, I also apologize. Your concerns are not "nonsense". It's just that we are used to discussing things and working together very efficiently. What I object to is the edit-warring style of editing, not your POV. BTW, please see my warm welcome on your talk page. Ovadyah 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, no problem... I generally prefer working when many editors can cooperate on improving different aspects of an article together, sorry to react like I felt at first I was being shut out by a clique... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, if you need me to revert any changes to the article, just ask. Ovadyah 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Depending what you mean by "weasel word", I've removed some but not all of them because I think some are justified. --Loremaster 22:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe that was the wrong term. I meant words that unnecessarily qualify a sentence where the meaning is straightforward. Ovadyah 22:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Understood. So are you OK with the article as it is now? --Loremaster 22:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am ok with it. Ovadyah 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Good. --Loremaster 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Alec. I'm pretty sure Loremaster moved this section to Archive 3 rather than blanking it. Do you have an issue with him moving it? Ovadyah 00:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed this what I did. CS said this dispute was over --Loremaster 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops-- sorry bout that. I figured it was just an accidental blanking. If all participants are fine with archival, then I certainly am as well. --Alecmconroy 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
My own strong feeling is that discussions should not be archived until they are several months old at least... Seems like sweeping them under the rug to hide something... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It was not intentional sweeping, I'm sure. CS, we are feeling some pressure to tie up loose ends in preparation for the FA nomination. Things are moving faster than is usually the case. Ovadyah 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. --Loremaster 18:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Archangelus revisitus

Well, I am now looking this up to see what I can find. I just looked up the Epiphanius and was totally amazed to see what he testifies - that the Ebionites considered Jesus to be an Archangel[7][8]... [!] Why isn't this fact mentioned in the article? I really think it ought to be... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all certain that the Gospel of the Ebionites is really Ebionite in origin. The gospel was given that name by modern scholars. Ovadyah 05:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? That's interesting. Can you give me a link to the text of the Gospel of the Ebionites? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
CS, please read the article carefully cause that fact is mentioned in the third paragraph of the Beliefs and practices section. --Loremaster 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You know the wording of that sentence is so unclear I actually missed that. In fact, it is a run-on from hell. It needs to be made a lot clearer but it is such a lengthy run-on sentence I don't even know where to start. If Epiphanius' main complaint about Ebionites is that (he says) they thought he was an Angel, that fact really ought to jump out at you a lot more, instead of being buried in obscure language in the third paragraph like that... I would propose mentioning it much nearer the top, like right next to where the assertion is made that the Ebionites thought he was an ordinary mortal human. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a more appropriate place to mention it -- after all how many "ordinary mortal human"s do you know that are also archangels?  :-) --Michael C. Price talk 10:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

CS, we have been through this archangel discussion already. All the early Church Fathers that mention Jesus' birth agree against Epiphanius that the Ebionites believed Jesus was the child of mortal parents. Even Epiphanius mentions that the Ebionites believed that Joseph was his father. I'll try to find the cite for this. Ovadyah 04:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, he (Ebion) said that the Christ was born from the coition and seed of man, that is, from Joseph. Panarion 30.2.2. Ovadyah 04:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Who is Ebion? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Epiphanius is stating the tradition he received (from Hippolytus?) that the founder of the Ebionites was named Ebion. Ovadyah 05:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
What? Didn't he even know that much Hebrew? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The previous discussion about the archangel passage is archived here. Ovadyah 05:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I just read the previous discussion, which consists only of one editor demanding to know why the cited reference was removed, and Loremaster responding that it was because in his personal estimation he didn't feel it should be stressed, but that he would add a brief mention of it into the most inconspicuous place possible. I think you should be able to see why I am detecting a bit of a POV slant here... I also think the article should pay just a little more attention to this question than it currently does, right now it is wanting on discussion of a very crucial aspect, which is unacceptable for any FA candidate. In fact, I'd say it deserves a dedicated section, exploring exactly what Epiphanius (primary source) and various secondary sources have to say about Ebionites considering Jesus to be an Angel. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Several scholarly sources have commented on this passage and concluded that Epiphanius is using the term Ebionites to refer to Jewish-Christians in general, and he is probably referring here to the Elchasites. It's all metioned in the article. Ovadyah 05:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I should mention that I agreed with Loremaster's decision at the time to remove it, and I still do. Imho, the discussion could be expanded, but I don't agree that it deserves a dedicated section. Ovadyah 05:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I know, but not in a very neutral manner...
Oh, and please don't sweep this discussion into the archive to get rid of it... I see the above referenced archive discussion is from August 2006, only four months ago, which IMO is way too soon to go chucking into an archive page... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
CS, I resent your implication that something improper is going on. You have no idea how much discussion we have had in the last four months. Ovadyah 05:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I also see that despite my warm welcome on your talk page and efforts to include you in the editing process, we are settling in for a long, hard, and bitter confrontation. Have it your way. Ovadyah 05:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that this article is constantly dominated by two opinionated editors who don't seem to be very cooperative toward working with anyone else. What this article desperately needs is to be gone over by a lot more hands than just two people who agree with each other and share the same POV. It's still a POV. I have brought cites and sources, but because they deviate from what you and LM think, you are trying to keep them from being admitted. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
So far you are bringing lots of attitude and POV, but few facts. Show me verifiable sources and I'll take a look at them. Otherwise, don't waste my time with your rants. Ovadyah 05:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ovadyah so I've reverted the article to a version previous to CS' recent changes. The notion that I am not cooperative toward working with anyone else is ridiculous in light of the fact that I've worked with people with extremely opposite views to mine in order to succeed in getting an article featured on the home page of Wikipedia a few months ago. If CS is refering to our dealings with NazireneMystic, it should be obvious to any objective observer that NM is a person who was and is extremely difficult to deal with to say the least! That being said, I find it puzzling that CS now wants the article to focus even more than it already does on the opinion of one of the enemies of Ebionites regarding the nature of Jesus. Does CS even realize that Epiphanius' claims contradict the notion that Jesus was divine which he cherishes so much? --Loremaster 08:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CS appears to be more confused than Epiphanius. I pointed out the apparent internal contradiction in Panarion 30, that according to Epiphanius, the Ebionites believed that Christ's father was Joseph (Pan. 30.2.2), whereas he also describes Christ was an angelic spirit (Pan. 30.16.4). Ovadyah 16:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously in Archive 2, which CS read, Epiphanius is probably describing a "separationist christology", where Christ was seen as an angelic spirit that inhabited the man Jesus at this baptism. This type of duality was very characteristic of Gnostic groups, as Bart Ehrman has pointed out in many of his books. Imho, CS is desperately trying to attribute divinity to Jesus to make the whole Ebionite thing go away. Ovadyah 16:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reason for adding totally disputed tag

There is a major point here that you seem to be missing. First of all, forget about what you assume my "cherished notions" to be. That should not be relevant to what the primary sources state. I for one am not claiming myself to be a "Modern Ebionite", or trying to re-mold the primary sources to fit any romantic conception of what their theology ideally should be. The primary sources we have to go on don't even say that much, but all any impartial observer needs to do is read the fullest primary source account of them here and here and then read the incarnation of the wikipedia article immediately before I came on the scene here which paints a drastically different picture from the primary source, to come to the inescapable conclusion that nearly all discussion of a major piece of evidence was / is being suppressed in deference to the POV of a tiny number of editors. And you were hoping to make this an FA? To do that, you can't just ignore the main argument of the main primary source. If you have secondary sources that dismiss the primary source and come to the opposite conclusion, wikipedia has enough space for you to present the whole story and explain the entire reasoning of the matter in detail, but in light of the above-referenced conversation of only four months ago already shunted to the archive page here I think its fair to say that even the difficult to read and hard to find reference to Epiphanius' testimony that Ebionites regarded Jesus as an archangel (such as it exists in the article currently) was only admitted into the article rather grudgingly. But this is a crucial point, you should not be afraid of a full discussion of it or try to suppress or obscure it because it will come back to haunt you again and again as more and more editors discover that the article is at odds with the number one primary source. So I had added the following sentence:

Epiphanius, who left the fullest account of the Ebionites, is the only source who describes them as possessing an angelology, which he claims included Jesus as one of their archangels[9][10].

which is verifiable, sourced, and actually impeccably correct and accurate. But because it is the very thing you don't seem to want mentioned, you blanked it and the pretext you gave for doing so was entirely personal in nature, not even a logical one. So until this matter is addressed in a satisfactory manner, I'm disputing this article. If you summarily blank the dispute tag again, I shall have to pursue some other recourse to bring some balance into this article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that I called CS' attention to the archived section in the first place, and linked to it, in what he sees as an obvious attempt to surpress it. Ovadyah 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Epiphanius' dubious claim that Ebionites regarded Jesus as an archangel is already mentioned in the Beliefs and practices section of the article:
Tabor relies on Epiphaneus's description of Ebionites as rejecting parts or most of the Law, as religious vegetarians, as opposed to animal sacrifice, and as engaging in daily baptism; and his quotations of their gospel as ascribing these injunctions to Jesus the Christ seen as the adopted son of God and the incarnation of the first archangel.
Therefore, the accusation that we are suppressing facts to push a POV is ridiculous. Also, the current mention of Epiphanius's claim is far more explicit the the previous version of this mention which was added "grudgingly". --Loremaster 18:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That's the one I was referring to as the run-on sentence from hell.. It needs to be made much clearer... The sentence starts out "Tabor relies on" and assumes too much knowledge on the part of the reader... I re-read that lenghty sentence several times and don't see how anyone can be expected to grasp what it is Epiphanius, a primary source says when it is couched only in terms of Tabor, a secondary source. It logically needs to be previously mentioned and not assume prior knowledge. My edit did exactly that, what was wrong about it? Nothing, except that your agenda is apparently to detract from Epiphanius testimony re: angels as much as possible and promote instead the assumption that Ebionites considered Jesus an ordinary human, for which I have still yet to be shown a direct unambiguous statement of in a primary source. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I've had several people read this particular section of the article and you are the only one who has a problem understanding it. Second, as the article already explained, Epiphanius is the primary but the most dubious source for information on the Ebionites. This is the only reason why his testimony is treated the way it is. Personally, I like the notion that Jesus may have been the incarnation of the first archangel. However, the overwhelming evidence is that he wasn't so the article reflects this. --Loremaster 18:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Stating that Epiphanius is dubious is a POV. When you say the evidence is that Jesus was not an archangel I presume you meant to say the evidence is that the Ebionites did not consider Jesus to be an archangel. We are not debating whether or not Jesus really is an archangel. If the evidence is overwhelming as you say, it should be clearly shared with the reader in the article in an understandable manner. I think it is fully deserving of its own section where you can fully make the case why Epiphanius was wrong on this, instead of trying to make it as obscure as possible in a run on sentence. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* "Dubious" is defined as "giving rise to uncertainty, questionable or suspect as to true nature or quality, unsettled in opinion." Stating that Epiphanius is a dubious source is merely stating the fact that several scholars view it as such. It would be POV and a disservice to readers for the article not to reflect this. Futhermore, I resent your constant accusation that I am trying to obscure the facts through a "run on sentence". There was no mention of Epiphanius' claim about Jesus as archangel in this article for months until I recently made an extra effort for the article to be as comprehensive as possible by mentioning it in the way that I have. --Loremaster 18:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Question: Since that is what Epiphanius considers to be their most distinguishing (and heretical) identifiable feature, what is your real reason for not wishing to give even a little more prominence to this observation of his? Again, if you have evidence against it, please share it with the reader. Also please share, at least with me here on the talk page, what primary source unambiguously makes a direct claim that they considered Jesus a mere mortal, and hopefully link to it so I can read it for myself. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't really understand your question. It doesn't matter what Epiphanius thinks is the most distinguishing feature of Ebionites. What matters is whether or not Epiphanius is a reliable source for information on Ebionites. As Ovadyah can painstakingly explain in detail, he isn't. As for the issue of providing you with sources which make "unambiguous" claims, the core problem with Ebionites is the fact that our knowledge of them is ambiguous due to the quality of the sources we currently have. --Loremaster 19:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
So the only unambiguous primary source statement we have is the one by Epiphanius. Which you and Ovadyah say you have a lot of reasons why you can prove that Epiphanius is unreliable. Now what I would like to see in the article to resolve my concerns is a section header entitled Ebionites in Epiphanius where you and he can do just that. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I would opposed to such a section since I don't think it is necessary in light of the information currently available in the article. (unsigned - Loremaster)
I thin kthe most telling thing is the thing you added, that I asked for a cite, then you removed again, about how Modern day Ebionite revivalists are the ones who find Epiphanius' claims contentious or objectionable... I think that is the real POV I am up against here and why you refuse to explore his claims in greater detail. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
CS, this POV conspiracy theory of yours is getting quite tiresome. There is no neutral source for this claim that I made because it comes from my observation of the heated discussions that representatives of the Ebionite Jewish Community and the Ebionite Restoration Movement have had on this very talk page in the past. --Loremaster 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Situations_and_handling regarding Undue Weight. A minor point like this (held by a minority of editors) should be given an appropriate weight. There is no basis for the application of a Totally Disputed tag. Ovadyah 19:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work like that... It's not a minority of editors, the undue weight policy means a minority of cited sources... What editors think is supposed to be irrelevant, we are supposed to see what sources we can find that agree with our position. The guy in the run-on, Tabor, if I am reading it right, "relies" on this statement of Epiphanius, so the only bare mention it currently receives is from a cited source who gives credence to Epiphanius' claim. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also contacted Alecmconroy about reopening the RFC. Ovadyah 19:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also filed an incident report with AN/I over the mis-application of a totallydisputed tag. You can tell your story to the admins. Ovadyah 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't wait. Someone needs to see what is going on here. My reasons for the dispute are clearly laid out here in this section, and removing the tag while there is an ongoing dispute is just plain wrong. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that removing the tag may have been a mistake on Ovadyah's part. However, your reasons for the dispute are lame. --Loremaster 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I want to mention in my own defense, that I removed the totallydisputed tag because I feel that this action was improper and unethical. That was why I filed a complaint with AN/I. Ovadyah 22:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
...which failed when an admin pointed out to you that placing the tag was not an "incident" worthy of any administrative action, because there is indeed a content dispute... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I support both actions. --Loremaster 19:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Origen on Ebionites' supposed heresy

Origen's statement "The Ebionites deny this, saying that Jesus was born of a man and a woman in the same way we are." can't really be used to justify the assumption or claim that they rejected Christ's divinity... he instead seems to be saying yet again that they deny the Virgin Birth... Mainstream Christians also agree that he was fully human (as well as fully divine), being born of a woman at least if not a man... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The mainstream Christian claim that Jesus is divine is based on the notion that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit of God. If Mary was impregnated by Joseph, he cannot be divine unless one embraces an adoptionist view of Jesus's divinity. --Loremaster 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't assume that, and I also wouldn't assume that the Ebionites had even gotten around to thinking about all of that doctrine yet, because those are assumptions... All that came centuries later... If we assume the Ebionites denied Virgin Birth, it does not automatically follow that they denied Divinity... It is entirely possible that they employed a system of believing he was divine, but born of a man and woman, and no primary says one word to refute this. So let's not assume. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
CS, you are the one making assumptions! What evidence is there that Ebionites employed a system of believing Jesus was divine? There isn't any! Enough with this wishful thinking already. --Loremaster 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not assuming that, I'm just saying neither should we assume the opposite if there is equally no primary evidence. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
My point is that there is primary evidence which you choose to interpret in ways that a majority of academics do not. --Loremaster 23:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, when the citation you added for this simply says "Origen", it looks extremely sloppy... it should say what chapter number in Origen, or at a minimum which work of his... Same for all the other Anti-Nicene refs... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The style problems will all be fixed at the same time when we go over the Notes section as recently discussed. Ovadyah 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I added two more citations on the same subject. I will add more as I find them. Ovadyah 21:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll add Justin Martyr to the list: "..in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I," (Dialogue, 48) Ovadyah 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds to me like the miaphysite position, ie that he was at once Christ (ie divine) and fully entered into creation as a full-fledged human, in one undivided nature...! Question is, was he talking about this sect? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you aware that almost every academic who has studied the Ebionites argue that some of them may have held an adoptionist and/or arian christology? --Loremaster 00:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And this one from the Nicene Fathers on Symmachus and Ebionites. I'll just keep them coming.

Chapter XVII. The Translator Symmachus

As to these translators it should be stated that Symmachus was an Ebionite. But the heresy of the Ebionites, as it is called, asserts that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere man, and insists strongly on keeping the law in a Jewish manner, as we have seen already in this history. Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he appears to support this heresy by attacking the Gospel of Matthew. Origen states that he obtained these and other commentaries of Symmachus on the Scriptures from a certain Juliana, who, he says, received the books by inheritance from Symmachus himself. Ovadyah 01:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It just gets harder and harder to explain away all these references doesn't it. Ovadyah 01:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And this from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History:

Chapter XXVII.—The Heresy of the Ebionites.

1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.

2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.

3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.

4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.

5. The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord’s days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.

6. Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.

Is this enough, or shall I find more? Ovadyah 01:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I am learning quite a lot from studying these quotes, especially the last one from Eusebius. Eusebius paints a very clear picture indeed, of at least two different groups of early Christians calling themselves by the name of "the poor ones", one that definitely denied divinity and the the virgin birth, and the other that he says accepted at least the virgin birth, but not his divinity. He doesn't say anything about Angels, but the ones that had angelology might plausibly have kept this doctrine secret so that he wasn't aware of it. Since Jesus is alleged to have made references to "poor ones" in his sermons, more than one group of his earliest followers may have adopted this name before they settled on a name, let alone a fancy Christology. You have more than satisfied me that some authors do indeed allege some or all Ebionites denied his divinity, but don't let me stop you from keeping the quotes coming, since this is what I really wanted to see all along, and my awareness is growing with each new quote you dig up. If firsthand quotes such as these were included in the article, it would head off this kind of situation from arising in the future every so often, which is why many articles end up just putting the actual evidence right out front instead of trying to describe it. People don't really want to come to wikipedia to read an essay but to get the facts quickly; if our article is not going to present firsthand evidence, then all it is good for is to get the names of all the places where the firsthand quotes can be looked up, which is time consuming.
But I still think the Panarion evidence also ought to be included in its own section, for a fuller picture, the more you explain beforehand the less likely controversy will arise at every turn. I also want to apologize for being difficult but it seemed like you were trying to shut me out from the beginning instead of working with me, which can be infuriating. I don't know what you think my POV agenda is, because I don't even know what it is; I am far more interested in the original Ebionites than in any modern group as far as this article is concerned, and I strongly feel that considerations of modern revivalist groups ought not to dominate this article over the primary sources themselves, when they are so few and nearly all there is to go on. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Can we remove the totallydisputed tag now? --Loremaster 12:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Well first I would like to know what is wrong with the addition I made about "Epiphanius is the only source that speaks of any angelology amongst the Ebionites." It seems to me that it is factually correct, and it still irks me that it was simply removed, even though factually correct, for reasons that amount to no more than a desire not to emphasize that point, gone somewhat overboard. I still maintain that the sentence that mentions "archangels" does so in the most abstruse manner possible, and assumes prior knowledge on the readers' part, aside from being grammatically a run-on sentence.ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't think this sentence is necesary or useful in light of the information provided in the article, specifically that we want to focus on providing the reader with the claims that most reliable patristic sources have in common. --Loremaster 21:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see the comments from RFC below in - A way forward. If this doesn't do any good, I'm fine with going to arbitration. Ovadyah 22:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you think RFC means, but it stands for "Request for Comments". It means posting a message specifically asking as many editors as possible to give fresh views on a question, especially on articles that have grown stale through being dominated by a tiny number of voices. It tends to work against the interests of those who want to keep an article exclusive and private. Show me where such a message has been posted since this dispute began, because I haven't seen it and I do monitor the relevant RFC list. If it hasn't been done yet and nobody else does it, I'm going to try it myself, then if that doesn't work, then we go to arbitration. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Post it. Bring your complaint to RFC. Ovadyah 01:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The complaint to RFC has been posted, and in an extremely biased way I might add. CS, I have less of a problem with your ideas than I have with your behavior. All you have succeeded in doing is creating a poisoned well. And now you can drink from it's water. Ovadyah 16:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is this RFC? --Loremaster 19:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You can find it here. Ovadyah 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My proposal

What I would most like to see is something along the lines of other major articles that involve historiography of several primary sources, a good model is found here: Moses#Moses_in_historiography. You see how there are individual subsections entitled "Moses in Tacitus", "Moses in Strabo", "Moses in Manetho" followed mostly by direct relevant quotes from each author and a minimum of commentary and analysis? So for this article, there should be sections entitled "Ebionites in Epiphanius", "Ebionites in Jerome", "Ebionites in Origen" etc. clearly laying out what precious little the Primary sources do say, instead of the current editorial. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No. We decided against that some time ago. The editorial style is preferable to inline quotations. If you would like to write separate articles for each, you are welcome to get started. This is a general article on the historical Ebionites, not an article on Church Fathers. Ovadyah 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I would be opposed to it as well unless a consensus for it develops. --Loremaster 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, could you please explain why (and who) "decided" that the editorial style is preferable? The quotes I'm proposing would all be strictly about Ebionites, you know, it wouldn't be about Church Fathers any more than Moses is about Roman historians... It would make the article much more encyclopedic and clearer to find out precisely who said what about them, instead of second-hand and third-hand analysis written by parties with a vested interest or axe to grind. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
We discussed the matter here in the context of inline quotes from the Panarion. We reached a concensus to use summaries. Nice try, but there is only one party here with a vested interest and an axe to grind. Ovadyah 21:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You call that "reaching a consensus?" ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I call that all the consensus we need. Ovadyah 22:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure ya do... I see in that discussion two editors who DO want inline quotes, and one very insistent editor who doesn't, and you call that a consensus in favor of not having them... More proof of why a multi-editor RFC is so desperately needed... I have encountered proprietary editors in my two years on wikipedia, but this is one of the most extreme cases I have ever seen... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with Ovadyah that we had reach a consensus or that the previous discussion of the matter is all the consensus we need. However, at the moment, there are 2 editors who prefer the current editorial style over the one you propose. Until the majority preference tilts in your favor, your proposal is rejected. PS. In all my years on Wikipedia, I have never encountered anyone so desperately trying to push a POV while claiming to not to be doing so while accussing others of doing the same thing. At least NazireneMystic was honest about pushing his POV at times... sort of. --Loremaster 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Loremaster,
In that case let me introduce you to Ovadyah. I do believe he is the all time king. BTW I take offence at your discription of me even pushing POV. Are you sugesting that my protest to your and YAH'S artical that surpresses evidence you do notpersonaly agree with is me pushing a POV? Please site one diff of me even pushing a point of view let alone" honest,at times...sort of" talk
Nothing was ever suppressed. Like an article, an editor has to chose what he considers important. That being said, I've worked hard at trying to include some of the facts you discussed. As for your POV pushing, it is clear that you wanted the article to mention and focus on the Ebionite Restoration Movement, a group you belong to, despite it's lack of notability. --Loremaster 10:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record I also opposed the removal of inline quotes from the Panarion. My views were ignored and the article (IMO) is the poorer without them. --Michael C. Price talk 09:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael,
The problem is not in having a summary style or inline qutoes as both styles can be used to produce a POV artical. One by explaining away what a source actualy says by turning the summary into a fiction as has been done in this artical and secondly by only allowing a few select quotes that support one point of view. The stly of the artical is not the problem here but rather a few editors that will stop at nothing to keep the artical biased and a billboard for a religous group. talk
I half agree, but one problem is compounded by the other. Many editors are pushing their POV (in flagrant violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) and this is aided by the lack of grounding with Panarion quotes and clear specific references in general. --Michael C. Price talk 11:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
CS is not asking for inline quotes in way the article use to have them and I disagree that the article is poorer without them since most good encyclopedic article try to avoid these types of inline quotes. That being said, I would tend to favor CS's proposal over returning to the previous version of the article that had those inline quotes you speak of. --Loremaster 09:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not accept that inline quotes are unencyclopedic. I've just checked my paper 1973 Britannica and it is peppered with extracts from letters and speeches.--Michael C. Price talk 09:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of that but I said good encyclopedic articles. --Loremaster 09:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, so another of your POV positions presented as "fact". --Michael C. Price talk 10:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I would encourage you to follow talk page guidelines by being polite, assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks. Second, I was refering to the good and featured Wikipedia articles I have read. None of them were peppered with as much inline quotes as this article used to have. --Loremaster 10:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't take the time to read through all this now, but I just wanted to say, welcome back Michael! I see you are already deep into the discusion. Ovadyah 14:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice to see many of the usual crowd here. --Michael C. Price talk 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My modest proposal

And I thought I had problems working with CS. You guys ever hear of a p-ss-ng contest? How's this for an idea. Why don't we change partners. I have no problem at all working with Michael. Michael, why don't you and I develop ideas together on the talk page and present our joint ideas to CS and Loremaster for comments. CS and Loremaster can do the same. I know this probably sounds hopelessly naive, but it's got to be better than this sniping. Ovadyah 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how such discussions can be ring-fenced. I think we just have to try to be more dispassionate. --Michael C. Price talk 12:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. I'm good with dispassionate. Ovadyah 15:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A way forward

One thing I see we're running into here is a debate on how to weight various ancient primary sources-- which are reliable and which are not? But in doing this, we run into trouble, because that approach basically would constitute original research-- us looking over the sources and deciding which is best.

Instead, we should let the reliable secondary sources do their job for us, and let them guide us in how to weight the primary sources. Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman for example, is one I would pull out that does a very good job of explaining the Ebionites.

Now, I see CS disputes the idea that the Ebionites rejected Jesus's divinity. I have never encountered that viewpoint myself, but of course, I'm far from an expert. There's nothing wrong with mentioning minority viewpoints, so long as they are CONTEMPORARY viewpoints-- which is to say-- are there multiple reliable sources that hold that the Ebionites viewed Jesus as an arch-angel? If there are many such sources and it's a widely-held minority view, it's fine to give it a mention. If it's just the opinion of a few historical sources which are not generally respected, then we probably don't need to mention every opinion ever held about the Ebionites, unless we wanted to create a separate article that is a complete survey of every single primary source on the Ebionites.

Anyway, my suggestion would be to snag a copy of Lost Christianities, which is the only "Popular Science"-style book I can think of that covers the Ebionites, and then basically to snag its structure and assertions and use it as the basis for the article, adding in the notable minority POVs and additional details as needed. The main direction this article needs to go, I think, is to be more accessable. How to weight the primary sources is a second question. Both issues can be solved by turning to some of the contemporary popular-biblical-scholarship works. --Alecmconroy 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Alec, thanks for your perspective. I'm embarrased to say, I have looked through Lost Christianities in the bookstore, but I don't own a copy. I'll fix that problem today. You have mentioned this as a useful template before, and we need to give it serious consideration.
With regard to the viewpoint of Jesus as an archangel, I can't think of another encyclopedic summary that mentions it. It derives from a single source, Epiphanius, who has internal contradictions in his testimony as well, as I demonstrated. With regard to contemporary scholarship, I don't know of any credible sources that favor this view. Those that mention it at all attribute it to a Gnostic sect known as the Elcasites.
With regard to the viewpoint that the Ebionites regarded Jesus to be divine (in the Son of God sense) I don't know of ANY sources, historical or modern, scholarly or encyclopedic, that report this. It is a POV that simply does not exist in the literature. I think at some point, it's up to editors that hold to this POV, no matter what or how much evidence is presented to the contrary, to put up or shut up.
BTW, for those who may not know, Alec is from RFC. Ovadyah 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs of early Christians

I wrote the following sentence in the lead of the Ebionites article:

in contrast to the dominant Christian sects that came to believe Jesus was the incarnation of God the Son and the savior of mankind.

My point was not to imply that early Christians did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and only started to after 325 CE. It was to reflect that the fact that the early Christian view of Jesus was not as monolithic as many people think it was, and that it evolved over time. The Arian controversy being the best example of this fact. I'm open to finding a better way to convey this to the reader. --Loremaster 02:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But you aren't contrasting them with the Arian sects. You're contrasting them with the 'dominant' ie Orthodox sects and there is no clear evidence that they ever "evolved" as you put it, a belief in Jesus divinity. I know some people hold this POV, but it is controversial and should not be stated as fact, as well as directly contradicts the evidence of the 4 canonical Gospels as we know them. So please go back to the more neutral wording approved by Alex. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
As always, you are misinterpreting what we say. --Loremaster 02:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well are you going to explain then, or just make ad hominems? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It's quite simple. It is a fact that the nature of Jesus's divinity was debated before and after his death among Christians. However, over time, a consensus began to build which ultimately led to the Nicene Creed of the First Council of Nicea. --Loremaster 06:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not an established fact that the debate started before Jesus's death. The sources were not compiled until decades later. --Michael C. Price talk 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course but these sources imply that the debate started before Jesus's death. --Loremaster 09:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Depends on your POV whether you believe that, of course. Either way, it is still not as simple as you stated. --Michael C. Price talk 09:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing simple about stating that there was a debate. --Loremaster 09:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
No, but there is in stating that it is a "simple" fact that is started prior to Jesus's death. --Michael C. Price talk 09:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* When I said "simple", I meant that what I said should be easy to understand without extensive explanation. --Loremaster 10:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
And obviously it wasn't simple, otherwise you wouldn't still be trying to explain it now. And, BTW before we lose sight of where we started from, your original statement is still incorrect: it is not an established fact that the debate over Jesus's divinity started before Jesus's death. --Michael C. Price talk 10:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that we are still trying to explain it now is my very point. There always was and always will be a debate. And like I said before, all the sources we have, regardless of how unfair and unbalanced they may be, try to convince us that there was a debate before the death of Jesus. That's the fact that I am alluding to. --Loremaster 10:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Not all the sources. And the early debates were over whether Jesus was the messsiah (Davidic "son of Man"); only later did this expand to include whether he was the divine "son of God".--Michael C. Price talk 10:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm refering to Luke 9:18-24 and similar passages in canonical and extra-canonical sources. --Loremaster 10:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark would be an earlier source, of course, but even so there is nothing in Luke 9:18-24 that addresses Jesus's divinity. It is, as I said, a debate over whether Jesus is choosen by God to be the messiah or "son of Man".--Michael C. Price talk 10:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The question of the divinity of Jesus is interwoven with these terms in light of everything else that is said in the gospels. --Loremaster 10:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
That being said, I don't see why were are debating this since I've already agreed to a compromise that should satisfy both CS and Alec. Good night, Michael. --Loremaster 10:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
We were discussing it because you made a dismissive, incorrect statement. --Michael C. Price talk 10:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I obviously disagree that my statement was incorrect and I resent the accusation that I was being dismissive. Are we done? --Loremaster 11:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Since you don't seem to have specific evidence that backs up your claim, yes we are done.--Michael C. Price talk 11:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael, I've given you specific evidence but we don't interpret it the same way. Understood with the context of the rest of the gospels, the issue of the divinity of Jesus is linked to how the disciples interpreted the nature of the Messiah or the Son of Man. Regardless, this is a tangential issue, which at this late time at night, I am not interested in researching and supporting more than I already have. --Loremaster 11:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Most of the gospel evidence for Jesus's divinity comes from John c. 90–110, which was the last written. By contrast the earliest synoptic gospel, Mark c. 68–73, has no such evidence, which suggests (to me, anyway) that the debate started some considerable time after Jesus's death. I don't see how this can be regarded as a tangential issue to the Ebionite position and historicity. Regardless, sleep well. --Michael C. Price talk 11:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
By divinity, I am refering to a close relationship to God as either his prophet, his Son, one of his angels, God himself, etc. Anyway, sleep well. --Loremaster 11:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
A pretty broad definition of "divinity" not shared by most people (including the Ebionites who would have accepted Jesus's divinity by this usage, which they did not). Moses would also be divine by this standard. --Michael C. Price talk 11:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
True but its tangential because the issue was whether or not early Christians came to believe he was divine or always thought he was divine from Day 1. Wait a minute... Doesn't your argument backs up the notion that early Christians came to believe was divine years later? :) --Loremaster 12:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, some of them -- but evidently not the Ebionites (although that might depend on whether you classify them as "early Christians"). Your use of the smiley puzzles me, and leads me to wonder what assumptions you have made about my beliefs.  :-) --Michael C. Price talk 12:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's fine to say that the sect which believed in Jesus's divinity came to become dominant. The old text, however, said that the dominant sect came to believe in Jesus's divinity. It's a subtle distinction, and easy to miss, but I tend to think CS is correct to point it out. It's sort of beyond the scope of the article about whether proto-orthodox christianity always believed in Jesus's divinity or whether they came to believe that over time. Fortunately, it's not something we have to debate on this article-- it's sufficient for us to just mention that the Ebionites were unlike proto-orthodox on this issue, so as to explain Ebionites by contrast. --Alecmconroy 09:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that compromise. --Loremaster 09:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I am also comfortable with it. I have stayed out of this debate (whew!), but Loremaster is right about this. Both Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria comment that all the knowledge of the apostles had been lost. It's an argument for another day in another article. Ovadyah 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that I have read through all the comments in this section, I need to make comment myself. Michael is absolutely right that almost all the testimony (not evidence) about Jesus' divinity comes from the gospel of John, the last gospel written. He is also correct that the gospel of Mark in no way makes this connection. Mark has what Bart Erhman would call a Separationist Christology. I should also add that the Western text of the gospel of Luke has an Adoptionist Christology. All extant sources of Western text prior to the 5th century are adoptionist as are all the readings from Luke by the early Church Fathers. But, by the 6th century, none of the manuscript readings are adoptionist. All of this is laid out brilliantly in Bart Ehrman's, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture". Therefore, it's an over-generalization to say in the lead that all four canonical gospels support the divinity of Jesus as understood by mainstream Christianity. You may have been conditioned from birth to believe this, but the evidence from the texts themselves tells a different story. Ovadyah 14:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. What stance the four canonical gospels take on Jesus's divinity is another hotly disputed issue, and just as above, it too is a can of worms we don't need to debate in order to explain the Ebionites. I remove the reference to the four canonical gospels. I also notice in the next sentence that we say the Ebionite strictly adhered to Jesus' interpretation of the law-- that too is problematic, as _all_ variants of christianity would say THEY are adhereing to Jesus's interpretation of the law. I left it as is since I couldn't think off the top of my head how best to reword it, and thought i'd defer to the experts. :) --Alecmconroy 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest changing the text from and therefore tried to be strict adherents to Jesus' interpretation of the Law,[9] to and therefore tried to be strict adherents to their interpretation of the Law, since it is not clear what extent they were influenced by other members of the Desposyni, such as John the Baptist. --Michael C. Price talk 21:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this suggestion. --Loremaster 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Reasons would be helpful. --Michael C. Price talk 12:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the influence of Desposyni is unclear as you say, we should stick with what we know. --Loremaster 12:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, so I'll replace Jesus's interpretation with their interpretation. --Michael C. Price talk 12:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This probably the only thing I would strongly object to since we do know that Ebionites adhere to Jesus' interpretation of the Law. Their very name comes from the sermon he made on the subject. Ovadyah has backed up this claim quite extensively. --Loremaster 13:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Which, the origin of the name, or the adherence to specifically Jesus's interpretation of the Law, as opposed to John's? Any pointers, Ovadyah? --Michael C. Price talk 13:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
We don't know what influence John had on their interpretation of the Law, but we do know from Hippolytus that the Ebionites emulated Jesus in following the Law, and saw him as following it perfectly. You could say something like "they followed what they believed to be Jesus' interpretation of the Law." Assuming Hippolytus can be trusted as a witness, then the above statement is as close as we can get to truth. Ovadyah 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Hyppolytus seems to be saying that the Ebionites lived according to the customs of the Mosaic Law "They live, however, in all respects according to the law of Moses, alleging that they are thus justified." 10:18 and that Jesus conformed to this law. It doesn't say they lived according to Jesus's (or John's) interpretation of the law. I think it is safer to say that they lived according to their interpretation of Mosaic Law and stay silent about who they interpreted it through (although I expect that their current leader (John/ Jesus/ James) would have a lot to say about this). --Michael C. Price talk 15:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. --Loremaster 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Once again, reasons would be helpful. --Michael C. Price talk 17:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a secondary source referenced in the article that makes this connection more explicitly. I should have mentioned it before. Sorry for the oversight. Ovadyah 18:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That was a good call Ovad and Alec... it's getting more neutral all the time, but there is still a ways to go. Maybe insert "attempted to" into that sentence, since after all that is the most anyone can do is attempt...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, could someone please reset the margins in this section? This is the first time I have ever seen a discussion disappear off the right hand side from all the :'s...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I approve of the current version of the Lead. Moving on to something else. --Loremaster 20:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites and Qumran

What is really amazing, while I was just now looking through my personal library for sources on the Ebionites, I picked up a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls. It points out that the self-description "Ebionites" (Ebionim, poor ones) runs throughout the Qumran scrolls... It makes clear that this is primary name by which the Qumran community, whoever wrote the scrolls, called themselves... If I can get this information from any book on the Dead Sea Scrolls, why can't it be mentioned in a wikipedia article about the Ebionites? Instead it states "there is no archeological evidence they ever existed" and "almost everything known about them comes from patristics", mentioning a few classical documents thought to be Ebionite connected, but not even a word about Qumran or Dead Sea Scrolls. What's up? Does the whole article have to be re-written now to reflect a reality that is easily verifiable? Or has this previously been determined to be "irrelevant"? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It amazes me what unread people come up with. The Essenes referred to themselves collectively as the Yahad (Unity) in their own literature. They also sometimes called themselves Aniyim (the Meek). In a few instances, the leader of the group was called the Poor One (singular). Ovadyah 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Not so, according to my books on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Well yes, actually this is true, but if you are implying that that is the whole story and that they also did not frequently refer to themselves as "Ebionim" in the plural, then no, not so. (By "Essenes" in your comment I presume you mean the DSS authors of Qumran, since that's who we're talking about in this section) Specifically cited are 4Q434 and 4Q436, and even the very same phrase from the Beatitudes, "the poor in spirit" is used in War Scroll xi. 10 and Community Rule iv. 3. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered book includes whole chapter that is a lengthy discussion about how these references must have been to the same Ebionites later associated with James and described by Eusebius et al., pp 233-236. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The Barki Nafshi (4Q434) was the text I was thinking of specifically. I'm pretty sure "the poor" is singular in Hebrew, even though it's never translated that way in English (For he has delivered the soul of the poor.) Eisenman explains this in one of his books. I can't say for sure about the others without access to the Hebrew text. Ovadyah 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's strange that Eisenman / Wise state twice, on p. 186 and 234, that the term Ebionites is used throughout the DSS corpus, but the only Hebrew text example they give for this, 4Q434, is as you say in the singular... But they do mention the War Scroll and Community Rule and also Ebionei-Hesed in Hymns v. 23, but they don't provide the Hebrew for those... I don't know, strangest of all is that they devote a whole chapter to talking all about the Ebionites and how they are mentioned in the plural, just before they present the Barki Nafshi where it only appears as a singular... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Both the Essenes and early Christians described themselves as "the Way". However, the scholarly consensus is that Essenes and early Christians were unrelated groups which undoubtedly drew their doctrines from Jewish ideas circulating in their respective time period. Many would argue that the same could be said of Essenes and Ebionites. Regardless, I am not opposed to a minor mention of a possible connection between Essenes and Ebionites as discussed by Tabor. --Loremaster 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This section was about the Qumran community calling themselves Ebionim, I didn't say anything about Essenes in this section, but both you and Ovad actually, all three of you responded as if I had. Are you assuming that the Qumran Community were Essenes? Because I know that if there's one thing that is uncertain, it's that the Qumran community were Essene. But there is a lot of professional opinions about if or how the following four 1st century groups were interelated: Essenes, Qumran, Ebionim, and Early Christians. (And that's not even bringing in others like Nazoreans or Gnostics into the equation.) I don't even know if there is any such thing as a "consensus". Some like Larson would say that all four were different stages of the same thing, others (who?) might say Essenes, Qumran, Ebionim and Early Christians were all distinct and unrelated groups. But I think the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls make numerous self references to Ebionim, coupled with the fact that much of secondary Dead Sea Scroll literature eg. Eisenman & Wise' Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, discusses this fact and can be quoted as saying that they were the Ebionites of James and Eusebius, p. 236, is significant enough to warrant a mention at least that the Qumran Community (not necessarily Essenes) referred to themselves by this same title. That fact is so commonplace it would just make the article look silly to try to cover it up or deny it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Saying that both the Ebionites and Qumran Community referred to themselves as "the Poor" isn't a problem in itself, unless you plan to argue that this proves Qumran Community = Ebionites. Then you run into the same problems as "the Way" mentioned earlier by Loremaster. Over-enthusiastic religious scholars tried to use this common terminology to "prove" a connection between the Qumran Community and early Christians. Ovadyah 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I just don't see the value of mentioning that both the Ebionites and the Qumran Community referred to themselves as "the Poor" IF there is no evidence that the two groups are directly related. There are numerous examples of early (Pauline) Christians co-opting Jewish names to refer to themselves. So what? --Loremaster 04:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned, the entire section 43 in the 7th chapter of Eisenman and Wise's Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered discusses the evidence thoroughly. I'm only bringing in an expert source that is readily available. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll have access to it this weekend. I'm looking forward to reading through it again. Ovadyah 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

More on Ebionites and Qumran

I just looked through my personal library for more books that might have any info on Ebionites, and found another - The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible by Charles F. Pfeiffer addresses Ebionites:

From p. 75:

The Habakkuk Commentary describes the members of the Qumran community as "poor" (Heb. 'ebionim). A sect of Jewish Christians was known as "Ebionite". J.L. Teicher of Cambridge University has taken this as a clue to the identification of the Qumran Community...
To Teicher, the Qumran documents are Judeo-Christian documents. The Teacher of Righteousness is Jesus. The Wicked Priest, according to Teicher's view is the apostle Paul!...

Hmmm... might be a simple matter to brush off prof. Teicher as a crackpot for saying this, and maybe even Pfeiffer as irresponsible for repeating it, except... this isn't the first time we've seen authors state similar speculations now, nor even the second time... btw, Pfeiffer actually goes on to argue against these views of Teicher's, although not very compellingly, IMO. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I also have the translation of the Dead Sea Scriptures by Gaster, who states unequivocally (p. 346) that the authors of the scrolls referred to themselves as ebyonim in the Commentary on Psalm 37, and he also notes that this has fueled speculation that this community were the Ebionites, but he cautiously avoids supporting this inference himself. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Good find. Thanks. --Michael C. Price talk 01:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, thank you CS for putting your findings on the talk page instead of just arguing endlessly about something no one else can see. I appreciate that kind of candor. I wouldn't describe Teicher and Pfeiffer as crackpots, but they fell into the same kind of mistake as Eisenman with these inferences about the Righteous Teacher and Wicked Priest. Paleographic and C14 analysis of the Habbakuk Pesher as well as internal evidence from the text suggest it was written around 60 - 50 BCE, shortly after the invasion of Israel by the Romans. The Thanksgiving Hymns, many of which are thought to be composed by the Righteous Teacher, date to at least 50 - 100 years before that (range because they are copies). As attractive as this hypothesis might be to Christians, it's just not supported by the physical and textual evidence. They may have picked up on the idea from Eisenman, who I believe is the originator of this hypothesis. Hey, it sells more books to make provacative speculations. Ovadyah 04:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this is exactly what Michael means by continually applying your own sole personal discretion to pass judgement on the sources, which is very much akin to OR. We aren't supposed to be debating with the sources here, we are only editors, and are supposed to keep our own theories and opinions and prejudices out of it. If you want to counter these sources, all you can do is find a published source that specifically counters them to add as counterweight - not use your own arguments to try to dismiss them. The sources speak for themselves, and more are being found all the time. It seems that the more sources that are found, the more new reasons you try to invent to exclude them or judge them all inadmissible, without even coming up with a single source yet for your own position.... (!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you suppose I did, go out and perform these analyses myself? I'm stating the findings of other secondary sources that disagree with your secondary sources. Ovadyah 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to know who they are so I might look them up too (just to see if they have any more good info!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem stipulating that the Qumran folks sometimes referred to themselves as "the poor" (this isn't totally nailed down, but that's ok). Unfortunately, that doesn't prove an equivalence between the Qumran Community and the Ebionites. But, it does suggests some kind of relationship. The Ebionites could be the successors of the Qumran sectarians, but it could also mean they were familiar with the Qumran writings and borrowed some of their teachings. Ovadyah 04:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the biggest pieces of evidence against all of these relationships is Josephus. He talks a lot about the Essenes. He mentions John the Baptist and James the Just several times. Yet he never ties John with James or either one of them to the Essenes, even though James and Josephus are contemporaries (I know, the Essenes are not necessarily the Qumran sectarians). Ovadyah 05:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the simple answer may be that both Qumran sectarians and Ebionites were inspired by Isaiah 66:2. --Loremaster 05:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and perhaps the use of the term "the Poor" was used by the Qumran Essenes before John the Baptist, Jesus and James the Just came along. i.e. that the latter 3 picked up the term from the Essenes themselves. That would be compatible with the C14 data (assuming the C14 is clear). --Michael C. Price talk 10:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I see, and do you have a published source for that theory, or is it more Original Loremaster? btw I do have one encyclopedia here that says the name 'ebyonim' came from Psalm 72, if that's any help... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
CS, I take offense to the "more Original Loremaster" comment since I thought you and I have moved past these kinds of personal attacks (unlike Michael and I...). I was basing my comment on the Tabor's much-referenced article where he states: The term Ebionite (from Hebrew 'Evyonim) means "Poor Ones" and was taken from the teachings of Jesus: "Blessed are you Poor Ones, for yours is the Kingdom of God" based on Isaiah 66:2 and other related texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones. --Loremaster 05:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You take offence at anything to avoid debate. --Michael C. Price talk 10:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I took offense at an insult and then I answered his question with the statement above thereby contributing to the debate. Are you blind? Of course not. You are simply demonstrating your bad faith yet again. This is why I am no longer engaging you in debate. --Loremaster 11:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
See? --Michael C. Price talk 11:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem debating CS. However, I do avoid bullies with agendas. --Loremaster 11:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so there's no misunderstanding, since Loremaster refuses to engage on the identification of the early Jerusalem church with the Ebionites (made by a number of secondary sources and disputed by none) he abrogates his right to remove statements to this effect in the article, which I shall henceforth regard as vandalism to be reverted. I am prepared to debate the issues at any time with anybody here on the talk page. I've asked repeatedly for clarification on the specific step in the transitive logic that that Loremaster and Ovadyah find so objectionable. --Michael C. Price talk 11:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Good find, I'll check my Dead Sea Scrolls library as well. Hmmm... I see that the Essenes, like the Ebionites, were vegetarians. Coincidence? --Michael C. Price talk 17:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ebionites were said to be vegetarians by Epiphanius. To imply that is an undisputed fact would be pushing a POV. That being said, to answer your question, yes and no. Many Jewish ascetic groups may have embraced religious vegetarianism but this obviously cannot be automatically considered evidence that all these groups were directly related to each other. --Loremaster 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

More divinity of Jesus debate

How amusing. Facts, it seems, are only "undisputed" when you agree with them (such as your claim that the divinity of Jesus was debated prior to his death).--Michael C. Price talk 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if I am mistaken about the divinity of Jesus being debated before his death. However, even you agree with me that is fact that the nature of the divinity of Jesus was debated after his death. --Loremaster 02:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I still fail to see the point you're trying to make here. I mean, of course Jesus's divinity was debated later, viz the First Council of Nicaea, whose past existence really is undisputed. --Michael C. Price talk 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The point is that CS didn't want a sentence in the article to reflect the fact that you just mentioned. That was the real issue not this tangent about whether or not there was a debate about the divinity of Jesus before his death. In other words, we have been on the same side of this issue from the beginning. --Loremaster 09:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The canonical Gospels make clear testimony that Jesus' divinity was hotly debated even before his death, eg the 'Who do men say that I am?" conversation etc. and many others... But the canonical Gospels, or at least 3 of them, as we know them, also make it clear what their authors' own standpoint is on the debate, which we can assume is the standpoint of that group that became dominant enough to make these texts canonical. It's also undeniable that the same question of Jesus' divinity was hotly debated by various groups of followers after his death. But the canonical Gospel testimony is that the central disciples who became the core "dominant group", the ones whom you were contrasting the Ebionite faction with in that sentence, had already come to this conclusion before his death, and didn't "come to that conclusion" afterwards. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If by the 'Who do men say that I am?" conversation you refer to Luke 9, then (as I explained to Loremaster) I can't agree that they were debating Jesus's divinity. They were debating Jesus's messianic claims, which is something entirely different. Only the Gospel of John (the last written) places claims about Jesus's divinity before his death.--Michael C. Price talk 15:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, imho, that's exactly right. Jesus was regarded to be a prophet (and a false prophet by his enemies), but what is much less clear were his messianic claims or claims made about him. If the canonical gospels give clear testimony of anything, it's Roman power. The victors get to rewrite the history books and decide what is in or out. The central disciples, as you put it, are depicted as uncomprehending dolts and doubters prior to Jesus' death by the Pauline gospel writers. What do you suppose is the reason for all the appearance stories afterwards, where the risen Jesus has to convince them that he is for real. Ovadyah 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It is pointles to continue debating this since the real issue is whether or not disciples of Jesus and early Christians came to believe he was divine or always believed he was divine from [insert moment of your preference]! --Loremaster 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow: isn't that exactly the point Ovadyah and myself have just made? One final observation, if Jesus was regarded as divine by his followers prior to his death, why did they have such a hard time believing he had resurrected? Surely that's an easy task for an immortal god? --Michael C. Price talk 11:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You're still debating the divinity of Jesus before his death when that's not the real issue. If I hadn't added the word "before" in the sentence that triggered this debate we wouldn't talking about this now. That being said, to answer your question, disciples were disillusioned by the death of Jesus. How can the Messiah, whether or not he was divine, die? So the so-called resurrection of Jesus could be a number of things: A grief-induced lucid dream or hallucination, a satanic hoax, etc. Lastly, we don't really how the disciples reacted to the resurrection. You are presuming that the gospels are giving an accurate historical account when they probably don't. --Loremaster 16:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I would thought it would be quite easy for Messiahs to die, like all previous kings and high priests of Israel, unless they were divine. And BTW Loremaster's assumptions about my religious POV are completely incorrect (as I have hinted before); I do not assume the gospels are historically accurate. Kindly refrain from such assumptions and we'll get along a lot better. --Michael C. Price talk 17:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I am NOT making assumptions about your religious POVs. I am refering to the presumption your question was based on. It presumed that the gospels are historically accurate accounts regardless of whether you personally believe this. --Loremaster 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Still incorrect: I made no such presumption -- which would be impossible since the gospels are mutually inconsistent.--Michael C. Price talk 07:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you seriously arguing that the question "Why did they have such a hard time believing he had resurrected?" is not based on any presumption? --Loremaster 10:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I am. Pointing out possible inconsistencies within an account does not make any presumption about its historical accuracy. Once again you are the one making assumptions and presumptions about other peoples' beliefs, instead of debating the issues. --Michael C. Price talk 11:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Micheal, I am debating the issue but I am not making assumptions/presumptions about your PERSONAL beliefs. As I explained above, I was refering to the question itself. My point was two-fold: 1) These accounts of doubting apostles are not necessarily inconsistent with the belief that Jesus was God; and 2) these accounts are not reliable historical sources so why bother using them in an argument. Regardless, stop accusing and criticizing me for doing exactly what you do all the time. It's hypocritical. --Loremaster 11:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
IMO 1) is incorrect and 2) is besides the point: all historical sources (Biblical / Ebionite especially) are of debatable reliability; it would insane to disregard all historical sources just because they all lie somewhere on a continuum of reliability. That's the whole point of historical criticism/debate. As regards hypocrisy, see Mat 7:5, Luke 6:42. --Michael C. Price talk 11:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I never argued that one should disregard all historical sources just because they are relatively unreliable. My point is that trying to discredit the notion that the apostles of Jesus did not believe in the divinity of Jesus based on some contradictory passages in the gospels about the Resurrection is weak. A better argument could be made since I can't imagine a serious scholar making it. Although anything is possible... --Loremaster 12:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Time out. This thread has nothing to do with improving the Ebionites article. Let's argue about something else that's more productive. Ovadyah 16:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Give precedence to modern sources

In general, I would suggest using only modern secondary sources in the construction of the article. How to weight the primary sources is something no one will be able to agree upon. How can we weight the reliability of a 2nd century source from a critic who regarded the Ebionites as heretical-- there will be no way to agree.

The best bet, therefore, is to see what modern scholarly views of the Ebionites exist-- let the modern scholars sort through all the primary source discussions, and let us just summarize the major POVs held by modern scholars. If you want to answer "Who were the Ebionites?", that's the only way to do it.

Now, the one exception to this would be if you wanted to create a very thorough sub-article that details all the major ancient sources that describe the Ebionites. That would be a very big undertaking, and one which would have to be done very well in order to comply with NPOV. i.e. You'd have to make an article that discusses practically all extant sources, not just the ones that agree with any one particular points of view. I think that such sub-article wouldn't be worth the effort-- at least not until the main article is good enough that it's a featured article.

In the end, it's not important what Epiphanius or Clement or Origen believed about the Ebionites-- all that's important is what reliable scholars today believe about the Ebionites, having taken all the existing evidence into consideration and weighed it. Mentioning the existing debates among major modern sources is fine-- by and large, it will mirror the debates that existed among ancient sources. But we should be citing 20th century scholars, not 2nd century ones.

So, did the Ebionites view Jesus as an arch-angel? I don't know. Epiphanius apparently says so-- but does anyone trust his viewpoint? If that's an active debate we can find contemporary published sources arguing about, then mention it. If it's not something that is seriously considered, then don't give it undue weight by mentioning it.

The thing is-- it's important not to do our own Original Research using the primary sources. The Qumran thing is a perfect example-- it might be easy to conclude that if the dead sea scrolls use the term Ebionite, there much necessarily be some connection-- but in practice, I've never head anyone make that speculation before that the Qumran group were the Ebionites. It makes sense-- but that's the dangerous of original research-- we might wind up decided that thousands of non-christian greeks were gnostics just because they self-applied the term "gnosis", for example. :) ..

So, I guess my argument is to _try_, as hard as possible, to just present in a straightforward way what things ARE known about the Ebionites, without having to go to the primary sources or quote from them directly in the article text. If you really really want to go into full detail about all the primary sources, make a sub-article on it, but it's going to be difficult to do well. :)

Just my two cents. --Alecmconroy 11:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for your input. --Michael C. Price talk 11:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. However, proceeding in this manner argues against putting inline quotes from primary sources in the article. As Alec just mentioned, that would be doing our own original research using the primary sources. I think this also settles the issue of connecting Qumran / Essenes to Ebionites, ie. don't do it. Ovadyah 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Except that including inline quotes is the only way to avoid endless future debates. Also I don't read Alec as banning this proposed practice (which is common across Wikipedia) -- he's just objecting the text appearing in the article text directly, but I (and everybody else, it seems?) was happy for the quotes to appear shunted off into the reference section. But heck, I'll ask him.--Michael C. Price talk 14:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael, thanks for checking with Alec to be double-sure, but unless he has compelling reasons to oppose inline quotes in the references, we are all in agreement. Let's just keep things moving foreward. Ovadyah 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Qumran sources

It's not MY speculation... I have stated repeatedly the book where I found that idea, where the case is made: Eisenman and Michael Wise, the Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, section 43, p 233 ff. and p. 186. Since it seems no one else has located this yet, let me provide some direct quotes:
From p. 186: "The movement that seems subsequently to have developed also came to be called the Ebionites (i.e. 'the Poor Ones'), a term of self-designation running the gamut of Qumran documents..."
From p. 233 ff: "It is important to see the extent to which the terminology Ebionim ('the Poor') and its synonyms penetrated Qumran literature... It is clear from the Pauline corpus that in some sense the community following the leadership of James the Just (known in the literature as 'the brother of Jesus', whatever is meant by that designation) - the so called Jerusalem Church or Jerusalem Community - were called 'the Poor' (Gal. 2:10, also Jas. 2:3-5)... As tradition proceeds, it becomes clear that the Ebionim (the so-called Ebionites) or 'the Poor' is the name by which the community descending from James' Jerusalem Community in Palestine goes. In all likelihood, it descends from the one we are studying in these materials as well. This movement, called by some 'Jewish Christianity'... honoured the person and teaching of this James..." (he then goes on to discuss Eusebius and several other aspects of what we know about the Ebionites)
Gentlemen and / or Ladies, the above extract is not my own personal view or research... what we have above is a secondary source, quoting the primary sources, to make the argument for the school of thought out there, that says the Qumran community who called themselves "Ebionim" were at least connected with the later "Ebionites"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It does look that way. --Michael C. Price talk 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I see, so the idea is to find everywhere in the NT where the word poor appears and say they must really be talking about the Jerusalem Church. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and poor just means poor. This is just pseudo-scholarship. Ovadyah 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I told you before that Eisenman is completely discredited as far as his views on Qumran, yet you don't hesitate to use the same material to "prove" that Qumran = Jerusalem Church = Ebionites. You can't be serious. Ovadyah 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Whenever it gets to this stage, I like to call it 'raising the bar impossibly high'... no matter what standard is met, just raise it a little higher... you say there is nothing to connect the Ebionites with Qumran... except when something is found in a primary source, and a secondary source comments on it, ot's still not good enough... So what would it take? If saying "we are the Ebionites" in the Dead Sea Scrolls is not good enough, what hypothetical standard would satisfy you? I suppose it doesn't count because they didn't say "Mother may I" or "Simon says" "We are the Ebionites"... What if they had written "We are the Ebionites" and then signed it? Ah, but they forgot to dot the I, so it's invalid... Come on... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
CS, I was ok when we were talking about the texts themselves. You know what the issue is there, whether "the Poor" is really singular or plural. In the one example we talked about, it was singular. We don't know for sure about the others without access to the Hebrew. That's just a fact. We also considered the example of "the Way", and how Christian scholars deceived themselves in trying to find a link between Qumran and the early Church. Alecmconroy commented on this very point regarding the Ebionites. And now we have Eisenman. Go read the reviews of his books for yourself and of him as a scholar. Some of them are scathing rebukes of his findings and his methods. All I am doing is summarizing what I understand to be the majority view. Go look at some other encyclopedias. Do you find this kind of thing in the Catholic or Jewish encyclopedias. I doubt it. And why? Because it's fringe research. So again, we come down to undue weight and how to weigh minority sources. There is no easy answer, but there has to be a reasonable limit. And there's no reason to get snotty. This is not a test of wills. It's about having some kind of minimum standards. Ovadyah 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hang on a minute, you wouldn't expect to find favourable reviews of Eisenman in "Catholic or Jewish encyclopedias" since much of what he's saying runs counter to their spiritual POV. So the claim that Eisenman is "completely discredited" needs a bit more serious investigation.--Michael C. Price talk 11:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have read book reviews about his work on Qumran stating just that. I'm not asking you to take my word for it. Everyone needs to do their homework and draw their own conclusions. Ovadyah 16:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
True -- and I've just located my dusty copy of the DSS uncovered. I'll curl up with it later. I do recall that some bits were rather speculative, but heck, so is all this stuff. --Michael C. Price talk 16:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Having read Rabinowitz and parts of Eisenman and Wise it looks as if they dovetail together very nicely (and with Tabor); saying that any of these authors is totally discredited or isolated is not correct. There is a clear consensus amongst them (and probably with other authors as well) about the Qumran/Essene/Ebionite identification.--Michael C. Price talk 10:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Knock yourself out. I'm done for now. I'll be back with my own totallydisputed tag later to clean up this garbage. Ovadyah 19:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be better to sort it out on the talk page first... --Michael C. Price talk 19:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and NOR

Ignoring for the moment definitions, process issues, style issues, and Loremaster's actions, what are your specific objections as far as the content of the article, if any? I want to be able to lay these out and address them one by one. Ovadyah 19:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Said another way, what are "the long-standing and widespread violation of WP:NOR going on here" and "a gross violation of WP:NPOV" as they relate to the specific content of the article? Ovadyah 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
As I explained above, Michael's assertion that Tabor's views are not being respected is ridiculous when he is one of the few scholars mentioned by name in this article *and* the one only one who has two paragraphs based on his views. However, the article cannot be about every single opinion that James Tabor has about Ebionites. That would not be NPOV. It is clear to me that Micheal adhere to the belief that John the Baptist was the first leader of the Ebionites (rather than someone they revered as a forerunner to Jesus) and wants to push this POV that is not supported by primary sources. --Loremaster 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me Loremaster. I would like to hear directly from Michael. Michael, other than Loremaster-related issues, what are your issues with the content of the article? Ovadyah 00:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood. However, I am concerned that Micheal is engaging in Wikipedia:WikiLawyering. --Loremaster 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) --Loremaster 01:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
And I am concerned that you misrepresent core, non-negotiable Wiki policies whenever it suits you, despite the repeated corrections offered.--Michael C. Price talk 01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ovadyah, I'd rather discuss the generic effects of the long-standing and widespread violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV here and leave the discussion of specific content issues to the rest of the talk page (which is its function). The generic problem with the article is that rather than presenting divergent multiple viewpoints of a topic the article often attempts a topic synthesis (prohibited by WP:NOR) which presents every viewpoint incorrectly or incompletely (violation of WP:NPOV).

For reference I quote (with added emphasis) from Wikipedia:Five pillars about WP:NPOV:

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics.

--Michael C. Price talk 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Ebionites should sthrive to respect these guidelines. So in regards to Tabor's views on John the Baptist as Ebionite leader, I have no problem it being mentioned in the History section since the Lead should be a general overwiew of the content of the article. --Loremaster 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you propose as the way forward? Ovadyah 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Generically,
  1. include quotes from the Panarion where they are required to support a statement in the article (hide the quotes within the reference string if need be to prevent them being too obtrusive, while still being immediately accessible to the reader).
  2. make the existing notes/refs much more specific. At the moment they are very vague: we need article/book titles, page numbers and quotes where required.
  3. expand syntheses of multiple viewpoints into separate viewponts with their own referenced sources.
--Michael C. Price talk 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I only object to including quotes from Panarion for reasons I've explained several times in the past. The rest is fine with me since I was the person to suggest it in the past but chose against it. --Loremaster 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you objecting to the quotes being in the reference string? If so why? --Michael C. Price talk 01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with 2. and 3. We were just getting ready to revamp the Notes and Reference sections when CS turned our attention to other matters. I'm not sure I'm there with 1., but I wouldn't mind seeing a working example laid out on the Talk page to compare before and after. This is a long-running battle between you and Loremaster, but I'm not sure the rest of us understand it completely. Ovadyah 01:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I mean something like:
Some believe the Ebionites worshipped aliens[11]
Clicking on the reference takes the reader to the 3rd reference:
  1. ^ Ante-Nicene Fathers, Hippolytus
  2. ^ Maccoby 1987
  3. ^ Viljoen 2006
  4. ^ Tabor 1998
  5. ^ Ante-Nicene Fathers, Justin Martyr
  6. ^ Ante-Nicene Fathers, Irenaeus
  7. ^ Schoeps 1969
  8. ^ Phillips 2006
  9. ^ [1]
  10. ^ [2]
  11. ^ Erich von Däniken, Chariots of the Gods "the Ebionites worshipped the star-gods from Sirius", page 100, paragraph four

.

And the reader can return to the same place in the article by clicking the reference carat. --Michael C. Price talk 02:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I misunderstood what you meant from the beginning since I have no problem with this. On the contrary, it's what I've been encouraging all along. --Loremaster 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Because you guys have been going at each other for so long over this, would you mind if I get the RFC (ie. Alec) to comment on this too? Ovadyah 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The more feedback the better.--Michael C. Price talk 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I'll let Alec know, and then I'm taking a break from editing to hear what he has to say. Ovadyah 02:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else see the irony in this? Maybe it's just me. :) Ovadyah 02:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If you mean, is it ironic that we've now agreed to insert quotes from the Panarion that were so laboriously removed months ago? Well yes it is ironic. And a few other words spring to mind as well.... but you probably mean something else. --Michael C. Price talk 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I am still opposed to having quotes in the text of the article itself. However, I have no problem with them being mentioned in the footnotes section like you suggest so there is no irony. Both Ovadyah and I were opposed to your suggestion because you didn't explain yourself clearly enough from the outset. --Loremaster 09:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The irony I was referring to was all of the back and forth accusations and recrimination vs. how quickly we all came together once the actual reasons for the dispute were made clear. Ovadyah 14:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see. ;) --Loremaster 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


RFC Comments

Alec can you add any insights to the above discussion on NPOV and NOR, particularly the last suggestion about inline references? Ovadyah 02:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of inline references now that I understand what Micheal meant. --Loremaster 02:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I support it too. Ovadyah 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I already dropped a note on Alec's talk page, are there any other outstanding issues, or can we beat our swords into ploughshares? CS, any other issues we need to bring to RFC? Ovadyah 02:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

About the issue of inline quotes from the Panarion--- there's nothing wrong with quotes in reference section or even in the body of the article, so long as the quotes are well-chosen ones that are central to the scholarly discussion of the Ebionites. When I talk about relying on modern sources, I don't mean to suggest you never discuss the ancient sources, but rather, that you discuss them as them come up in modern discourse.
Basically, just follow No Original Research. Original Research is the hardest habit to break, because in every other kind of writing, original research is the GOAL. But here, it's a no-no. So, if at some point in the text turns on a particular quote that is being discussed, it's fine to quote it. If, however, we have a sentence want to justify with a cite-- don't back it up with a 2nd century quote-- back it up with a 21st century reference.
See what I'm getting at-- there's no problem with actually quoting from ancient sources-- but it should be done when the ancient sources themselves are the point of discussion-- not as a stepping stone to prove a point. To prove points about Ebionites, cite modern researchers. If you want to go into detail enough about the ancient ebionites sources, then it's fine to quote extensively from them. If you want to say "Some people consider the ebinionites have to been _____", cite modern researchers.
--Alecmconroy 05:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to know when to quote from ancient sources. For example, if a modern secondary source quotes a 2nd century source to prove a point, then I have no problem summarizing the point in the text and repeating the quote in an inline reference. But what if there are no secondary sources that cite a historical quote, say from the Panarion. Then, I would say citing that quote in the article is original research. Am I close to understanding this? Ovadyah 05:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd echo Ovadyah's interpretation. That's basically what I was getting at. :) --Alecmconroy 14:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Citing a quote is never OR; making an inference always is, if not backed up from reputable secondary sources. (Whether we regard the Epiphanius's Panarion as a primary or secondary source is not clear to me -- I would say Epiphanius is a secondary source, despite being ancient; i.e. the primary sources (documents written by the Ebionites) have all been lost to the ravages of time.) --Michael C. Price talk 11:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I tend to think it's a primary source, because even though it's not an eyewitness. It's ancient, we don't have the sources it relied upon, it's reliability comes not from itself but from how its weighted by other sources. Making inferences from it alone would be original research. Even just quoting from ancient sources (without modern sources) present its own problems that sit on the border between Original Research and Undue Weight. --Alecmconroy 14:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Good points. I agree. --Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Good. This is exactly the clarification I was looking for. Thank you. Ovadyah 16:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

NazireneMystic comments

Alec is far from a natural party. A review of the archived pages make this point very clear. He knowingly gave false imformation during a deletion hearing that directly effected the Ebionite artical the deleteion log can be found here. Considering Ovadyah's and his extream POV I do not see how any input from these two would help to correct this artical and pull it out of its frudulant articl status in which he acted along with Ovadyah as Meatpuppets. Considering Ovadyah's and his extream POV they had no bussiness voting in the hearing let along give the false witness they gave as reasons for thier vote. I do not see how any input from these two would help to correct this artical and pull it out of "frudulant artical status" On my talkpage you can see he even asked to join our group which he did and knows first hand there are about 400 members in only one of a half dozen groups we run.

Most of the online public domain references of Scholars mentioned in the article counterdict and or broaden the narrow prospective of their POV and this is why the article almost entirely relies on citations that are beyond the ability of most readers to verify. Even down to the outdated Ebionite reference by Birtanica the artical is linked to in no way reflects the changes they made after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. DO a SEARCH of Ebionites and scroll down till you find the Birtanica artical and then let these biased editors explain why they have the outdated artical linked. If this artical was less obscure the insane tactics used to form this artical would not had been allowed that let an religous follower of the articals featured group eather surpress much material,misrepresent cited scholars,and ad disclaimers ot the few ideas mention in the artical that are contrary to the teachings of his president.

There are many lose ends still remaining in the artical. Schopes for one thing. What can be found on line supports a totaly different Ebionite Then Ovadyah 's religous POV will allow so instead of using what can be found in the net we must rely on this editors personal libarary.

The online reference given to support leaving the Barnabus text actual named as many scholars that claimed it was based on a Gnostic text as an Ebionite text but keeping to the frudulant nature taken throughout this artical the mention of it maybe being based on a "Gnostic or Ebionite" text was removed.

Keith Akers, a Scholar cited in the artical was so pourly misreprented in the artical he wrote an artical about this artical in his website.

On this talk page someone said not mentioning a Scholar's claim that the Clementine writings were wrongfuly atributed to Ebionite's would be biased it is also biased to site such scholar while at the same time citing "Schopes" in a summery mannor that would lead the reader into thinking he also agrees with such nonsence. Read the artical and what does it APPEAR that he claims? does it look anything like this? http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28195203%2971%3A1%3C58%3AAFZRU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N&size=LARGE

As far as the subject that created the current dispute debate not only wasthe issue in question problemic to a certain religous group but most all the early christian witnesses including the earlest ones claimed He was the Messiah because he forfilled the law and when Ebionites forfill the law THEY TO BECOME messiah. This no dough is a problem for the articals featured group and the reason for its surpression. It is very clear these sources make such claims and it is also clear this is in direct conflict with Yah's religous dogma.

As regarding thw law that made them into Messiah's the Literal Written Torah had little to do with it.

Quoting Epiphanius: The Ebionites "do not accept Moses' Pentateuch in its entirety; certain sayings they reject... stating Christ has revealed this to me, and will blespheme most of the legislation" (Panarion 30.18.7-9).

I know Epiphanius is a main target among the POV headhunters envolved in this artical even to the point some scholars that do not see him as problemic are made to appear so with the summery style artical.

(Origen, quoted by Schliemann). Yeshua/Jesus, they asserted, "was justified by fulfilling the Law. He was the Christ of God, since not one of the rest of mankind had observed the Law completely. Had any one else fulfilled the commandments of the Law, he would have been the Christ." Hence "when Ebionites thus fulfill the law, they are able to become Christs, for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in like sense with all humanity." (Hippolytus, Refut. Omn. Haer. vii. 34).

While some use the dead sea scrolls to support parts of the artical a very important reality that agrees with Schopes, clements, Akers, church fathers and others is Dead Sea Scroll expert Prof. John Allegro in is book, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of Christianity, he writes: “It is a fact that the Qumran Library has profoundly affected the study of the Johannine writings and many longheld conceptions have had to be radically revised. No longer can John be regarded as the most Hellenistic of the Evangelists; his gnosticism, and the whole framework of his thought is seen now to spring directly from a Jewish sectarianism rooted in Palestinian soil, and his material recognized as founded in the earliest layers of Gospel traditions.”

While Schopes was not able to study these documents it is worth noting the very spiritual Hebrew text he mentions is not only disregarded as scriptures but Jews and Christians They were among the most abundant fragments among the dead sea scroll!

No one from the Spiritual Ebionite prospective has attempted to add POV into the artical but only to correct the artical to present an accurate factual Ebionite artical.

If you look in the archive pages you will find Alec, tell me citing P.H.D.ed religous scholars reprinting articals written by Allan Cronwshaw as a type of first hand research of MINE since im one of his group but this susposed "Good Artical" presently has the king of Yah's religous group as a reference source and this source is dorectly from his won works.LOL

Many Many lose ends. NazireneMystic

It was only a matter of time. Lads, let me introduce you to NazireneMystic. Ovadyah 01:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
NazireneMystic, the following sentence in the article was specifically added by me to reflect your comment that Ebionites believed that those who fullfill the Law become "messiahs":
They therefore believed that all Jews and gentiles must observe the commandments of God in order to become holy and seek communion with God;[12]
With my recent edits and hopefully the addition of inline quotes by Michael, I consider that the few legitimate criticisms that you have of the article to have been addressed. In other words, unless you have new specifics, there are no more loose ends. --Loremaster 10:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

further RFC Bias

I see the RFC is biased to the point were through HIS first hand research has desided the early witnesses are of no importance as to what an Ebionite was. Why is he tring to deside truth in this mannor? What else will this desider or truth declare is factual or not?

I did say long ago you would have to attack the Ebionite writings and early witnesses to keep your artical slanted in the mannor you want and this is just the latest incarnation of this attempt. Actualy you would also then have to discredit the other modern scholars that are problemitc to your POV also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.153.224.97 (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

NM is right on time for his next trip to the PA Noticeboard. Ovadyah 01:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's taken care of, now where were we. Ovadyah 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with NM's points, but Ovadyah's response (here and elsewhere) seems rather ad hominem. Let's just stick to the issues, can't we? --Michael C. Price talk 14:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Accusations of fraud need to be taken seriously and dealt with accordingly. However, I also agree with your point about sticking to the issues. If we spent more time dealing with the facts in front of us and less time questioning each others' motives, we would all be better off. Ovadyah 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping your cool and taking the advice in the spirit it was meant. --Michael C. Price talk 16:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not give NM the same advice? --Loremaster 11:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I have - elsewhere. --Michael C. Price talk 12:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
NM, you must be the luckiest guy in the world. The PA Noticeboard was just abolished. Ovadyah 19:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

John the Baptist as Ebionite leader and Ebionites as Essene revivalists

I've added a version of the following passage to the History section:

Scholar James Tabor argues that Ebionites were Essene revivalists led by John the Baptist and later Jesus. Upon their deaths, Ebionites regarded the Desposyni (the blood relatives of Jesus) as the legitimate apostolic successors to James the Just (the brother of Jesus), and patriarchs of the Jerusalem church, rather than Peter. They therefore denounced Paul as an apostate from the Law and a false apostle because he slandered the Desposyni apostles and vehemently condemned their "judaizing teachings" as a threat to the spread of his new religion. Epiphanius claims that some Ebionites fought back by gossiping that Paul was a Greek who converted to Judaism in order to marry the daughter of (Annas?) a High Priest of Israel, and then apostasized when she rejected him.

I hope everyone is happy with this compromise but I am not counting on it... --Loremaster 04:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a start... how about putting it under a subheader with the same title you gave it in this section, 'John the Baptist as Ebionite leader and...' etc. ? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough information to justify that. --Loremaster 09:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I will try to work on the Epiphanius section to make it more accessible to readers. --Loremaster 04:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As will we. --Michael C. Price talk 07:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm done. Can you work on the inline quotes? --Loremaster 10:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
And the rest of the article, yes. --Michael C. Price talk 12:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What exactly do you have in mind now that I have edited to the article to my satisfaction? --Loremaster 12:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Editing the article to my satisfaction. There's quite a lot that needs expanding, clarifying, NPOVing etc. See the rest of the talk page. --Michael C. Price talk 12:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Before doing anything that might create another dispute between us, can we focus on inline quotes for now in the spirit of cooperation? --Loremaster 12:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Tabor's claims of the original primacy of John the Baptist are well sourced -- much from the canonical NT. For instance John -- who already has a large following -- baptises Jesus into the movement, not the otherway around; and see Acts 1:21-22. Also at least 4 of Jesus' 12 disciples, including Peter, were John's disciples originally. (John 1:35-43 ff) --Michael C. Price talk 12:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Total Dispute Over?

Although sections of the Ebionites article can be expanded and clarified to make it more comprehensive and accessible, I think that the most recent edits have resolved the major neutrality and factual accuracy problems of the article. Therefore, can a majority (rather than an unanimaty since this would be impossible) of us agree that the totallydisputed tag can be removed now? --Loremaster 12:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding, right? If so, that was pretty funny. This article has got to be the most one-sided and non neutral mess I have ever seen. As Michael's most recent comments above indicate, we now have quite a number of expert authors who "dovetail nicely" in connecting Ebionites with Qumran and/or Essenes. But you still holding out writing that this is the "minority position". I'm not sure I understand which authors have specifically denied this position, that you say are forming the "majority position"... Is this a "silent majority"? This article will never be neutral until:
  • It doesn't ostracise ancient sources on the basis of a modern theological litmus test
  • It doesn't ostracise modern sources on the basis of a modern theological litmus test
  • When ancient and modern sources agree with each other, it doesn't ostracise them both on the basis of a modern theological litmus test
  • Editors to the article are not ostracised on the basis of a modern theological litmus test.
  • it mentions that in the view of several expert authors, (whose writings are already cherrypicked and referenced whenever they offer convenient support), the fact that the Qumran community sometimes referred to themselves as "Ebionites" is felt to be a significant connection with the Ebionites. If some editors here believe, on the contrary, that this is not significant, they can back this POV up by citing some other authors who actually argue that it is not significant -- not by refusing to have the article discuss the whole matter. Otherwise there is only one supported view here.
  • The sentence that mentions 'archangel' is still a run-on sentence, and it is still far from clear what Epiphanius said, merely by sticking "and an archangel" at the end of a massive run-on sentence about Tabor's views. This needs to be made slightly less obscure. I for one am disputing the neutrality of this article until this is fixed, and will cheerfully bring all these things to higher attention if you continue to ignore my concerns. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Striking through part now that I have digested the most recent change, I see that this sentence has now been fixed - sorry for not checking more closely... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Please try to check the article carefully before indulging in such an inflammatory rant. That being said, I've also fixed the "minory posisition" issue. As for the rest, I can only speak for myself when I say that I am not (or no longer) ostrasizing anything or anyone. For the record, unlike almost all of you, I do not subscribe to an ancient or modern theological POV that influences what I would like to see or not see in this article. --Loremaster 14:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Loremaster, it will be easier to respect your opinion when you stop attributing a "theological POV" to anyone who dares to disagree with your interpretation of the historical record. And stop insinuating that you are the only arbiter of the article; it makes you look foolish and egomaniacal.--Michael C. Price talk 17:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I am getting sick and tired of your constant and unjustified personal attacks against me. If this continues, I will report you. Second, a majority of contributors to the Ebionite article have confessed to either having an Ebionite POV or, at the very least, being sympathetic to ancient Ebionites. Since CS seems to be concerned that some of us of may have a modern theological litmus test, I was simply stating the fact that I do not have one unlike some other editors. This isn't a criticism or talking as if I am the sole arbiter of the article since I know I am not. It's simply stating a truth. That being said, I am the main contributor to this article and the editor who has worked to get it good status. It is therefore perfectly normal that I take issue with some criticisms of the article that imply that I am ostrasizing sources or editors. --Loremaster 02:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
And I am getting pretty sick and tired of your unnecessary and constant attribution of motives. You seem pretty quick to pass judgement on others, yet are hypersensitive to anyone passing judgement on you. I see you have modified your latest smear from applying to "almost all of you" to "some", so I guess that's progress. And please spare us the constant positive self-assessments of the quality of your work and your objectivity -- that is for others to judge, not you. As for reporting me, that might rebound on you, since you have shown a repeated violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, along with a high-handed and arrogant attitude. --Michael C. Price talk 08:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
In the context of this specific debate, it is not an unecessary attribution of motives nor a smear to state the fact that many of you hold religious POVs. Both Ovadyah and NazireneMystic are confessed Ebionites. CS have expressed a (previously held?) POV by clearly stating that he believed that Ebionites did not reject the divinity of Jesus based solely on his personal opinion. That being said, the only reason why I changed "all of you" to "some" is because there might be old or new contributors who join this debate who will argue that they have never made statements of faith or don't have a religious POV. Regardless, getting lectured about high-handedness and arrogance from a bully who constantly engages in WikiLawyering is a sad joke. As for the risk of rebound if I report you, bring it on! I will admit my faults and take responsibility. I doubt you believe you have done anything wrong and that attitude is part of the problem. --Loremaster 10:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Re religious POV speculation: I am not going to discuss my beliefs since no doubt that would just create a new stream of ad hominems. Re bullying: you're the one dishing out threats to report others. Pot calling the kettle black, methinks. Re final sentence: another groundless ad hominem. Try asking yourself the same question. --Michael C. Price talk 12:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Re religious POV speculation: Michael, why would I attack you for simply for having a religious POV? As long as it doesn't interfere with the editing of this article, I don't care if you are an Epiphanius-inspired Ebionite like NazireneMystic. I've twice laid my cards on tables because I have nothing to hide. Why don't you? Re bullying: uh, I am perfectly justified in warning someone that I will report them if they don't stop personally attacking me. This isn't bullying by any strecth of the imagination. Re final sentence: I have admitted to having made mistakes. My recent edits of the article reflect this. Also, my repeated attempts at compromises in the spirit of cooperation shows that I am not the one with the attitude problem. --Loremaster 12:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Re your 1st question: I am not going to speculate on your psyche; you are in a better position to answer that question. Re laying my POV cards on the table; why should I? That you can't divine my religious POV I interpret as a sign that I am doing my job correctly. Re bullying: pointing out violations of policy is not a personal attack. How amusing that of course that you judge you own behaviour as utterly unreproachable on this score. Your final sentence, once again, is another meaningless self-assessments; your conduct's for others to judge, not you.--Michael C. Price talk 14:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Re laying POV cards on the table; actually from everything you said, I could divine that you either are an Epiphanius-inspired Ebionite or that you believe Epiphanius's account of the Ebionites is accurate (when you, for example, say Ebionites were vegetarians). Re bullying: I have no problem with you pointing out my allegedt violations of policy when it is justified. However, there is nothing that justifies describing me as foolish, egomaniacal, heavy-handed or arrogant. Those are personal attacks. I admit to having personally attacked you and I apologize for that. However, it was always in self-defense. This is undeniable. Re my final sentence: I have the right to assess my conduct when it is under constant attack. This is perfecly normal and it is ridiculous of you to suggest otherwise. --Loremaster 03:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Your divinations are incorrect. As for whether your behaviour was justified, I don't think anything I say is going to change your mind but consider this: what point is there in telling us that you think you're in the right? Everybody thinks their behaviour is acceptable. Telling us this tells us nothing, except that this last point has escaped you. It's just a waste of bandwidth. --Michael C. Price talk 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I find it absurd that you are still arguing that someone should not defend their character and integrity when they are being attacked. Obviously, if they weren't being attacked, I wouldn't waste time and bandwith doing so. The fact that I have admitted to making mistake and apologized for them proves that one can think his behavior was unacceptable. The End. --Loremaster 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to single any editor out; we, all of us, need to keep whatever modern prejudices we may have in check and allow a range of expert opinions... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; that is the essence of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --Michael C. Price talk 18:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with this. My question is how is the current version of the article specifically not neutral and factually accurate enough to require that the totallydisputed tag remains? Please tell me what needs to be fixed and I will work on it immediately. --Loremaster 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
As I have previously said, see the rest of the talk page. Also I will extra more specific points, no doubt, when my "Jesus Dynasty" arrives. BTW I not sure there's any point removing the totallydisputed tag since Ovadyah says he intends to slap it back on at some point (I hope he was joking). --Michael C. Price talk 12:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I was asking Codex Sinaiticus, the person who actually added the tag. --Loremaster 13:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I just took a go at copyediting the whole article and removed the npov tag for now. I added a footnote expanding the mention of Qumran slightly, that was the main thing left still needed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Great! I'm glad we have been able to set aside our differences and work on this together. --Loremaster 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pseudo-Origen

BTW have you had time to read Rabinowitz yet? Is he correct that Origen provides another source (besides Epiphanius) for the original text of the gospel of the Ebionites? --Michael C. Price talk 18:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Digging around a bit further it seems Rabinowitz is quoting from the "Pseudo-Origen", so-called because, although it appears in a commentary on Origen, is usually attributed to Jerome. It is from the Gospel of the Hebrews (according to "Origen" (Jerome)) and so qualifies as an Ebionite source. The quote is an interesting variant on the camel-though-the-eye-of-a-needle story.[9]--Michael C. Price talk 21:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

'Laws given after the Golden Calf Invalid'?

The article currently reads:

Relying on these claims, Tabor argues that Ebionites rejected traditions, which they believed had been added to Mosaic Law...

I think this may be actually a more commonplace argument. Looking in Peake's Commentary on the Bible, for instance, in the commentary for Matt. 19:3-12, he alludes in passing to "the Ebionites who used the principle of 'Laws given after the "Golden Calf" are invalid'"... If the Ebionites had such a principle, that would be extremely significant, presumably this comes from the Didescalia... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well worth mentioning in the article. --Michael C. Price talk 21:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. What is Peake basing this claim on? It's important to know since it could be refered to in the article. --Loremaster 02:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was trying to figure out, since Peake doesn't actually say; the best I could tell when I tried to trace where this notion comes from is that it is likely the Didescalia...ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the Didescalia? Are you spelling that correctly? --Loremaster 03:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh you mean the Didascalia Apostolorum. --Loremaster 03:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
More on this please, I would really love to know if his source for such a statement was indeed the Didascalia, can anyone confirm this?
I looked through the Didascalia (Apostolic Constitutions) especially books VI (on Heresies) and books VII (based on a Jewish-Christian document) and I can find nothing on such a notion or principle, Peake must have gotten it from another source
For those interested and who want to see for themselves, here is an online english translation of the Didascalia Apostolorum http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ It is part of Volume VII of that series where it is called Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions
Thank you but please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). --Loremaster 19:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
OK I checked that link and found it. Book VI, section XX. Very interesting, but that is hardly an Ebionite document, since it accuses them of Heresy, so either Peake had another source, or he was confused. I read something that cited this idea in Letter of Barnabas 4 and 14 as well, so let me see if I can find that one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link with several translations of the Letter of Barnabas (also called the Epistle of Barnabas) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/barnabas.html This is not an ebionite document and a quick glance revealed nothing as far as ebionites holding as a standard the law revealed after the golden calf incident was invalid, if anything, the Epistle of Barnabas implies the catholics believed this 72.49.194.245 20:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Joshua
By 'catholics' I am of course referring to the proto-orthodox, the precursors to the Eastern/Western church72.49.194.245 20:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Joshua
The article makes it quite clear that the Gospel of Barnabas being as an Ebionite document is only speculation. The article should include speculative claims provided that they supported by reliable sources. So you can stop beating a dead horse. --Loremaster 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Loremaster, did you mean to put this comment in a different discussion?72.49.194.245 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
No. I thought you were NazireneMystic trying to discredit the mention of the Gospel of Barnabas in the article. My apologies. --Loremaster 22:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
See, more false attribution of motives...... --Michael C. Price talk 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I just didn't want Loremaster to be mad/angry at me. But no, I wasn't discussing the Gospel of Barnabas at all.72.49.194.245 22:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Joshua
Give it a rest, Michael. This is the only time I have mistakenly attributed someone a motive because I thought this anonymous user was NazireneMystic trying to redispute a settled issue. I apologized which is something you never done for every time you have falsely attributed motives to me. --Loremaster 23:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Now who's flogging the dead horse? --Michael C. Price talk 23:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Since this anonymous user is quite capable of explaining and defending himself, your unnecessary comment in a discussion that did not concern you *after* I apologized had no value beyond being purely antagonistic. --Loremaster 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the point I was making is valid even after your apology. It is that you continue to waste bandwidth through ad hominem speculations instead of just debating the issues. As you said to CS after he'd apologised "Please try to check the article carefully before indulging in such an inflammatory rant." could equally well be applied to the talk page. And BTW I did note your apology for your personal attacks on me; I didn't respond to this since your next statement that it was "self-defence" left me rather unclear about whether you were offering this as a justification or not.--Michael C. Price talk 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If you read carefully, my comment was overall a debate of the issues. It simply ended with a request about not "beating a dead horse". Although it may have been rude, this can hardly be interpreted as a personal attack. You are blowing things out of proportions because you are a bully with an agenda. --Loremaster 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I get it: if you criticise someone after they've apologised that's OK; if someonse else does likewise, they're a bully with an agenda. --Michael C. Price talk 23:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
uh, I don't even understand what you are talking about now. I never said it was ok to criticize someone after they apologized and I've never done that. My point was the fact that you criticized me after I apologized to the concerned party (which wasn't you), you unnecessarily and unfairly criticized me. Why? Because you are a bully with an agenda. --Loremaster 10:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Re I've never done that. [10]. --Michael C. Price talk 11:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant that I've never unnecessarily and unfairly criticized someone after they apologized. This was constructive criticism to avoid a situation like that from happening again. On the other hand, what you did was get involved in a discussion that didn't even concern you directly(!) for the sole purpose of adding a (non-ironic) sarcastic criticism knowing full well how any normal person would react to that. It was totally unnecessary and unfair. This is undeniable. You keep talk about wasting bandwith. Stop wasting everyone's time with these unsollicited, unneccessary and unfair criticisms. ENOUGH ALREADY. --Loremaster 11:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Be helpful if you'd said what you meant first time, instead of wasting bandwidth later with a rather unconvincing rationalisation. --Michael C. Price talk 12:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to convince you. I just want you to keep your hypocritical advice to yourself and stick to working on improve this article. --Loremaster 13:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course the Epistle of Barnabas has little to do with the Gospel of Barnabas, but it too seems to be Anti-Ebionite. I'm looking again at this copy of "Peake's Commentary" (which I am generally not a fan of anyway) and the only possible clue is in the commentary for Mat. 5:17-20, where a similar comment about the Ebionites is made and referenced to H.J.Schoeps Theol. und Gesch. des Judenchristentums, 1949. Which brings us back to Schoeps, did anyone ever find a copy? By the way, this edition of Peake's I have is not the original one, but one that was re-edited 50 years later, by Black and Rowley... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. How did we get on the topic of the Gospel of Barnabas and Shoeps? Are you saying the comment on the whole "after the Golden Calf" is found in Shoeps?72.49.194.245 22:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Joshua
Not having access to Schoeps, I don't know; it might be, because what the Peake's book says about Ebionites in the commentary at Mat 5:17 , citing Schoeps, is similar to what it says about them at 19:3 quoted above, where it doesn't cite anyone, but mentions the Golden Calf. What it says at 5:17 is: "Some attempts were made to revise the Law for Gentile as well as Jewish Christianity, as did the Ebionites, cf. Ac. 15 (see H.J.Schoeps, Theol....)" &c... Those are just about the only mentions of Ebionites in the whole book. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
We can see where Peake is coming from: Acts 15 contains the Noahic injunction from the Church of James the Just at Jerusalem (the Ebinoites) to the Gentile followers of Simon Peter not to "eat the blood" or "the flesh any strangled animal". --Michael C. Price talk 22:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
What we don't see here however, is where Peake derived (which he was quoting here) "Laws given after the "Golden Calf" are invalid." If this was a source of the Ebionites, it would explain how they interpreted Mosaic Law but I have never heard this before Peake.72.49.194.245 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Joshua
Yes, the Golden Calf business is still a bit obscure, since this considerably post-dates Noah. I guess we need to see Schoeps in the original. Here's a document that makes the connection between the Ebionites, the Didascalia and Golden Calf. --Michael C. Price talk 22:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
In the article given as referance above, On the Problem of Jewish Christianity, I see no referance to the golden calf or connecting the Didascalia with the Ebionites. They are treated seperately in the article, which consists of 3 sections, one on the Didascalia, the second on the Preachings of Peter, and the final on the Ebionites.72.49.194.245 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Joshua
I'm still digging, but I was referring to the section that says:It is instructive to note that it is in his confrontation with his Jewish Christian opponents [presumably Ebionites] that the author develops the theory, so central for the Didascalia, of the "second legeslation" (or "repetition of the law") -- i.e. the contrasting of the Old Testament decalogue [= the "real" law] with the ceremonial rules (the deuterosis or "second legislation") which had been added after the generation in the wilderness [who] worshipped the golden calf (26 (216.1 ff. = 6.15(19).1 ff.]).. I read all 3 sections as referring to Ebionites, not just the final section. --Michael C. Price talk 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm.. There do seem to be some clues pointing at another primary source for this idea, especially in footnote 44... what are the different versions of the "Pseudo-Clementines"? Some of those were associated with Ebionites weren't they? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The Pseudo-Clementines are often compared favorably with the Ebionites, even listed as Ebionite literature. The Preachings of Peter and the Ascents of James, two key sources that were interwoven into the Pseudo-Clementines are indeed Ebionite documents.72.49.194.245 00:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Joshua
They indeed are not Ebionite documents, as the analysis by Van Voorst, who is the authority on the Ascents of James, makes clear. Refer to Archive 2 Ascents of James for his exact words on the subject. Ovadyah 18:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Inline quotes needed

Can someone please work on adding the inline quotes, especially those for Epiphanius? --Loremaster 03:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How about the person who took them out?  :-) --Michael C. Price talk 10:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the main reason why I want them included is to please you, CS and NM, I have more important things to do on and off Wikipedia. ;) --Loremaster 16:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Acts 15 and Noahide law for the Gentiles

Acts 15 records a heated dispute, of great historical significance, between (principally) James (presumably James the Just), Peter and Paul, at Jerusalem, about the extent that Gentile converts should observe Mosaic Law (especially male circumcision). The result was a letter from Jerusalem advising the Gentile converts to observe just the Noahide laws, which do not require circumcision. Any views on mentioning this at the end of the section about Paul? --Michael C. Price talk 11:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed but let's remember that this article is about Ebionites. If we don't know how they reacted and viewed this historical dipsute, it might not be wise to mention it. --Loremaster 17:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
We know how they reacted, according to Acts; as historians we can't say more.--Michael C. Price talk 17:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Acts does not specifically mention Ebionites. We can't make assumptions. --Loremaster 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
No need to; just report the sources, such as DSS uncovered pp34ff for all the above interpretation of Acts, including James the Just, Noahide law etc etc --Michael C. Price talk 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
uh, I think we do need to. as I explained in a section below, sources discussing the words and acts of James cannot be automatically attributed to Ebionites even if he were their leader. --Loremaster 13:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That's OR and your POV. If the James/Ebionite identification is what the reputable, secondary sources do then that is what we should report. And if another equally credible source says otherwise then we report that as well. These are non-negotiable Wiki-policies; if blocked, and since neither you Ovadyah seem to appreciate being informed of policy, I shall slap an OR or NPOV tag on the article and be quite happy to see it all go to Arbcom, AN/I or whatever. --Michael C. Price talk 13:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Before this gets even more out of hand. Please read the section covering Acts 15 in the Noahide Laws article and the comments regarding Acts 15 on the talk page, including my own. Ovadyah 18:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I supposed to get from reading that. What is your opinion on the issue of whether or not we should include a mention of Acts 15 in the Ebionites article? --Loremaster 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The point I'm getting at is that Acts 15 contains instructions for pagans to cease activities associated with idol worship. It has nothing whatever to do with Ebionites. Ovadyah 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's more than just a prohibition on idol worship. It includes prohibitions on eating the flesh strangled animals and blood, sexual conduct -- i.e. very reminescent of the Noahide laws. --Michael C. Price talk 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Understood. --Loremaster 18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you both disputing that James the Just lead the Ebionites from Jerusalem? --Michael C. Price talk 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I'll consolidate my arguments under James The Just as Leader below. Ovadyah 01:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm remember reading in the work of a fringe reseacher that Ebionites believed that this letter from Jerusalem was a forgery and that James never authorized the conversion of gentiles without circumcision. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll try to track his source for this claim since it should definitely be included in the Ebionites article! --Loremaster 18:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We are still talking a lot about Acts 15 and how this "proves" that James the Just was the leader of the Ebionites. Editorial speculation on what Acts 15 means is religious commentary and therefore original research. An alternative version of Acts found in al-Jabbar was published by Shlomo Pines that throws doubt on whether Acts as a whole is very representative of the views of the Jerusalem Church. Ovadyah 16:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The term 'Original research' as used on wikipedia is defined as "a wikipedian's editorial speculation". Editorial speculation found in some other published source is not what we mean by original research. It may be inadmissible on some other grounds, but I wasn't sure if you understood the specific in-house meaning of "Original research". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Eisenman, Rabinowitz and Tabor -- academic credible secondary sources -- all say James the Just was the leader of the Ebionites / early Jerusalem Church after Jesus' death. This is not OR. I am still waiting for anyone to cite a secondary source which disputes James' role. --Michael C. Price talk 18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've come up with a compromise by restoring a previously deleted passage in order to mention Noahide Laws in the last paragraph of the Beliefs and pratices section. --Loremaster 08:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Abd al-Jabbar

In The Jewish Christians Of The Early Centuries Of Christianity According To A New Source by Shlomo Pines, he states, In an attempt to sum up the mission of Jesus, our texts state: (folio 70a) Christ came in order to vivify and establish the Torah. Hereupon a saying of Jesus is cited which is very similar to, but not quite identical with, Matthew v:17-19:

He said: "I come to you. For this reason I shall act in accordance with the Torah and the precepts of the prophets who were before me. I did not come to diminish, but, on the contrary, to complete" (or fulfill: mutammiman) . "In truth, as far as God is concerned, it is more easy for the heaven to fall upon the earth than to take away anything from the Law of Moses. Whoever diminishes anything in it shall be called diminished."

The text adds that Jesus and his disciples acted in this manner until he departed from this world. This passage clearly has a bearing on Christology (a subject which will now briefly engage our attention) as conceived in these texts. For it seems to imply that Jesus' rank was that of a prophet. Another passage (fol. 52a) clearly states that Jesus himself laid claim to this rank only.

He (Jesus) stated (dhakara) that he was an envoy (rasul) of God (sent) to those created by Him (ila khalqihi),and that God had sent him, as He had sent the prophets prior to him.

The text of al-Jabbar continues (fol. 70a),

He and his companions behaved constantly in this manner, until he left this world. He said to his companions: "Act as you have seen me act, instruct people in accordance with instructions I have given you, and be for them what I have been for you." His companions behaved constantly in this manner and in accordance with this. And so did those who (came) after the first generation of his companions, and (also) those who came long after (the second generation). Then they began to make changes and alterations, (to introduce) innovations into the religion (al-din), to seek dominion (ri`asa), to make friends with people by (indulging) their passions, to (try) to circumvent the Jews and to satisfy the anger (which) they (felt) against the latter, even if (in doing so) they (had) to abandon the religion. This is clear from the Gospels which are with them and to which they refer and from their book, known as the Book of Praxeis (Acts). It is (written) there: A group (qawm) of Christians left Jerusalem (bayt al-maqdis) and came to Antioch and other towns of Syria (a1-Sham). They called upon the people (to obey) the law (al-sunna) of the Torah, to forbid offering sacrifices to those who have not the necessary qualifications (laysa min ahliha) (to practise) circumcision, to observe the Sabbath, to prohibit pork and other things (forbidden) by the Torah. These things were regarded as burdensome by the Gentiles and they took little notice (of the exhortations). Thereupon, the Christians of Jerusalem forgathered to take counsel as to the stratagems which were to be employed with regard to the Gentiles in order (to make) the latter respond and obey them. They were of the opinion that it was necessary to mix with the Gentiles, to make them concessions (rukhs), to descend to (the level of) their erroneous beliefs, to eat (a portion) of the sacrifices they offer, to adopt their customs and to approve of their way (of life). And they composed a book on this.

The events related in this quotation seem to correspond more or less to those referred to in Acts xi: 17-22 (or 21; cf. also xv:1-29). However, the attitude of the canonical Acts towards the conversion of the Gentiles in Antioch which they welcome, is diametrically opposed to that of the quotation which deplores the abandonment of the exigencies of the Mosaic Law with a view to this conversion.

This excerpt from al-Jabbar talks about Christian innovations that were introduced into the original Jewish religion as practiced by Jesus. Therefore, I would not accept statements made about Acts 15 as undisputed facts, even if they are made by reputable secondary sources. Ovadyah 17:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

First hand research from Phillips is not acceptible reference material

While his material might have a place on his vanity artical it has no place in the Ebionite artical. user:NazireneMystic

It is perfectly acceptable to cite an article written by a self-described modern Ebionite to support a claim that is being about his group in this article. Wikipedia guidelines regarding no original research are against inappropriate contributions by Wikipedia editors not the sources they cite. --Loremaster 17:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I tended to agree with NM for a moment, because self-published sources are generally a bad idea-- but yes, Loremaster's c correct-- it's okay to cite him to prove the existence of his group. I'm still personally skeptical that the group merits mention, but the general consensus seems to be that it does, so it's completely appropriate to cite him for that purpose.
Actually, we already have a source to prove the existence of his group. This is a source to prove a claim being made about his group. --Loremaster 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, it'd be helpful if the footnotes and reference section were integrated so that each footnote had a full cite-- with copy and paste, it's basically the same amount of work, and it's a lot easier to then see what a citation is being used for. --Alecmconroy 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --Loremaster 17:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

His group already has an inline mention in the artical. Using his material to try to redefine ebionites is a totaly different issue. His group is simply not a source for the Ebionite artical. But if this stays expect some Ebionite.com material real soon. user:nazireneMystic

Nice try, but Ebionite.com material cannot be allowed in the article. This is not because the material is self-published. As you are well aware, the ERM group was found to be non-notable in two separate AfDs, and based upon that decision, the majority of editors working on the article decided, under the guidance of the RFC, to remove mention of it from this article. The RFC made it quite clear that it stays out until the group becomes notable. If this advice is not heeded, I will not hesitate to introduce new material myself about the Talmidi Jewish Community. Ovadyah 18:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It all depends on how/where Philips has published and what are his academic credentials: i.e. is he a reputable source? His beliefs are beside the point. --Michael C. Price talk 17:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think his beliefs are beside the point if we are claiming in thi article that he, as a self-described modern Ebionite, holds a particular belief, specifically his critique of Messianic Judaism. --Loremaster 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
No, what matters is how reliable are the source where his views appear. --Michael C. Price talk 23:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This didn't seem to be an issue when we included Rabinowitz's material in the article, which is also self-published. I'm sensing an editorial double-standard. Ovadyah 18:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Im fine with the removal of Rabinowitz. The notability issue is a joke. If the groups were judged side by side even with the sites mirrored from past wikipedia articles, along with the blog that also mentions the wikipedian article with your group in the section you could not claim we are not notable and your group is.

If Self published material from the EJC group that grew into a world wide Internet community of 50 or so people is going to be a source for the actual article along with Rabinowitz[who himself does not have a wikipedian article] then the article on biblical corruption Allan wrote and that has been republished by a religious scholar with a P.H.D. can not be denied as a source or first hand research. Wikipedian editors would be upholding a editorial double standard to do otherwise. Since it seems Ovadyah does not like double standards it seems we should remove Phillips and Rabinowitz or include the Biblical corruption by Allan Cronshaw.user:NazireneMystic

Obviously, I disagree. The article is much more compelling keeping both. Ovadyah 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Despite the fact that Allan Cronshaw is a fringe researcher regardless of whether not some scholar with questionable credibility chose to republish his work on a website, I would have no problem citing his article on biblical corruption in the last paragraph of the Beliefs and practices section where I've added a citationneeded tag. Would this satisfy you? --Loremaster 14:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I've cited Cronshaw's article as a source. --Loremaster 16:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

James the Just as leader in the lead

Loremaster has given three invalid reasons for deleting the statement that the Ebionites were lead by James the Just. His edit comment reads: Christians are never described in a lead as followers of Jesus and later Peter and Paul. 2) Primary sources do not support the claim being made James. 3) He is discussed in the History

1) invalid analogy with Xianity, in which Jesus is uniquely divine.
2) primary sources are not admissable; plenty of 2ndary sources state James was leader (e.g. Eisenman, Tabor, etc -- do you really dispute this?).
3) non sequitur: Jesus is also discussed elsewhere.

There are no grounds for excluding naming James the Just as leader from the lead, considering that he lead the Ebionites for about ten times as long as Jesus. --Michael C. Price talk 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC) --Michael C. Price talk 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I disagree with your mischaracterization and dismissal of my reasons for deleting the statement about James as Ebionite leader, I've come to the conclusion that keeping it would be good since it will foster interest in one of the most important yet overlooked figures of the Second Temple period. --Loremaster 17:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how quoting all your edit summary comments and offering a point by point rebuttal is a "mischaracterization". Anyway, a shame the issue couldn't be settled gracefully, but settled it is. Now what about John the Baptist? :-) --Michael C. Price talk 17:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Opposed for reasons explained in the past that can be found in the archives. --Loremaster 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Since you don't like a general referral to the talk pages, what are your specific objections? --Michael C. Price talk 09:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Ebionites/Archive 2#Lead section: John the Baptizer.2C Geography. --Loremaster 09:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I remember that it ends with you saying you'd reinserted the text about John the Baptist in the lead. Please restore it. --Michael C. Price talk 13:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No, in the following section, it ends with me saying that John the Baptist will only be mentioned in the History section which he currently is. That being said, I am now opposed to , and have removed, to the mention of James the Just from the Lead due to the discussion at Talk:Ebionites#Peer Review for FA. --Loremaster 21:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael, a useful analogy to think about is a bushy tree. You start with a revered figure like Jesus or James. Over time and geography, different groups develop different beliefs and practices until they become mutually incompatible. Yet each group continues to claim they represent a tradition dating back to the same famous founder. In the case of Ebionites, they may well have claimed James as their leader, but so did others including various Gnostic groups. This is how we end up with what we now call the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Apocryphon of James, the Apocalypse of James #1 and #2, and the Infancy Gospel of James. All were likely written by different groups. All claim the same founder. But James clearly can't be all things to all people. That's why it's not correct to claim James as the leader of the Ebionites. It's like claiming there was a single linear tradition, when the model is more like a bushy tree. Ovadyah 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand your bushy argument, but if the movement splintered after James' leadership then you would get many groups claiming past leadership by James, which is reflected in the historical record (just as you do for Jesus). The argument is not a linear one. --Michael C. Price talk 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the movement splintered after James' leadership. The question is what was the group called, and what did they call themselves, before the split. Relying on Acts, they called themselves "the Way" and were referred to by others as Nazarenes. I'm not arguing that there is no connection to Ebionites, just that the connection is not clear. Ovadyah 13:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, and for that we must rely on secondary sources. --Michael C. Price talk 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I want to amend and clarify my position slightly by stating that I have no problem with stating that James was considered a founder, as long as we have credible sources to back up this claim. Here I have the same problem that I have with the Qumran material. I consider this kind of speculation, in the absence of primary sources, to be pseudo-scholarship bordering on tabloid journalism. Your argument seems to be to let it all in, since selectively keeping sources out is original research. But no publication is devoid of standards of evidence. We can debate where to draw the line, and I'm fine with having those discussions. But in the end, I have a limit as to what I can swallow, and I'm willing to make my arguments to ArbCom if necessary to get my point across. Ovadyah 02:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that James was founder; he was leader for about 30 years following Jesus' execution. As for credible sources: there are plenty of secondary sources that state James was the leader of the Ebionites / Church of Jerusalem for this period -- are there any that deny this? Any ArbCom will frown on the original research implied by your and Loremaster's arguments. --Michael C. Price talk 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
So far, I'm content to discuss this on the talk page to understand your views. The right way to go about this is to search the literature to see if there are any secondary sources that dispute the contention that James was the leader of the Ebionites. If none can be found, then I support your position. Ovadyah 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I applaud your constructive attitude, especially with your apparent different POV. I completely agree that this is the right approach. --Michael C. Price talk 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Coincidentally my copy of "James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls" ISBN 1842930265 has just arrived, which states that there are more primary extra-biblical sources that attest to the leadership of James the Just than there are for Jesus himself (page xxi). --Michael C. Price talk 11:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I hope you enjoy reading it, all 1000 pages. I found the book to be a tough read because of Eisenman's writing style, but it's full of interesting nuggets of information. BTW, I hope you can tell from my responses that I have no intention of getting into a flame war with you. Far from it. Ovadyah 14:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I appreciate that. I have no desire to engage in flame war with anyone, believe it or nor. And I look forward to digesting the book. It does look a toughie... --Michael C. Price talk 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OR tag

Sadly I've had to add an OR tag for the entire article because

  • original research continues to be pushed throughout the article, despite Alec's repeated strictures to the contrary.
  • the lack of any understanding by more than one editor of the error of drawing inferences from primary sources.

Please read WP:OR and only report what the secondary sources say. Stop making inferences based on your personal interpretation of the sources. --Michael C. Price talk 09:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to apply this tag preemptively based on what you think other editor's might do, and a lack of understanding should be worked out on the talk page. If you feel that there is original research already in the article, then discuss those specific points here. Holding the article hostage by saying you have general concerns about OR, but then never identifying the specifics of what your concerns are, simply will not do. Ovadyah 14:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ovadyah. Please specifiy examples of original research and personal misinterpretation of sources or remove this tag immediately. --Loremaster 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Loremaster, you are the worst offender here. When you stop arguing from the primary sources, and clearly acknowledge that such a procedure is an error, then we might be in a position to remove the tag provided that you show the ability to consistently refrain from such OR over a reasonable period. None of these criteria are presently met.--Michael C. Price talk 15:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to get distracted by your personal attacks, please specifiy examples of original research and personal misinterpretation of sources. --Loremaster 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Detailed elsewhere on the talk page. Plenty of people (not just me) have complained about your attitude and the effects of your OR on the article. When the complaints cease we can think about removing the tag.--Michael C. Price talk 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to go through this talk page to guess what you are refering to. I don't care if you remove the tag or not, I'm only interested in improving this article so summarize clear examples of original research and personal misinterpretation of sources so I or we can work on them immediately. As for my attitude, I franlky don't give a damn what people think of it since everyone here (including people I like working with) have attitude problems. That being said, CS removed the totallydisputed tag so his concerns have been dealt with. I've bent over backwards to address the extremely POV-based criticisms of NazirineMystic as much as the demand for neutrality can allow. The only person who still has a problem is you so let's hear it. --Loremaster 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if "everybody here" has "attitude problems" (which is debatable) that is no excuse for behaving likewise. --Michael C. Price talk 18:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This is such an hypocritical statement when you behave likewise in the worse way! --Loremaster 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
If I believed I was behaving like you, yes that would be hypocritical. But I don't believe that; regardless, it's still good advice. You should try harder and assume good faith as I do about you: there is a difference between assuming bad faith (attribution of malice) and complaining about bad attitude. --Michael C. Price talk 09:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
When will you learn that I will never take advice from someone with your track record. I've assumed and continue to assume good faith of everyone until they have given me evidence of the contrary such as you. So enough already. --Loremaster 09:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm an optimist and hope that one day you will learn to separate the message from the messenger. --Michael C. Price talk 10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
And I hope you learn that the way a messenger transmits a message affects the way it is received: The medium is the message. --Loremaster 10:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
A message you would do well to take to heart as well. --Michael C. Price talk 13:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I have had enough. Saying "the tag says because I don't like your attitude" is unacceptable. Saying "the reasons are all here somehere, why don't you go find them" is unacceptable. Please state your specific reasons here. Ovadyah 16:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not say "the tag s[t]ays because I don't like your attitude"; I specifically said because of the continuing effects on the article. The article is slowly improving. Eventually we can lose the OR tag. --Michael C. Price talk 17:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael, I removed your OR tag because you refused, after repeated requests, to state the specific reasons for why you applied it. If you restore the tag, we go to AN/I. Ovadyah 18:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
In the spirit of compromise I shall not re-insert it immediately; I'll read Tabor 2006 first :-). BTW your characterization of my action in the edit summary as vandalism is incorrect: vandalism is defined as acting in bad faith and assuming bad faith of others on the talk page is contrary to the guidelines; something you might like to reflect upon if you ever do go to AN/I... I nearly mentioned this to you when you reverted the christianity categorisation; clearly that wasn't vandalism, it was an honest mistake and should be described as such. --Michael C. Price talk 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you have a skill for divining the motives of others. While I am reflecting on this dispute and where to go next, you might want to do some reflecting as well on your general behavior on this page. Ovadyah 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I claim no powers of divination; I was pointing out this policy. --Michael C. Price talk 01:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am familar with the policy. I call to your attention a sentence from the policy on assuming good faith that is particularly relevant here: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Ovadyah 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the it goes on to say: Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith. Please reflect on why advice on policy was interpreted as attributing motives. And, for the record, I don't think anyone here is acting in bad faith.--Michael C. Price talk 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Response RfC on Epiphanius

I suppose I am weighing in a little late here, but I see no reason to reject Ephanius out of hand. The fact is, in dealing with early Christianity, we often have only one or two sources of info. If you remove any of the info from, say, Irenaeus or Eusebius, about a given topic, we will likely be left with nothing. So too with Epiphanius. Yes, he should be taken with a grain of salt, as modern historical method is not the same as the ancient method of writing history. But unless there is direct contridiction of what Epiphanius says, I see no reason to leave it out. Pastordavid 18:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No one has argued for leaving Epiphanius out and he hasn't been left out. --Loremaster 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Last citations needed

We need a citation for the following sentence in the article:

They therefore believed that all Jews and gentiles must observe the commandments of God

I've added Justin Martyr but we need the specific chapter and verse. --Loremaster 03:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It also needs expansion to explain that they proposed different laws for Jews (Mosaic) and Gentiles (Noahic). --Michael C. Price talk 09:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
What are you basing this claim on since the Jerusalem Church and the Ebionite community are not necessarily the same group? In other words, do you have a source that specifically says that Ebionites proposed differents laws for Jews (Mosaic) and Gentiles (Noahide)? --Loremaster 09:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
According to Eisenman and Rabinowitz (and probably many others such as Tabor whom I shall check) the early Church at Jerusalem under James was the same as the Ebionites; can you find a secondary source that says James was the leader of both groups simultaneously? --Michael C. Price talk 09:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if that were true, which is a claim I am still skeptical about, it's quite probable that Ebionites were a radical faction that eventually rejected James' compromise since primary sources such as Justin Martyr state that Ebionites held Mosaic Law to universal obligation. Alternatively, as some scholars I am trying to track down suggest, James' compromise may have been a lie spread by Paul and his Christians to serve their agenda... --Loremaster 09:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As primary sources go Justin Martyr was writing quite a bit later than Acts is generally considered to have been written. Eisenman presents plenty of evidence for James' indifference to the Gentiles. And then there're Jesus' own (contradictory) pronouncements in the gospels to that effect as well. That said it is plausible that the letter was a forgery -- but let's see a secondary source that states this. --Michael C. Price talk 10:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. So let's not expand the claim about different laws until we have a secondary source for it as well. --Loremaster 10:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
In my search, I found this essay which is quite pertinent: James the Jew --Loremaster 12:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting link, but rather shallow in some respects (is it a reliable source?). Just looking at the commentary on Acts 15 and the Jerusalem letter (which they accept as basically authentic), yes, James advocates that Jews and Gentiles follow the Law, but the point is that the specifics of the Law depends on whether you are a Gentile (Noachite Law) or Jew (Mosaic Law), according the the letter. At one point they acknowledge this and then they gloss over the issue later. --Michael C. Price talk 13:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment. I just thought it made some interesting points. Anyway, I'm still looking for my sources. --Loremaster 13:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus 1997, p136 makes the Acts/James/Noahic directives to distant (Gentile) communities connection. --Michael C. Price talk 14:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I got so distraced that I forgot that Tabor is the secondary source for the disputed sentence. In his often-referenced essay, he writes:
Dedication to following the whole Torah, as applicable to Israel and to Gentiles, but through the "easy yoke" halacha of their Teacher Jesus,
I'm citing him as a source now. --Loremaster 10:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We also need a precise citation for the following:

Relying on Epiphanius' Panarion, Tabor argues...

--Loremaster 09:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph to avoid a painstaking search for a source. --Loremaster 10:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lead and Jesus' expounding of the Law

Since some of you see secondary sources as authoritative, I would like to bring your attention to the following two quotes from Tabor's much-referenced article:

They were zealous for the Torah and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher [Jesus as the Prophet like Moses, or True Teacher]
Dedication to following the whole Torah, as applicable to Israel and to Gentiles, but through the "easy yoke" halacha of their Teacher Jesus

--Loremaster 14:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't contradict the point Tabor, Eisenman etc also makes that John, and especially James, also interpreted the law and they followed his guidance. And BTW it's wikipolicy about secondary sources being authoritative. Read the guidlines. --Michael C. Price talk 15:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I know what wikipolicy is. My point is was simply that secondary sources support the sentence "therefore tried to be strict adherents to what they understood to be Jesus' expounding of the Law" which focuses on Jesus to the exclusion of John or James. --Loremaster 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You do not know what Wikipolicy is (even 3rr), as amply demonstrated by your repeated pushing of your own inferences drawn from primary sources instead of reporting from secondary socurces. You also seem to have a basic problem with logic: citing a source that supports the claim that Jesus' interpreted the law for the Ebionites (which I fully accept) does not in any way imply a focus on Jesus to the exclusion of James -- who also interpreted the law for the Ebionites (which is also validly sourced). --Michael C. Price talk 10:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You have nerve mentioning 3rr when you were reprimanded and blocked for violating it! As for the focus issue, read my comments in the section below. --Loremaster 12:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Everything has to be spelt out to you, doesn't it? I knew that we would both get blocked. You were the one so clueness of policy to think that the 4 reverts had to be consecutive. I see that you choose to avoid addressing the substantive issue I raised of an error in logic. --Michael C. Price talk 13:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
3rr is the only policy I was not familiar with. That being said, do you seriously want us to believe that you intentionally got blocked for 24 hours in order to get me blocked? You're just proving that you are a bully if true. --Loremaster 13:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Believe what you like. I note once again that you ignored the substantive issues here, which I state again: You also seem to have a basic problem with logic: citing a source that supports the claim that Jesus' interpreted the law for the Ebionites (which I fully accept) does not in any way imply a focus on Jesus to the exclusion of James -- who also interpreted the law for the Ebionites (which is also validly sourced).. --Michael C. Price talk 13:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
My point is due that due to the primacy of Jesus, it is better to mention that the speculation regarding the role of John and James in another section (Beliefs and practices section in this case) rather than the Lead (which should remain a summary of facts rather than a tabloid) as the article already did. --Loremaster 13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The primacy of Jesus' role w.r.t. the Ebionites is also speculation. --Michael C. Price talk 13:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
All the primary sources (patristic evidence) and the overwhelming majority of secondary sources (which include some of the scholars you rely on) assert the primacy of Jesus in the eyes of Ebionites since they viewed him as the Messiah regardless of how they defined the concept. --Loremaster 13:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
1) That is your speculation, not Tabor's and he is a respected authority on the subject and you are not. 2) They regarded John as a messiah as well. --Michael C. Price talk 13:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am NOT speculating. I've sourced all my statements with both primary sources and secondary sources. Tabor are Eisenman are not the sole authority on Ebionites and it would NOT be neutral to imply that they are. --Loremaster 14:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, of course; other peoples POVs are speculations, yours're just the facts, right? --Michael C. Price talk 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
No. Like most dictionary and encyclopedic entries on Ebionites, I am simply repeating what the patristic sources state and support them up with the POV of secondary sources. --Loremaster 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately whenever I hear you say anything is "obvious" or "simple" I've come to expect a major injection of your own POV OR. What do others think?
In light of the fact that I have bent over backwards to include everyone's POV in a reaonable manner and I've supported all my statements with primary and secondary sources, your accusation is fallacious. Regardless, see my proposal in the section below. --Loremaster 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Ebionites in the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions

Ebionites (Heb. ebyonim, 'poor men'). A sect of Jewish Christians of the early centuries CE. It's nature and history cannot be definitely reconstructed from surviving references. It appears to have existed eastg of the River Jordan. The sect emphasized the ordinary humanity of Jesus as the human son of Mary and Joseph. who was given the Holy Spirit at his baptism; it also adhered to the Jewish Torah. It is an open question whether they can have been direct descendants of the earliest Jerusalem church. The members were both poor and ascetic, and they remained outside of the mainstream of church history. The so-called Gospel of the Ebionites (apocryphal) survives only in quotations.

The implication is that Ebionites may have only existed after the destruction of Jerusalem church in 70 CE. --Loremaster 15:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The implication is original research, except in the broadest sense that anything may be true, or it may not be; they don't rule out that the Ebionites could be a continuum with the early Jerusalem church, with Pauline Christainty as a new theological development. Dictionaries are probably not the best of soucres. --Michael C. Price talk 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The implication is not original research due to the use of the word "may" and the lack of evidence to the contrary. Regardless, the acknowledged source for the dictionary's entry on Ebionites is Klijn A.F.J.; Reinink, G.J. Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects. 1973.
Which is what I said. And plenty of secondary sources agree with the "may not" option. Tabor, Eisenman, Rabinowitz etc --Michael C. Price talk 10:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving On

With our last edits of the article, I think the textual content of the current version of the Ebionites article has moved beyond Good status. I would like to thank everyone for contributing to this process... even the people I still have personal differences with. The only thing left to do is work on including inline quotes and standardizing the references. Once this done, we can and should nominate Ebionites for Featured Article status. Does anyone disagree? Please list your specific objections here. Thank you. --Loremaster 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is skewed by an unconscious Chalcedonian bias and an overfocus on Jesus. For instance the statement from the lead "Ebionites shared the views of early Christians who regarded John the Baptizer as a forerunner to the ministry of Jesus, " has no sourced basis and is misleading. What does it mean? What sources say this? Certainly not Tabor. It's complete rubbish. --Michael C. Price talk 00:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The notion that this article has an "unconscious Chalcedonian bias" is ridiculous since no where does the article state or imply that two natures (divine and human) are united in Jesus. As for the notion of an "overfocus" on Jesus, this is probably the most absurd criticism since the overwhelming majority of (primary and) secondary sources for Ebionites also "overfocus" on Jesus. Why? Because Ebionites regarded Jesus as the prophetic Messiah while the others as mere leaders! As the article on John the Baptist explains, John is also commonly referred to as John the Forerunner/Precursor because followers of Jesus consider him as the forerunner of the Messiah (see Luke 1:17, 75). Regarless of how they considered John, Jesus was the main figure of Ebionite reverence. You are the first and only person I have encountered on and offline who has ever questioned this fact. As for the ultimate source of my secondary sources, it is the quotations from the Gospel of the Ebionites found in Epiphanius that deal with John. --Loremaster 01:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This is what I mean by bias: Because Ebionites regarded Jesus as the prophetic Messiah while the others as mere leaders! Tabor explains in great detail that this viewpoint only emerged within mainstream Pauline Christainity after both John and Jesus had died. You cite Luke, which has a Pauline bias (Luke was Paul's associate). Again see Tabor's the Jesus Dynasty. --Michael C. Price talk 10:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Micheal, no where in the article are we suggesting the Ebionites regarded Jesus as some divine Christ. As I assume you know, in Judaism, three messiahs or messianic figures are expected: 1) the Prophet like Moses, 2) the High Priest of Aaron, and 3) the King of David. One person can perfom the office of one, two or three messianic figures. Christians believe Jesus performed a Threefold Office. Tabor argues that Ebionites only regarded Jesus as performing the office of Prophet while Hyam Maccomby argues that they saw Jesus as performing the offices of Prophet and King. The article obviously reflects James Tabor's view. Please read The 'prophet like Moses' by Jona Lendering for more details. --Loremaster 10:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
First, no where in the article are we suggesting the Ebionites regarded Jesus as some divine Christ is completely irrelevant since this not my point. I am talking about unconscious bias. Second, Tabor argues that Ebionites only regarded Jesus as performing the office of Prophet is simplistic and not correct: Tabor argues that Ebionites originally viewed the 3-fold split is an earlier Mosaic prophet (perhaps, he argues, the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness") followed by the Aaronic/Priestly messiah (John) and Davidic/Royal messiah (Jesus), the latter two who were expected to throw off the Roman yoke and rule Israel together.--Michael C. Price talk 11:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
1a. Noted.
1b. What unconscious bias are you refering? The whole point of the article to explain that Ebionites saw Jesus as purely human even if he was anointed by the holy spirit. What sentence do you interpret as unconsciously impling that Jesus was partially divine in a Chalcedonian sense of the word???
2. This would mean that Tabor's views have evolved because his much-referenced article states quite simply that Jesus was viewed by Ebionites as the Prophet like Moses (who will anoint his Messiahs on his right and left hand when he is revealed in power following his rejection and death. These two figures, the Davidic Nasi (Prince of the Yachad) and Priest, will rule with him in the Kingdom of God). The article makes allusion to this several times. However, while Tabor's speculation keeps evolving, Maccoby's views remain more consistent with the patristic evidence so I will edit the article to reflect this. --Loremaster 11:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
1b. The whole point of the article to explain that Ebionites saw Jesus as.... is where we fundamentally part company and is, ironically, a classic example of bias and overfocus. The article is about the Ebionites -- not just their views on Jesus, but also their views on John the Baptist (who Tabor argues was originally more important than Jesus to them), and later James the Just (who Tabor/Eisenman both argue rescued the movement from collapse after Jesus' death). To focus on Jesus is to accept the later bias of Paul and the Church Fathers.
2. I am reporting my reading of The Jesus Dynasty. Is the Tabor article you mention this one? which leads off with The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of mostly Jewish/Israelite followers of John the Baptizer and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions and led by "James the Just" (the oldest brother of Jesus), and flourished between the years 30-80 C.E. No sign of a focus on Jesus here! And it says later they were expecting three redemptive Figures—the Prophet like Moses and his two Messiahs. I also note that a sentence here that reads They were zealous for the Torah and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher, you have interpreted elsewhere an exclusive reference to Jesus which is not supported. --Michael C. Price talk 12:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
1b. You are misinterpreting what I meant. I was refering to the fact that passages about Ebionite views of Jesus are not Chalcedonian in any way (which you still have failed to explain). They are cleary unitarian for lack of a better word. As I said before, like the majority of primary and secondary sources, the current version of the article mention the importance of John and James but focuses on Jesus. The very name of Tabor's book is The Jesus Dynasty not How James the Just saved the Jesus Movement.
I'm glad to see that you admit that the article focuses on Jesus. As for the reason for Tabor's title: most people have heard of Jesus, few of James the Just. Once you read the book, though, the more complete picture emerges. --Michael C. Price talk 12:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The article focuses on Jesus because it should. As for Tabor's book, I don't think the entire article should be based mostly on his views. That would not be neutral. --Loremaster 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
2. The Tabor article is the perfect example of a source that mentions the importance of John and James but focuses on Jesus. (mentions of John: 2, mentions of James: 4, mentions of Jesus: 19) That being said, it would unbalance the article to give the views of Tabor and Eisenman more weight than they already have. I've made compromises to accomodate your point of view, which I think have jeapordized the factual accuracy of this article more than enough, so I am not budging on this issue until Ovadyah and others can weight in. --Loremaster 12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I see you've addressed none of the substantive points I raised. Since you've indicated your unwillingless to modify your views no matter what, back go the tags.--Michael C. Price talk 12:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I've addressed all these points but you reject them because of your POV. As for the tag, put it back if you want since I know reason will eventually prevail over your tactics. By the way, I am willing to debate. I will simply not concede to your POV demands--Loremaster 13:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You adressed none of the points, not even whether the link I gave was to the article you were referring to. As for readiness to debate, you indicated that you would not shift your position at all...... --Michael C. Price talk 13:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course the link you gave me was to the article in question. I listed the number of mentions of John, James and Jesus in that specific article. That being said, debate doesn't automatically shifting one's position to satify the whims of others. By debate, I mean that I continue to defend my position. --Loremaster 13:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course :-) Finally. Now answer the points I raised against each quote from the article.--Michael C. Price talk 13:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I have already: I've made several edits to the article to state that John the Baptist and James the Just were seen as Ebionite leaders. I've included the mention of the possible Ebionite stance towards Acts 15. That being said, I don't think the Lead should include the speculative claim that Ebionites adhered to John's and James' alleged expounding of the Law (which is a specific term for something Jesus did during the Sermon on the Mount) or how they viewed them as messiahs. I have no problem with the mention of Tabor's and Eisenman's speculation about this in the History section but not the Lead. --Loremaster 13:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The removal of the primary-based "heretics" paragraph has improved the lead, IMO, and I'm happy with the first lead sentence. As for the extent that statements about John and James are more speculative than statements about Jesus, I'd like to hear the views of others. --Michael C. Price talk 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree for the reasons explained below.--Loremaster 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

The Lead may be too [short?] to satisfy Featured Article standards. Let's at least restore the following sentence:

They called themselves "the Poor Ones" because they regarded a vow of poverty as an act of true humility in order to behave as if the "kingdom of God" was already on Earth. Accordingly, they dispossessed themselves of all their goods and lived in religious communistic societies.

Let's add the mention of righteousness from the Lead to the first paragraph of the Beliefs and practices section:

The majority of Church Fathers sources are in agreement in claiming that Ebionites rejected many of the central doctrines of mainstream Christianity such as the trinity of God, the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, and the death of Jesus as an atonement for sin. Ebionites are described as emphasizing the oneness of God and the humanity of Yeshua (the Aramaic name for Jesus) as the biological son of both Mary and Joseph, who was recognized as a righteous man and performed two messianic functions during in his ministry - those of prophet (Deuteronomy 18:14-22) and king (Psalm 2) after he was anointed with the holy spirit at his baptism.[36] Of the books of the New Testament Ebionites are said to have only accepted an Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews, as additional scripture to the Hebrew Bible. This version of Matthew, Irenaeus reports, omitted the first two chapters (on the nativity of Jesus), and started with the baptism of Jesus by John.

Then you can work on the first part of the last paragraph of the History section to include all the speculative claims of Tabor and Eisenman regarding the messiahship of John, and Ebionites adhering to James' interpretations of the Law and other teachings. Do we have a deal? --Loremaster 14:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. I don't think short leads are a problem with FA, but regardless:
Re the origin of the term, "the Poor Ones" perhaps we should just mention that it occurs in the Sermon on the Mount, throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Epistle of James, as we do later in the article. If the Essene/Qumran revivalist view is correct it's more likely that they just inherited this term from there. If we take seriously the notion that the Ebionites arose after James' Jerusalem church collapsed (which I don't), then perhaps they adopted the term in memory of it. So, no, let's not open this can of worms in the lead.
Mentioning the NT phrase the "Kingdom of God" (on Earth), without explanation, is another bit Pauline/Chalecdonian bias (according to Tabor it should be really be translated as "God's Law" (on Earth). Again, let's not get started on this in the lead.
I see no merit in parcelling out different sections of the article to differnt people -- we all know what will happen if any changes are made without agreement first, anywhere. We need to agree about everything (and I do mean everything) beforehand.
1. I know from having succeeded in getting an article Featured status last year that the shortness a Lead section will be criticized during the nomination process. We need to expand to have 2 or 3 solid paragraphs like it use to.
2. The sentence about the Poor Ones (whose original version comes from the entry on Ebionites in the Jewish Encyclopedia) is important since it introduce the fact that Ebionites actually practiced voluntary poverty. However, I agree that it's source is obscure (Sermon on the Mount? Epistle of James? Dead Sea scrolls? Isaiah?) but that's why the sentence doesn't speculate on this issue.
3. Even the Jesus Seminar (which uses the phrase "God's domain" or "God's imperial rule" instead) argue that the "Kingdom of God" is the central theme of Jesus' message so this notion that it is "another bit of Pauline/Chalecdonian bias" (whatever that means) is nonsense. However, I have no problem with it being deleted since it's mention is explained in the Beliefs and practices section. So the sentence I now propose to add to the Lead is: They called themselves "the Poor Ones" because they regarded a vow of poverty as an act of true humility. Accordingly, they dispossessed themselves of all their goods and lived in religious communistic societies.
4. I only saw a merit in parcelling to you the one section in the article where you can add the views of Tabor and Eisenman without any objection from the rest of us as long as you make it clear that it is speculation.
--Loremaster 19:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the sentence They called themselves "the Poor Ones" because they regarded a vow of poverty as an act of true humility. Accordingly, they dispossessed themselves of all their goods and lived in religious communistic societies. is speculation: viz "because" and "accordingly". Just say where the term appears elsewhere (DSS, Epistle of James, Sermon on the Mount) and leave the different conjectures of its origin for the main article. --Michael C. Price talk 01:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Whether or not it is speculation, one of the sources is the Jewish Encyclopedia while the other is Tabor. --Loremaster 12:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I propose:

Proposal II

I propose that Loresmaster, Ovadyah, CS and myself all pleadge not to alter anything (except spelling mistakes) before obtaining the explicit agreement of all the other parties first. Any unauthorised changes get reverted; if someone's away on a break then we wait until they return. If we agree this then I suggest we take this to Alec for him to act as enforcer. --Michael C. Price talk 16:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I reject this proposal. I have requested a long-term lock on the article. We need to get some new editors in here that actually know something about the subject. The current mix of editors are too ready to use flame wars as a substitute for knowledge. Ovadyah 16:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Please be more specific about your concerns with the article.--Michael C. Price talk 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, I am concerned that your behavior is so volatile that you are incapable of working with other editors. Ovadyah 01:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Ad hominems are going to get us nowhere. What are your concerns about the article? For instance you seem concerned about the James the Just - Ebionite connection. Can you be more specific? --Michael C. Price talk 01:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
No, we are now beyond the point of just focusing on the content of the article. I intend to pursue a more comprehensive solution. Ovadyah 01:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Ovadyah, I don't think a long-term lock is necessary since I am no longer interested in fighting with Michael to preserve the factual accuracy of this article. I've decided to take the path of compromise through minimalism. I'm also skeptical that we will be able to find new editors that have a higher level of expertise since you've already made herculean efforts to try to find some in the past and failed. --Loremaster 19:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that new editors, experts or not, probably won't solve the problem here -- but no harm giving it a try.--Michael C. Price talk 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't comment on expertise levels, but you are included in my cabal proposal; under it if you think something is factually incorrect then you can block it.--Michael C. Price talk 16:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Micheal, I reject this proposal since unanimity among us is impossible in light of our different points of view and objectives. --Loremaster 19:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
If anyone believes unanimity is impossible then it obviously is.--Michael C. Price talk 02:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal III

There seems a widespread belief that we can't all work together on a section, so I suggest we structure the article according to the different viewpoints. Each viewpoint has its own section. The lead only includes statements that appear in all sections (e.g. that they regard Paul as an heretic, Jesus as only human?). If this seems a viable way forward then the first task would be to identify the various viewpoints and who will work on which. One view would be that the Ebionites form a link between the Essenes at Qumran and the early church at Jerusalem under James the Just. The sources for this seem to be Tabor, Eisenman, Rabinowitz and Larson(?). What otherviewpoints are there? --Michael C. Price talk 02:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with this within limits. --Loremaster 10:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Limits sound a good idea. Any specific ideas? We need to agree a provisional set of section NPOV titles (e.g. "Essene-Jamesian") and who will work in sections. Further that we agree to write the lead and introduction last, after we're happy with our respective sections and decide we can tolerate the other sections. We don't need to wait for the article to be unlocked, can work at ebionites/wip (just created), taking our lead from the example at physics/wip. --Michael C. Price talk 11:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we need tp 1) seperate the Beliefs and practices in three sub-sections: a) views of John the Baptist, b) views of Jesus, and c) views of James; 2) create a section that explores whether or not Ebionites were a current within, or an offshoot, of the Jerusalem Church; 3) create a section that explores whether or not Ebionites were Qumran/Essene revivalists. I am willing to work on this immediately in the wip. --Loremaster 11:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
First we agree the framework (i.e. section titles and work allocation). I'm suggesting completely separate sections -- if you want a beliefs subsection within your section then I have no problem with that. And we have to agree not to interfere with other sections.
And I would like to hear from Ovadyah and CS before proceeding. --Michael C. Price talk 12:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am workin in the wip in the meantime. It's only draft. Feel free to edit as you wish. --Loremaster 12:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to work on it until the rules are agreed, if possible with everyone.--Michael C. Price talk 12:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
OK but I've gone ahead and created a draft for the the Ebionites article on the Ebionites/wip page according to some our suggestions just so that everyone has a good idea of what I am proposing. --Loremaster 13:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I am withdrawing from editing the article, so feel free to do as you like. I spoke with the EJC, and their opinion is that the article is now complete crap. I'm inclined to agree. It's not an effective use of my time to continue working on something that only seems to be getting worse over time. However, I do reserve the right to come back later with a different group of editors and give the article a total rewrite. Good luck. Ovadyah 14:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the compromises made to the article that is locked have greatly diminished its quality. However, I am hoping that the work we are doing in on Ebionites/wip page will turn things around. That being said, can you have the protection lock removed? --Loremaster 14:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The opinion of a group with a religious bias like the Ebionite Jewish Community is irrelevant. We are not writing and should not write this article so that it meets a standard that please them. --Loremaster 16:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. It is irrelevant. I only mentioned it because I have a similar opinion. One could look at the fact that the EJC, ERM, and Keith Akers have all denounced the article as a good indicator that it is now NPOV. It seems to me that it's hardly about Ebionites anymore, but at least it's NPOV. Ovadyah 16:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that is everyone you mentioned has a strong POVs so I am not troubled by that fact. On the contrary, whenever someone is happy with the article I get worried that it may have lost some neutrality. --Loremaster 17:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's up to the remaining editors to convince the admins to remove the lock. The behavior of the remaining editors working on this draft article should be the determining factor. You still have not demonstrated an ability to work together effectively. Unilaterally drafting a new version does not satisfy this requirement. Good luck in your efforts to convince them. Ovadyah 16:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ovadyah that Loremaster and myself have not demonstrated an ability to work together; massive edits to the wip version in advance of the basic groundwork being defined bodes ill, but that may yet be rectified. I agree with Loremaster, am I not concerned by the reported displeasure of various POV parties; nor does Ovadyah's description of the article as "complete crap" and "garbage" provide any help. Specific feedback would be useful, and I have requested such input many times; less constructive input can only be ignored. --Michael C. Price talk 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
As I explained, I drafted a new version so that the remaining editors would have a good idea of what I am proposing when they come back which could take hours, days or weeks. I have no problem with it being deleted upon request so we can start from scratch if it comes to that. As for removing the protection lock, it could be counter-productive to wait until everyone is back because in the meantime the current version of the Ebionites article will be considered accurate (despite the disclaimer) and mirrored by other online encyclopedias. --Loremaster 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
That's an issue for the remaining editors to work out. Why don't you ask to have it removed? Just wondering. Ovadyah 16:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point. --Loremaster 17:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
For the moment, I've requested the lock stays. I think we need to
  • work out the rules
  • get the various POV sections completed
  • jointly write the lead and introduction
before unlocking the article.--Michael C. Price talk 18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we sort out these structural and framework issues over at Talk:Ebionites/wip. --Michael C. Price talk 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --Loremaster 09:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

AID

Since the second Peer review got no responses, I have nominated the article for Article Improvement to get a wider variety of editors looking at this article as we move it toward FA. Ovadyah 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that it is going to work but I am not opposed to the idea. I just think that the suggestions archived in the first peer review which haven't been acted upon are more than enough. --Loremaster 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily looking for more suggestions to improve the article. I want more eyes on this page to prevent the kind of editorial abuses we have been experiencing. One way to do that is to have more editors working on the page with the same goal. The stated goal of AID is a group effort to get articles ready for FA. Ovadyah 22:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ebionites article was rejected by the AID project as a candidate for improvement to featured article status. In fact, there were no nominations other than my own. Given the current deplorable state of affairs, I can't blame other editors for avoiding the article. Ovadyah 19:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Request semi-unprotection

I think the article should go down from protected status to semi-protected status. What do all of you think? --Loremaster 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since all the active editors have login accounts this would return us to the edit-warring; we need to resolve our differences and agree a way forward first. I say keep the lock on as an incentive for us collectively learn how to interact in a civilised and productive fashion. --Michael C. Price talk 01:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there have been edis to the article by users with no login accounts. Regardless, I've always been willing to act in a civilized and productive fashion. So I am willing if you are. --Loremaster 10:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with the lock remaining indefinitely. The article as it stands is trashed. I am extremely skeptical that this current group of editors is capable of civility and editing productively. The way forward is to shine a bright light on the article. That can be accomplished by opening up the article to more editors and/or dragging some of the current editors before a tribunal. Until one or both of these things happens, it can stay locked as far as I'm concerned. Ovadyah 01:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, I'm ready to focus on editing the article productively. --Loremaster 10:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Caution, vandals at work

I stopped by to inspect the recent progress on the article. I find there has been little progress, other than Loremaster continuing to plug away alone on the wip page. This just confirms what I suspected all along; the true purpose of our recent editors was to vandalize the article under the pretext of improving it. Now that the article has been trashed and locked, there is little interest shown in improving it, despite the fact that these same editors remain quite active on Wikipedia. If this isn't a case for AN/I, I don't know what is. Ovadyah 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I've done all the editing of the Ebionites/wip page, I've taken into account several of Michael's suggestions. We are currently waiting for him to finish his reading of of some secondary sources in order for him to expand the Views and practices section. As for the other editors not participating in the process, I think it might simply be that all the past flame wars on this talk page have driven them away. --Loremaster 02:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Ovadyah, your comments are sounding increasingly shrill and petulant. As I've said several times, any specific constructive criticism about the article would be welcome. General and unspecific claims of vandalism just make you look rather negative and, quite frankly, bigotted and silly (which everybody has the right to, of course). I am completely at a loss to understand your current attitude. If you feel your scholarly POV is not represented in the article then create a subsection over at wip and add your material. If Loremaster and I can work together, surely anyone can? --Michael C. Price talk 11:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael, I may seem silly to you, but I deeply resent the accusation that I am a bigot. My attitude and increasingly shrill and petulant comments derive from an overwhelming frustration that you have caused so much harm to the esprit du cour we used to have on this talk page, while at the same time contributing so little to the article. You are the one under observation here, not Loremaster. Loremaster has demonsrated an amazing ability to work with others under extremely trying circumstances. You, by contrast, have demonstrated a consistent ability to be disruptive. So put your editorial skills where your mouth is and do something constructive to improve the quality of the article, rather than just defeating the efforts of other editors. Ovadyah 16:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are not a bigot then why do you describe others you disagree with as vandals? The esprit du cour, as I remember it, was to ignore my concerns about the article's focus, which is why I left it for a few months. As for whether I am disruptive, well I guess trying to educate gung-ho editors about Wikipedia's policy on original research can be viewed as disruptive. Regarding your last sentence: take your own medicine and answer the specific queries I raised against your unspecific objections about reporting what the sources say about James the Just's role as Ebionite leader.--Michael C. Price talk 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've always tried to take into account other's people legitimate concerns so I fail to see how I could ever be described as "gung-ho" or overzealous. I've never needed to be educated on Wikipedia's policy on original research since I've never included material in the Ebionites article that has not been published by a reliable source. That being said, I admit that I was unfamilar with the policy regarding mutiple points of views. --Loremaster 20:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Loremaster, if you really understood the original research policy you would not be inserting inferences drawn from primary sources; legitimacy is subjective, which is why WP:NOR forbids all inferences. You have never shown any sign of understanding this point. That is why the only solution is for us to work on different sections of the article, as we are. I'm glad we agree about the need for representing multiple viewpoints. --Michael C. Price talk 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
From the WP:NORpage: Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The White House's summary of a president's speech is a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Since I've always provided a secondary source that supports my interpretation of primary source material, your accusation has always been fallacious. --Loremaster 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reading wp:nor; I don't think that you've always provided a secondary source, but I'm glad that we now agree that secondary sources are required for every interpretative statement.--Michael C. Price talk 09:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Even in the rare instances when I didn't specifically cite a secondary source to support an interpretative statement, I wrote such sentences based on my knowledge of one and I have had no porblem providing one when requested. I never disputed that secondary sources are required to support interpretative statements. My problem is that I disagree with the inclusion of secondary-source-based multiple points of view which are not supported by any primary sources. --Loremaster 12:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: My problem is that I disagree with the inclusion of secondary-source-based multiple points of view which are not supported by any primary sources. I am afraid this shows that you still don't get WP:NOR, since whether not secondary sources are supported by primary sources is a matter of opinion, i.e. subjective. Talk pages are not meant to be debating fora for their subjects, but are about how to present primary and secondary sourced material. Inferring that a secondary souces is not based on primary sources is an inference, and therefore subjective and not admissable. The text you quoted is not a mandate for inclusion of your judgement into the article, although I can see how a superfical reading of it may seem to imply this -- but it doesn't. Please reread it. --Michael C. Price talk 13:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to re-read it anything. As I've previously said, I would be opposed to the inclusion, or more precisely, the mention as fact of extremely dubious secondary source material such a fringe researcher's speculation that Ebionites wanted to crossbreed with angels in order to create a new generation of Nephilim. It's one thing to mention that this individual believes this non-sense because many people have read his bestselling book. It's quite another to mention this as a fact of Ebionite history, especially in the Lead of the article. I willing to argue this point with Wikipedia administrators if necessary. --Loremaster 21:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, why re-read something you disagree with, eh? After all, you're right and the rest of the world can go to hell. That those silly wikipedia folks don't agree, well that must be because they all very very stupid...... Actually, no, not really. You see fringe, pseudo-scientific research is excluded by assessing the relability of the source by means other than judging the content -- which is forbidden. But hey, why am I wasting my breath, you're not listening, are you? --Michael C. Price talk 01:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael, there was no need for this kind of antagonistic language. I thought we had passed this. That being said, beyond stating that some scholars are speculating which they themselves admit to, I don't judge content. I simply stated several times that I would be opposed to the inclusion of fringe, pseudo-scientific research. --Loremaster 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Your 2nd sentence does not describe your behaviour. Loremaster, I used such language in attempt to get through to you that you still (despite innumerable previous attempts) don't understand Wikipedia's core concept, which is that we shouldn't judge content: no ifs or buts. I see you have managed, in your latest response, to evade this issue of how to judge the relability of sources by other means than judging content. As I said, nothing ever gets through to you, does it? If you want people to treat you with respect then start addressing the issues raised and stop giving evasive responses.--Michael C. Price talk 08:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You have again crossed the line by violating the guidelines of the talk page. Contribute to the ebionites/wip page and I will edit it if I feel necessary. Beyond that, I will discuss anything with someone with your attitude problems. --Loremaster 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Your beliefs are of no concern to me. I think you were and are motivated by a desire to put Loremaster in his place because he dared to reject your proposal to add inline citations. Loremaster has conceded and you have won a mandate to add inline citations to the references. And what have you proceeded to do with it? Nothing, except to find something new to dispute. Recall that I invited you to return to the article on your talk page, and I welcomed you when you arrived. I have no pre-existing axe to grind. My displeasure - what you call bigotry - derives soley from your behavior. I call your behavior vandalism because you applied a totally disputed tag twice in an unjustified manner and managed to get the article locked with your edit warring. Anyone can read this talk page and decide for themselves whether this behavior rises to the level of vandalism. I am throwing down the conjecture that it is up to this point. You can prove me wrong by your future positive contributions to improving the article. Ovadyah 23:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Ovadyah: 1) I don't know which beliefs you think you are referring to, but all of our beliefs are irrelevant. 2) Yes, I objected to the removal of the in-line quotes because it enabled editors to push their own POV about what the sources said (this is no longer an issue and I intend restoring them, eventually), not from a desire to "put Loremaster in his place". I explained this before I left and I also, at the time as you may recall, objected to the removal of John the Baptist from the lead. 3) Yes, you welcomed me when I returned, which was why I was all the more shocked by your sudden switch into bad language and constant accusations of vandalism. If you're so keen on rational debate then look up the wiki-definition of vandalism; just to be clear I do not think anyone here is a vandal -- which means editting in bad faith, in case you haven't checked -- I do think some of us are just a trifle over-wrought, perhaps, and either ignorant of policy or lacking the objectivity to implement it. 4) still waiting for specific constructive feedback about the article. --Michael C. Price talk 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for any "bad" language I may have used, but not for calling out your malevolent behavior for what it is - vandalism. Ovadyah 07:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Ovadyah, despite the issues you have with Michael, can you accept the current version of the Ebionites/wip page? I would greatly appreciate your input. --Loremaster 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that I can't accept the wip version. I think the original pre-Michael version of the article was much better. Removing the second paragraph of the lead, which contains the central claim that Jesus was considered to be a mere man, is a big step backwards. Also, the subsections of Beliefs and Practices make it look like they are weighted equally, when the available evidence clearly doesn't support this. The original version was much better, perhaps with small additions of the new material. Ovadyah 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to such a statement appearing in the lead, although I am deferring working on the lead until the various subsections are finished, and that I am deferring until after I've finished reading Eisenman. I agree that the structure of the subsections is not necessarily weighted ideally; that is something else that will have to be addressed. In my view instead of dealing with the various Ebionite characters one by one (which the sources have different views on) we should be dealing with the different sources group by group, and discussing the various characters and their relationships within each subsection. i.e. the material in sections 2.4 onwards should be moved into the preceeding sections, 2.1-2.3 That was why I wanted us to have a discussion about the structure before we started writing the bulk of the article. --Michael C. Price talk 09:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that any form of compromise with Michael is possible. He will hold the article hostage indefinitely or until you rewrite every word according to his exact specifications. Personally, I would take the content dispute to arbitration immediately, rather than wasting any more time trying to reason with him. Alternately, I would create two separate versions of the article. I would go back to the original and make modifications to that article. Let Michael make his own article from scratch. That will force him to actually do something besides constantly undermining your efforts. Then we can submit both versions to arbitration and let the arbitration commitee pick the best one. Ovadyah 02:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus

Jews for Jesus is said to be a sect? From where? A sect is a grouping that originated and isolated from a main stream, but it's unclear what main stream. The article Jews for Jesus is not clear. If it's not a sect, it should preferably be termed religious movement. Rursus 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that Jews for Jesus is a sect that originated from mainstream evangelical Christianity that is isolated from the mainstream Judaism its claims to represent. I prefer sect to new religious movement in this context. --Loremaster 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"I would argue that " = WP:OR --Michael C. Price talk 08:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems like we're getting pretty far afield when we're discussing a semin-nonnotable modern ebionite group's semi-non-notable view on Jews for Jesus. I'd suggest cutting the whole sentence about Jews for Jesus, with just 1-2 sentences on the modern ebionites which notes their existence and says they draw inspiration from the ancient ebionites. The end. If we're going to actually have an article or articles on the modern ebionites, then let those pages discuss those groups' views.--Alecmconroy 10:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Alec, since many people confuse Ebionites with Messianic Jews, I think its important to keep a version of this sentence in the article. Since the word sect seems to a problem for most of you I will replace it with something else. --Loremaster 14:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could discuss the differences between Ebionitism and Messianic Judaism seperate from the mention of modern Ebionites. --Loremaster 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing perjorative about calling a small religious group a sect (as opposed to a cult). Otherwise, every small group out there would be a religious movement. BTW, while you are at it, you might want to discuss the views of Jews for Judaism about the historical Ebionites, since the Ebionites are mentioned in their anti-missionary handbook. Ovadyah 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree with your comment about using the word sect, I've decided to drop it to avoid a pointless dispute. I'll have to think about whether or not mentioning Jews for Judaism is a good idea. --Loremaster 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Jews for Jesus is a Chalcedonian Christian sect, or whatever you want to call it. Period. It has absolutely no relation to mainstream Judaism beyond Christianity in general. This battle has already been fought in Wiki articles on Judaism. Let's not bring it here too. Ovadyah 17:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I've decided to change the sentence to include Jews for Judaism's mention of Ebionites and exclude the opinion of Ebionite Jewish Community. See the History section of Ebionites/wip page. --Loremaster 04:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Rursus and Ovadyah. This minor discussion about the word sect has contributed to making the Ebionites article even better now with the mention of Jews for Judaism. :) --Loremaster 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Loremaster, why did you remove the Wikiproject Judaism template when you were the one who added it? Ovadyah 19:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

New Beginning

The status of Ebionites article has been lowered to semi-protected. This will prevent anonymous users from vandalizing the article as it has happened several times in the past. I've moved the content from the Ebionites/wip page to the Ebionites article. I've left in the wip page the sections that some editors expressed an interest in expanding without interference. --Loremaster 11:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you have removed the full-protection before seeking a consensus (which was clearly lacking) on the issue. I've removed an unbalanced statement from the lead about the origin of the term "Ebionite" -- please respect the agreement we had to rewrite the lead section last and only with the consensus of the all the editors. --Michael C. Price talk 11:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I never specifically agreed to Micheal's suggestion that "we had to rewrite the lead section last and only with the consensus of the all the editors". If I did, it wasn't my intention. I took most of his suggestions into account when I wrote the Ebionites/wip page and I agreed to let him expand the sections regarding Qumranism/Essenism, John the Baptist and James the Just once he finishes his research. As for the sentence he keeps deleting, I have and will continue to restore a more factually accurate version of it, whose source is an unambiguous statement made by Tabor in his much-referenced essay:
The term Ebionite (from Hebrew 'Evyonim) means "Poor Ones" and was taken from the teachings of Jesus: "Blessed are you Poor Ones, for yours is the Kingdom of God" based on Isaiah 66:2 and other related texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones.
Can anyone refute this?--Loremaster 11:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's unbalanced since the term also appears in the DSS and the Epistle of James. --Michael C. Price talk 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Micheal, are you blind? That's why I wrote the following sentence:
It is believed that they took their name from several religious texts, including a verse in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.
Several religious texts refers to DSS and the Epistle of James. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? --Loremaster 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it should obvious that just because the term appears in DSS and the Epistle of James doesn't mean that Ebionites took it from there. --Loremaster 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Equally it should be obvious that it need not been taken from the teachings of Jesus.--Michael C. Price talk 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, that's why I said it is believed that it was taken from the teaching of Jesus and other sources. Get it? Regardless, on what basis are you judging that Tabor, your favorite expert, is wrong? --Loremaster 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the page is now fully protected again. If you can reach some sort of agreement to stop edit warring, I will unprotect it. If you can't it stays protected. If the editors of the article can at least reach agreement on any changes, I'm prepared to make them for you pending removal of the protection. I have no views whatsoever as to who is right in this dispute. I do know Loremaster, but I have not always agreed with him when we've worked elsewhere so I'm not assuming he is in tbe right on the issue, whatever it is. I consider myself unbiased, but if there's any apprehension of bias at all, I'm totally happy to bow out of this and let someone else deal with it. I gather that I'm not the only admin who knows about the situation. Metamagician3000 12:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Due to User:MichealCPrice's behavior on the Talk:Ebionites page and the fact that no other editor has contributed to the Ebionites/wip page or posted comments on the Talk:Ebionites/wip page, I reasonably feel that seeking a consensus is almost impossible. That being said, I won't ask for the article to unprotected again since I'm talking a much-deserved break from anything related to Ebionites. --Loremaster 12:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The only person here not seeking consensus is Loremaster. Loremaster has shown a chronic inability to comprehend or adhere to WP:NOR and breaks painfully reached agreements at the drop of a hat. The only solution is to permanently ban Loremaster. Yea or nah?--Michael C. Price talk 11:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe an opinion poll on banning Loremaster accomplishes anything. If you are serious, why don't you take your complaint to AN/I? Ovadyah 15:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Because ultimately Wiki is an opnion poll. If others here find Loremaster's behaviour acceptable then the AN/I wiil fail. --Michael C. Price talk 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Every sentence I have written in the article respects Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. I therefore challenge anyone to show otherwise. Since I have taken into account almost every suggestion Michael and others have made in order to produce the current version of the article, this notion that I've broken "painfully reached agreements" is ridiculous, especially since I never explicitly agreed to anything. As for this self-serving call for banning me from editing the Ebionites article, the record shows that I am the person who has contributed the most content to this article, resolved many past disputes between editors through diplomacy and compromise (before Michael's attitude problems became an issue), and raised the quality of the article to reach Good status. That being said, although I moved the content from the Ebionites/wip page to the Ebionites article without Michael's consent, as an act of good faith, I left in the wip page the sections that Michael and I agreed he could expand without interference from me. So I am still waiting patiently for him to get to work. --Loremaster 15:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Re Every sentence I have written in the article respects Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. Anyone, such as Loremsater, who says they will remove statements based on secondary sources that are in their opinion not based on primary sources doesn't understand wp:or. --Michael C. Price talk 20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Writing my own sentences and removing the sentences of others are two different things. That being said, although I did say that I would remove statements based on secondary sources that are in fact not based on primary sources, I did explain that I was refering to sentences that present claims as facts when they are speculation. If the sentence makes that distinction clear, I have no problem with it staying in the article in the proper section and context. Ultimately, regardless of what I said I may do in past, what counts is what I've done since the Ebionites/wip page was created. I challenge anyone to show how the current version of the article or my recent edits (before and during the last conflict Micheal and I had prior to Metamagician reprotecting the article) violate wp:or. --Loremaster 21:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that you always regard your opinions as being factually correct (see above) and therefore admissable without seeking consensus. Your speculative opinions appear without qualifications whereas other statements (even where sourced) you insist on being labelled as speculative or (more often) you just delete them.--Michael C. Price talk 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The sentence in question is based on a source which you often use to hammer your POV. Also, this sentence was based on a similar one found in several encyclopedias. I am therefore NOT inserting my speculative opinion. I am simply repeating what secondary sources say. (See my reply above) --Loremaster 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This "you still don't understand NOR" business is way past getting old. If someone thinks a sentence has too much OR, then rewrite it, or lay out your specific suggestion for improving it on the talk page. Other editors can decide for themselves and support the suggestion or change it. This Wiki lawyering over policy looks like a way to avoid working on the article while preventing anyone else from working on it. There is a saying in Q about entering the Kingdom that sums this up rather nicely. Let's get on with it. Ovadyah 18:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see things like that. Understanding OR is the problem because if I try to rewrite something it gets immediately rewritten with the OR reinserted. That why we need to agree on what OR is before we can make any progress. Describing adherence to policy as wikilawyering is not helpful. --Michael C. Price talk 22:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It is only your POV that this OR has been reinserted. As I explained above, your interpretation was and often is fallacious. --Loremaster 22:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
And as you have explained many times, you still continue to judge content based on primary sources. This is in conflict with the definition of OR, even the bits of policy text have previously chosen to quote. --Michael C. Price talk 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
And how many times do I have to explain to you that my source for this sentences is Tabor's essay and the Jewish Encyclopedia's entry on Ebionites. --Loremaster 22:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Try addressing the generic issue: we should not be judging content based on primaries. yes or no? --Michael C. Price talk 22:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael, it is interpreting primary sources that is OR because an editor is in effect acting as his own secondary source. Simply documenting primary sources without interpretation is permitted. This can be done with an edit summary that references an inline citation or a web link to a citation. Readers can then easily verify for themselves what the exact wording is of the primary sources. Ovadyah 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree it is the interpretation of primaries that is OR (that's what I meant by judging content). I agree that simply documenting primary sources without interpretation is permitted; I have no problem with this.--Michael C. Price talk 00:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of what I may have said, this is exactly what I have done from the beginning: Documenting what primary sources without intepretation. Instances of intepretation of primary sources have been clearly noted as that of secondary sources. If you disagree, show me your evidence to the contrary. --Loremaster 01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Micheal, you are betting a dead horse. Ever since we created the Ebionites/wip page, I have not judged or advocated judging content based on primary sources. --Loremaster 00:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes you have, repeatedly, both judged and advocated judging content based in primaries (not permissable), as well as secondaries (permissable). I'm not the only to have complained about your OR behaviour. --Michael C. Price talk 00:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael, although you are misrepresenting what I have said and done, the past is the past. My question is when I have said and done what you accuse me off since the Ebionites/wip page was created? --Loremaster 00:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not going to be deflected off the core problem here. Do you agree to stop judging content based in part or entirely on primary sources? Yes or no? --Michael C. Price talk 01:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Although you are still mischaracterizing what I have done, yes I agree. That horse has decomposed by now. Can we now move on to you getting to work on the Ebionites/wip page? --Loremaster 01:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not mischaracterising your position. You previously stated "My problem is that I disagree with the inclusion of secondary-source-based multiple points of view which are not supported by any primary sources." Since you have agreed to stop doing this, yes we can make progress, provided that you stick to this promise -- unlike a previous promise which you broke and then either denied you made or stated that you had no intention of keeping if you had made it. --Michael C. Price talk 01:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I know what I said before and I later explained that I was refering to the inclusion of material by fringe researchers or speculative claims presented as facts. Regarless, look at the record, I never made the promise you believe I broke. --Loremaster 01:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Your later "explanation" was not an explanation since you'd earlier said: "I have no problems with your suggestions." which included a point that you specifically ignored when it suited you. Later saying that you meant something entirely different is not a convincing explanation. Quite frankly it is somewhere between dishonesty and delusion. Regardless, the past is the past; but if you break your current promise about not pushing inferences from primary sources, I will take it further, I assure you. --Michael C. Price talk 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Stating that I have no problem with your suggestions and making a promise that I will abide by them is obviously not the same thing otherwise you wouldn't have asked me to clarify. Regardless, I don't care what you say or do, Micheal, since it always backfires on you due to your dishonesty and delusion. --Loremaster 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Well said. I'm adding the Notes and references section to the Ebionites/wip page so that Michael or anyone else interested may work on it by adding inline quotes. --Loremaster 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Using Primary Sources

I think we are close to an agreement on how to use primary sources: documenting them is ok (even better with inline references), while interpreting them is not ok. Just as a test example, let's say I write something in the lead like The Ebionites understood Jesus to be a mere man, born of ordinary human parents. Then I cite Eusebius with a reference and an inline quote that says they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. Would you consider this to be an interpretation of a primary source or documentation of a primary source? Ovadyah 16:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would consider it both an interpretation of and a documentation of a primary source. Therefore, if challenged, a secondary source must be provided as well -- for uncontenious POVs this is not a problem (Tabor, ideally quoting page number and text in-line, in your example). --Michael C. Price talk 17:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Reporting facts and interpreting facts are distinct activities and can be worded so as to be mutually exclusive. You are in effect saying that all summary statements are interpretations, even when they are simply restating the primary source. How about if I reworded the above example to say, According to Eusebius, they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. Would you still consider this to be an interpretation? Ovadyah 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary statements are interpretations and POVish, since we choose what to report and what to stay silent about. This is why WP:NOR is so emphatic about only reporting what the secondary sources say: quoting from primaries makes it too easy to introduce the editor's POV. When Alec gave his pronouncement about all the ancient sources should be regarded as primary sources and only modern sources can be secondary sources, I was half-sceptical. But as the farce here has continued I have come to see the wisdom in his position and as stated at WP:NOR. Adhering to WP:NOR will not mean that there aren't issues of balance and weight to consider, but we certainly won't address these problems until we banish orignal research. So, to finally answer your question about quoting Eusebius, I think that these quotes should appear "in-line" so that they appear only in the reference section, as we (including Alec) agreed was appropriate for the Panarion quotes.--Michael C. Price talk 02:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You are dodging my direct questions with evasive answers. It would be impossible for my second example to be unacceptable. It literally quotes the primary source without a summary, and is therefore literally a report of the facts. By arguing this is still unacceptable, you are admitting to a bias that violates WP:NOR. Thanks for confirming what I already knew. As for my first example, summary statements may be interpretations, but they are not interpretations by definition. When there is ambiguity, the NOR guidelines clearly state that an acceptable remedy is to provide access to the words of the primary source. See the guidelines once again reproduced below. Ovadyah 04:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
From the WP:NORpage: Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The White House's summary of a president's speech is a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.
While secondary sources are preferable, edit summaries of primary sources are acceptable if the actual words of the sources are readily available. Ovadyah 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I was not being evasive, and I'm very disappointed to see you yet again assuming bad faith; I thought you and I'd moved beyond that. I gave what I regarded as a full and complete answer. I can see from your last response that I erred in thinking that you regarded your quote of Eusebius as a summary statement, but given that error I felt that the opening 4 words of my response was a direct answer. I could give a more detailed response about WP:NOR and WP:NPOV having to be read in conjunction with eachother, but, in the present bitchy atmosphere, that seems rather pointless, doesn't it?
The present atmosphere is bitchy only because you made it that way. There is no good will left on this talk page, so it's completely cynical to complain about assumptions of editing in bad faith at this point. Ovadyah 16:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one assuming bad faith. --Michael C. Price talk 16:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Setting aside your low view of my ethics, judgement and behaviour, did you agree with the proposal (that primary quotes appear in the reference section) in my last sentence or not? --Michael C. Price talk 11:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Setting aside my views of your ethics, judgement, and behavior, I agree that references to primary sources should have quotes appearing in the reference section, or they should have a link to a source where the primary quotes are readily apparent. Ovadyah 16:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Good --Michael C. Price talk 16:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing my views regarding the use of primary sources,

  1. Using secondary sources is preferable
  2. Edit summaries of primary sources are acceptable, as long as there is ready access to the words of the primary sources through references with inline quotes or links where the quotes are readily apparent. Ovadyah 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to hear Loremaster's opinion on the use of primary sources before I proceed further. Loremaster, do you accept the position I outlined under summarizing my views? If so, I'm going to move on to a more difficult example. Ovadyah 17:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that I am completely satisfied with the current version of the Ebionites article and have no plans on significantly editing when it is unlocked; I agree with your views on the use of primary sources. --Loremaster 01:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My views on the use of primaries are identical to Alec's as expressed here. So I agree with Ovahdah's second point about inline quotes, but with regards to the first Using secondary sources is preferable, I would express it more strongly; that the ancient primary sources should never be used to make a point about the nature of the Ebionites. For that we must use modern secondary sources. By all means quote and discuss and what the ancient sources say, but only where it supports a POV found in a good modern secondary source. --Michael C. Price talk 09:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael (I can't believe I'm wading into this mess!): I don't understand your reasoning as to why we should never use primary sources - why we must use modern sources. Can you help me understand your thinking on this? Also, for everyone - the references need to point to more than just a person or work, please include page numbers or some other internal cite so they are true references. --DaXiong 08:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Alec can correct me, but the reasoning is twofold:
  • WP:OR stresses that secondary sources are to be preferred in general
  • In the specific case of the Ebionites most (all?) the primary sources (early Christian writers) are unrealiable due to their inherent bias, since they regarded the Ebionites as heretics and were writing/reporting only to condemn them. Better to just report what modern scholarship makes of the primary sources, rather than try to interpret it ourselves. Alec gives a good example of this further down ("According to Fronto"). --Michael C. Price talk 09:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there is general acceptance that the references need to specify page numbers as well.--Michael C. Price talk 09:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael, your prefence is noted, but as I stated before, saying "that the ancient primary sources should never be used to make a point about the nature of the Ebionites" is an obvious contradiction of the NOR guidlines as shown above. Since you are fully aware that your position contradicts the guidlines, and you don't care, it just serves as once more example of how you use wikilawyering to push policies in people's faces when it serves your POV and you ignore policies when it doesn't. Ovadyah 13:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Stop making nasty and incorrect assumptions about what you believe I believe and just address the issues here and we'll get along a lot better - and make more progress. How do Alec's views and mine differ?:
See what I'm getting at-- there's no problem with actually quoting from ancient sources-- but it should be done when the ancient sources themselves are the point of discussion-- not as a stepping stone to prove a point. To prove points about Ebionites, cite modern researchers. If you want to go into detail enough about the ancient ebionites sources, then it's fine to quote extensively from them. If you want to say "Some people consider the ebinionites have to been _____", cite modern researchers.
--Michael C. Price talk 14:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Alec's opinion is just that an opinion. --Loremaster 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Alec is simply paraphasing the NOR policy. When he speaks of using primary sources as a stepping stone, I assume he means using them to make an inference. Again parapharsing, he states this should only be done with secondary sources (modern researchers). When he talks about using primary sources "when the ancient sources themselves are the point of discussion", that is no different than using them to literally report what the source says. You are contending that primary sources should never be used, and I don't think that is what Alec is saying. In any case, while I greatly value Alec's opinions, they don't supercede Wiki policies, so the final word is to be found there. Ovadyah 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOR and Alec's statement are entirely consonant.--Michael C. Price talk 17:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
My point is that you should rely on WP:NOR rather than Alec's opinion when making your case regardless of the fact that they are consonant.--Loremaster
Since everything Alec said was implied by WP:NOR it's not really a case of either or. --Michael C. Price talk 17:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I still think it's more approrpriate to cite WP:NOR rather than Alec. However, since you have cited the former more than enough. This is a moot point. --Loremaster 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My own two cents

My ears were burning, so let me throw in my two cents reply to the initial question. Before I do, let me commend everyone for talking this out-- NOR is a very difficult policy to wrap your brain around. Questions abound about "What is a primary source? what is a reliable source? etc". So, I give claps all round for asking these sorts of hypothetical questions.

Here is what Ovadyah originally asked

"let's say I write something in the lead like The Ebionites understood Jesus to be a mere man, born of ordinary human parents. Then I cite Eusebius with a reference and an inline quote that says they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. Would you consider this to be an interpretation of a primary source or documentation of a primary source? Ovadyah 16:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)"

The first thing I want to note is this isn't a particularly useful test case, because I think it's uncontroversial that the Ebionites did believe Jesus was an ordinary man. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that being non-controversial.) Instead, let me off a different example where a primary source say something controversial about a group he disagrees with. (I just happened to come across this today, so it's the first thing that jumped to my mind-- it's a case of an an ancient, biased source who says something which today no scholar seriously believes.)

Fronto, an ancient source, accused christians of performing infanticide and cannibalism as an initiation ritual, saying:

"An infant covered with flour, in order to deceive the unwary, is placed before the one who is to be initiated into their rites. The novice, encouraged by the surface of flour to strike without harm, kills the infant with unseen and hidden wounds. The infant's blood - oh horrible! - they lap up thirstily; its limbs they parcel out eagerly."

Suppose I want to quote this in the article "Early Christianity" by saying : "According to Fronto, an infant covered with flour, in order to..." Is that okay? Is it violating NOR or NPOV for me to say it like that?

Well, yes and no. If we're in a section that talks about the myths that surrounded the early christians and led to their persecution, then it's entirely appropriate for me to quote it. If, however, we're in a section that talks about early christian sacraments, and I want to include this quote, that's probably not okay, unless I have some modern source that says people take Fronto's claims seriously.

So, you get the idea. Even quoting an ancient primary source like Fronto, in some contexts, could be original research (or non-neutral POV perhaps). I'm much better off sticking to summarizing the modern secondary sources, who can weight Fronto's reliability for me and decide whether his claim has merit.

I've tried to come up with a good rule of thumb for this sort of thing that might be helpful to ya'll. Here's what I worked out:

"If an ancient source makes a claim which no modern scholar believes, then we probably shouldn't quote it in order to explain to the reader what the Ebionites were like. On the other hand, if an ancient source makes a claim which some modern scholars do believe, then we probably should just quote the modern scholars anyway."

What do ya think? I like it. The exception to it is that there comes a point where we may want to talk about what ANCIENT PEOPLE said about the Ebionites-- just as we might want to talk about what myths were spread about the ancient christians. But that's a tricky business, and we should be clear to distinguish "talking about the ebionites" from "talking about the ancient sources on the ebionites"

Hope that helps out some! :) --Alecmconroy 16:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It helps, thanks! That's what I thought you meant originally.--Michael C. Price talk 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

February proposal and a hypothesis test

I propose that Loremaster and I cease all editorial activities for the month of February, including posting comments to this talk page, to test a hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that Michael's only purpose for editing the article and commenting on the talk page is to subvert the efforts of other editors. Therefore, with Loremaster and I away from the article, I would expect no meaningful editing to take place. The alternate hypothesis is that Michael is editing the article with the genuine intention of improving it. Therefore, I would expect to see a measurable contribution toward improving the article in a month's time. After one month, the other editors can decide, perhaps with Alec's input, whether any significant effort has gone into improving the article. If the article has been improved, the null hypothesis is rejected, and I will humbly apologize to Michael for doubting his intentions. If there has been no meaningful progress toward improving the article, that will constitute a failure to reject the null hypothesis, and it will be a confirmation of Michael's bad-faith editing and flaming the talk page with the intention of undermining the article. At that point, the other editors may seek a remedy to prevent further vandalism to the article. Loremaster, is this proposal acceptable? Ovadyah 14:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. The Ebionites/wip page exists primary for his contributions. :) --Loremaster 15:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I accept. --Michael C. Price talk 14:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, except that no one asked you. If Loremaster accepts my proposal, feel free to request that the article be unlocked. Since you will be the only editor left standing, there is no reason to keep it protected. Ovadyah 14:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I know no-one asked, but I thought you might like to know that I approve of you being prepared to test your ongoing assumption of my bad faith. --Michael C. Price talk 14:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you, Loremaster. The challenge is made, and I will be awaiting an update of Michael's progress on March 1. See you then. :) Ovadyah 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I should unlock the article if this is an agreement among you all. Metamagician3000 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. I'll try semi-protect and see what happens. Metamagician3000 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll start work in a few days. --Michael C. Price talk 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Meta. --Loremaster 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Loremaster, I notice you are editting the article; do you agree to Ovadyah's proposal? Yes or no? --Michael C. Price talk 06:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Relax, Michael. I was only correcting a typo I made before the article was locked. --Loremaster 06:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that, nevertheless I would like to see the ground rules here made explicit. So, is that a yes or no? Is there an agreement amongst us all, or shall I request Meta to reapply full protection? --Michael C. Price talk 07:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes we have an agreement. As long as it is understood that you are only improving and/or expanding the sections you previously stated you wanted to work on, and/or adding inline quotes in the Notes and References section. --Loremaster 07:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That was an agreement that you now deny buying into. --Michael C. Price talk 07:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As I later clarified, that was the only part I agreed with. --Loremaster 08:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I guess I need to make things clearer. My only agreement is with Loremaster. We are taking a break from editing for the month of February. This means no editing the article and no comments on the talk page until March 1. Any pre-existing arrangements between Michael and Loremaster over who can edit what is strictly their business. However, nothing can reject the null hypothesis but productive editing. This means no excuses to avoid activity are acceptable, such as an inability to agree to who does what, or disagreements over the nuances of Wiki policy, or the shape of the conference table, or the alignment of the planets. In other words, no lame excuses. Time is a wasting. Make good use of it. Ovadyah 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, clarity is needed. I don't see that Loremaster has committed himself to any agreement that means anything with either of us. (The yes or no answer required was not forthcoming.) Yes, I shall start editting within a week, but if they are immediately overwritten by Loremaster (which I expect, based on L's past form) then we are right back where we started. I'm puzzled by your statement: This means no excuses to avoid activity are acceptable, such as an inability to agree to who does what. Your proposal was that I work without any interference over February from you or Loremaster, was it not? --Michael C. Price talk 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was my proposal. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Ovadyah 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Your delusions are getting quite tiresome. Read my 07:22, 30 January 2007 comment above. --Loremaster 19:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
And see my response. No, in fact don't bother, it's quite simple: do you agree with Ovadyah's proposal "I propose that Loremaster and I cease all editorial activities for the month of February, including posting comments to this talk page, to test a hypothesis."? No ifs or buts, just yes or no. --Michael C. Price talk 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I have already given you my answer (which quite clear to everyone but you, I am not going to repeat myself, Michael. --Loremaster 19:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Suit yourself. No deal then. --Michael C. Price talk 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine. I am satisfied with the article as it currently is. Ovadyah, can you work on adding inline quotes and standardizing the Notes and References according to Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines? --Loremaster 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh! I apparently have an agreement with no one. Ok. I am taking a break from the article for the month of February. Ovadyah 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ovadyah, you have an agreement with me, but it takes three to tango here. Now perhaps you realise how obdurate and just plain stupid Loremaster can be? Loremaster, how can Ovadyah edit the article when his proposal was that he (and you) NOT edit the article??? For February. --Michael C. Price talk 00:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Michael. I am realizing things more clearly. I was hoping to take a step back during my vacation and try to better understand what's going on here. It seems to me there is a complex form of vandalism going on between two editors; the kind that only two extremely bright and capable editors could pull off. Neither person recognizes their actions as inappropriate because vandalizing the article per se is not the motivation. It's more like a war of wills between two intellectual heavyweights. It's quite fascinating really, if you try to take the perspective of an outside observer. I have never experienced anything like this before on Wikipedia. Ovadyah 02:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow... This nonsense is actually making me miss our disputes with NazireneMystic. Since I speficically stated that I agree with the proposal made by both Ovadyah and Micheal (see my 07:22, 30 January 2007 comment above). There is nothing that can be done to satisfy someone who is obviously resorting to excuses to avoid working on the article. --Loremaster 15:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/b/i/Talk%7EEbionites_Archive_3_eae2.html"