Talk:Ebionites/wip
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Ebionites work in progress talk page
[edit] Phase 1
Loremaster, I suggest you and I (and I hope CS) work here (rather than the original talk page) to sort out the rules and structure of the wip, along with minor details.
As you may have noticed I do not tend to jump headfirst into things without having some structure defined first. Time taken to sort out the metadetails now will save time later. So, I think we need to agree some rules. I suggest
- we define the POV sections and allocate editors.
- editors agree only to work on the allocated POV sections.
- the lead and introduction get written last, and only contains statements that we all agree on.
If you agree these rules then we can start to sort out what POV sections there should be. --Michael C. Price talk 19:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have no problems with your suggestions. Do you find the current structure and content of the Ebionites/wip page a good foundation to work on? --Loremaster 19:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll interpret "no problems" as "I agree"? The overall structure and content looks good, although I'd like to get CS's (and Ovadyah's) input as well before investing a lot of effort. I have a few concerns with the John/Jesus/James demarcation, but they maybe minor. Perhaps John => Essene, and may be merge the James seciton into it? Should there be a Gnostic section? Also I must finish reading Eisenman on James, which will take awhile.
- I assume you wish to be one of the (probably the only) "Jesus" editors? My interest is in the John /James sections. --Michael C. Price talk 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your interpretation would be fallacious. I have "no problems" doesn't mean "I agree". That being said, I do agree with rules 1 and 2 but I don't agree with 3 since I am satisfied with the current version of the Lead. --Loremaster 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I've changed the structure according to some of your suggestions but I don't think fusing the John section and the James section into the Qumran Essene section is a good idea. --Loremaster 03:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll think about it. Are there any sources that emphasize just James or John but not both? -- first I'll finish Eisenman, though. I've asked CS to look in. Catch up with everything in a week or so. (BTW finished Tabor's "Jesus Dynasty" whilst we were blocked; I recommend it; whether or not you agree with its thesis it draws on some very interesting material e.g. the Didache.) --Michael C. Price talk 08:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Does Eisenman emphasize both James and John in his book about James? I think it is significant that patristic sources mention John but not James when discussing the Ebionites. Regardless, you can start working on the sections you prefer. I'll edit if necessary. --Loremaster 09:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Let you know for sure when I've finished Eisenman. But my guess is that anyone who subscribes to the "Ebionites as Essenes" POV is going to focus more on John than the NT does, simply because John has so many Essene-like features. --Michael C. Price talk 14:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. However, I think the John section should focus on how he is portrayed in the Gospel of the Ebionites and then include scholarly speculation. Same goes for James. --Loremaster 18:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am inclining more to the "Ebionites as Essenes" as a single subsection since Rabinowitz, Tabor, Eisenman, Larson et al all seems to agree on this basic approach. --Michael C. Price talk 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good. --Loremaster 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good, I'm glad we can agree on this. As I said earlier I'll be taking a break to read and throughly digest Eisenman before I start to fill out the Essene section. --Michael C. Price talk 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wait... When you talked of a single Ebionites as Essenes subsection, did you mean that there would be no John section nor James section? I think this would be a mistake since a case could be made that Ebionites were Essenes even if John and James were not Essene themselves (in the same way some Ebionites could have embraced gnosticism despite the fact that neither John, Jesus or James were Gnostics). Ultimately, it doesn't matter if some information in the Qumranism and Essenism section can also be found in the John section or the James section. --Loremaster 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Let me write the Essene section first and then we'll see if we need a separate section for John and James each. As I said I think everyone who buys into the Essene POV accepts that John (for example) fits into this quite naturally. --Michael C. Price talk 22:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't dispute that. However, my point is that if the Ebionites as Essenes hypothesis is ever refuted, we should be able to, in theory, delete that sub-section and still have information about Ebionite views of John and James in the article. --Loremaster 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure, because that would require a major rewrite of those sections as well. Anyway, I must take a break. --Michael C. Price talk 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. We would just delete the speculative claims about John and James, and stick to the few facts that there are. ;) --Loremaster 01:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure, because that would require a major rewrite of those sections as well. Anyway, I must take a break. --Michael C. Price talk 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't dispute that. However, my point is that if the Ebionites as Essenes hypothesis is ever refuted, we should be able to, in theory, delete that sub-section and still have information about Ebionite views of John and James in the article. --Loremaster 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Let me write the Essene section first and then we'll see if we need a separate section for John and James each. As I said I think everyone who buys into the Essene POV accepts that John (for example) fits into this quite naturally. --Michael C. Price talk 22:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wait... When you talked of a single Ebionites as Essenes subsection, did you mean that there would be no John section nor James section? I think this would be a mistake since a case could be made that Ebionites were Essenes even if John and James were not Essene themselves (in the same way some Ebionites could have embraced gnosticism despite the fact that neither John, Jesus or James were Gnostics). Ultimately, it doesn't matter if some information in the Qumranism and Essenism section can also be found in the John section or the James section. --Loremaster 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good, I'm glad we can agree on this. As I said earlier I'll be taking a break to read and throughly digest Eisenman before I start to fill out the Essene section. --Michael C. Price talk 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good. --Loremaster 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am inclining more to the "Ebionites as Essenes" as a single subsection since Rabinowitz, Tabor, Eisenman, Larson et al all seems to agree on this basic approach. --Michael C. Price talk 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. However, I think the John section should focus on how he is portrayed in the Gospel of the Ebionites and then include scholarly speculation. Same goes for James. --Loremaster 18:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Let you know for sure when I've finished Eisenman. But my guess is that anyone who subscribes to the "Ebionites as Essenes" POV is going to focus more on John than the NT does, simply because John has so many Essene-like features. --Michael C. Price talk 14:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Does Eisenman emphasize both James and John in his book about James? I think it is significant that patristic sources mention John but not James when discussing the Ebionites. Regardless, you can start working on the sections you prefer. I'll edit if necessary. --Loremaster 09:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll think about it. Are there any sources that emphasize just James or John but not both? -- first I'll finish Eisenman, though. I've asked CS to look in. Catch up with everything in a week or so. (BTW finished Tabor's "Jesus Dynasty" whilst we were blocked; I recommend it; whether or not you agree with its thesis it draws on some very interesting material e.g. the Didache.) --Michael C. Price talk 08:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed the structure according to some of your suggestions but I don't think fusing the John section and the James section into the Qumran Essene section is a good idea. --Loremaster 03:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Phase 2
I'm pretty much done with my draft. If everyone is comfortable with the structure and current content, the only things left to do are 1) expanding the Views and practices section, 2) adding inline quotes, and 3) standardizing the references. --Loremaster 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Phase 3
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 10:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed that you have removed the protection before seeking a consensus on the issue.--Michael C. Price talk 11:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, 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 this talk page, I reasonably feel that seeking a consensus is almost impossible. --Loremaster 11:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added 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 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
