Talk:Ebionites/Archive 5

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

Stop deleting post from this page without talking about the issues.

With the two recent reverts is wouls seem someone has something to hide.

No. It is perfectly acceptable to delete pure propaganda and hate speech, NazireneMystic. However, it does raise a concern about the illegal phishing of private email communications. Ovadyah 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If it were acceptable to delete pure propaganda then most of the Ebionite artical would be deleted! The very post you deleted exposed someones pure propaganda . I see now you call truth, " hate speech". If my post were hate speech according to you then you give hate speech a good name.

I think I can post Emails sent to me anywere I would like. Is there something in that Email that bothered you? lets discuss it like this page is for since it says a lot about a editor that has done a lot push his pure propaganda.

No. I mean that you seem to have intercepted a private email that I sent to Shemayah Phillips, informing him that the Ebionites article would be featured on the Wiki main page. It was just a courtesy, and nothing more than that. :0) Ovadyah 03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As you well know noone can post to his fourm accept for the moderator and then he puts it across the group. He was replying to a member of his group which is you?

I wouldn't know about that, since I am not on the EJC mailing list. Are you, NazireneMystic? Ovadyah 03:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to be as innocent as doves but wise as serpents to get at the truth of things.

OvadyahI have emails going back to 03 of you posting in that group. this was before your leader desided to not let people post directly to the group and ended any meaningful discussions. Shall I post them? "nazirenemystic"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.93.27 (talk)

Remember to play nice, everybody. Kevin 05:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, Your words are a few years late. someone involved in this artical has not "played nice" from the start.

Sources

It's somewhat concerning that all of the references for the "Ebionites were the authentic Christians and Paul was the heretic" works are modern; and all the "Ebionites were the heretics" references are ancient. This could give rise to the view that scholars once considered the Ebionites to be heretics, but are now universally of the view that they were authentic Christians. Yet there are plenty of modern-day theologians/church historians who consider that the Ebionites were heretics. Could we maybe "culture-jam" this 'narrative' by mentioning one of them? Slac speak up! 03:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You can find plenty of references to the Ebionites as heretics on the Catholic encyclopedia. However, they seem to be mostly religious POV rather than scholarly findings by verifiable secondary sources. Ovadyah 03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
But it's simply not true to say that the idea that Ebionites were the original Christians is a modern scholarly consensus. The POV of scholars not subscribing to this view is not represented. Slac speak up! 00:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The lead talks about the view of *some* scholars not a scholarly consensus. --Loremaster 01:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course it does. But this article isn't "the views of certain modern scholars and certain Church fathers concerning Ebionites". To be featured-quality, it has to cite modern scholars - they do exist - who disagree with this view. Slac speak up! 01:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rival Ebionite groups?

Since Wikipedia has one group mentioned in the text of the artical but claims there are others claiming to be ebionites why are they not memtioned? Is the notibility bar held at 14 members like the featured group? If in reality there are suce groups why are they not mentioned? Has an editor with strong ties to the featured group played a role in reverting post exposing this fact? has he played an active role in voting to delete articals or other Ebionite groups?

I have seen the deletion log of one such group were this editor has done such things. If this is so then the fact these other groups do not have an wikipedia artical and the one with Ovinyah's backing does have one this is not grounds to not mention the other groups? Will level headed people that can search the net realise this present wikipedia topic is biased?

Did this same editor play a role in how the artical seems to not even give the Essene,jewish mystism. a fighting chance?

Wasnt the most abundant fragments among the dead sea scrolls "Enoch" and "Juliblies" and who ever collected or wrote the scrolls actualy called themselfs the "Poor" in hebrew text which is actualy the word "Ebionite"? If people with a mystic belief that read or wrote text of thier own , calling themsleves Ebionites and the dating of such scrolls is no later then 70 A.D. and there are scholars that can back this up why is this artical promoting what it is? Are there maybe only one or two strongly biased editors the cause of this?

Improve the article by adding a map

I think the main article could be improved if someone added a map to it, with an arrow indicating where the Ebionites were most often found.198.177.27.33 04:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, thank you. There is a Wiki map of Arabia with some of the cities that Jews with Ebionite practices were said to have lived in. This could be added or linked to the article. Ovadyah 05:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I brought back this map discussion from the archive. It needs to be addressed. Why did you delete the map I added? Ovadyah 14:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of this thread when I deleted the map because I think it was inappropriate in light of the fact that the notion that there were Ebionites communities in Hejaz is highly speculative. We should find a map that focuses on the spread of early Christianity. If one cannot be found, we should focus on finding any image that best represents early Jewish Christianity. --Loremaster 14:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
A map would be a good idea. Epiphanius gives a list of where the Ebionites were present. It includes areas around the Dead Sea and Rome. --Michael C. Price talk 15:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Loremaster, the eye-witness testimony accumulated by the travelers mentioned in the article is less speculative than the polemics of the Church Fathers, which is largely based on second-hand testimony and tradition. The region of Hejaz includes the villages of Tayma and Tilmas described by Benjamin of Tudela as well as the locations described by Shahrastani. Many readers couldn't put their finger on Arabia on a map, let alone a specific region of Arabia. I think the map suggestion is a good idea. Ovadyah 16:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Map showing the region of Hejaz outlined in red
Map showing the region of Hejaz outlined in red

The map we are discussing. Ovadyah 16:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has a nice map of the region around Pella, including Bashan and Batanaea mentioned by Epiphanius. I don't know about free use of it. [1]

This review has much information about the history of the Ebionites and Nazarenes. [2] It mentions "the existence of Ebionite settlements on Cyprus about the year 375". Also, lot's of references, some of which I haven't seen before. Ovadyah 16:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ovadyah, I like [3] - that's an excellent map and text. --Michael C. Price talk 20:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Where there's a Part I there's usually a Part II, on Ebionite and Nazarene theology with references. [4] Ovadyah 16:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. You can add the map back. --Loremaster 17:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. Ovadyah 18:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Scholar Jans-Hoachim Schoeps

I see he has not yet been turned into a dead link but his only online source what can be easly checked without having to rely on one editor seems to point to another position and interesting enough he seems to have his position supported but the later publishing on the Dead Sea Scrolls.


His work is hard to find without being able to access research papers but here is evidence directly contrary to the POV of the editors regarding the source of the Clementine writings

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28195203%2971%3A1%3C58%3AAFZRU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N&size=LARGE


The only mention of Schopes's opinion in the article is in the form of a narrative that seems to counteract the little that can be found in the public domain.

Decimation?

Is this a precise description - ie that one in ten were killed, or is meant by this description that "a lot" or "most" were killed? docboat 07:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Modern usage, that a lot or most were killed. Ovadyah 12:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
To me, "decimation" still means that around 1 in 10 were killed. The modern usage to which you refer is by no means universal. I hesitate to edit a Featured Article, particularly one on a subject that some people hold very strong opinions about, but could I suggest you consider whether there might be an alternative word that doesn't have such a specific and unintended meaning? --Dominic Sayers 14:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I substituted "eliminated" for "decimated" in the text. However, most people would no longer recognize the word by its precise meaning, unless you were a Latin scholar or a Roman citizen. :0) Ovadyah 14:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks - it is a small issue, but for me (and others) it is important to be precise in the use of language. docboat 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Translation issue

From Talk:Main Page Nil Einne 07:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WRT: Ebionites featured article, what Bible translation was used for this? "Congratulations to the poor?" What a distortion of "Blessed are the poor"

Try asking on Talk:Ebionites, that'd be the better place to ask about the article.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Changing it on that page wouldn't fix the Main Page, afaik. But seriously, if it's going to be billed as a "best known quotation", it ought to be taken from a mainstream translation rather than the current odd (and frankly childish-sounding) rendering. I suggest that a better translation would be something like the NIV, KJV, NASB, or NRSV. The current one is awful - and not used in the Beatitudes article, I might add. The reference is Luke 6:20, available in numerous translations in the link. Vonspringer 03:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You should understand not only were Ebionite's not christian they only used a Gospel that is now lost to history apart from quotes from it that can be found in some early christian writings. It would be troubling for a Christian to stumble on but not only is it lost it was regarded by a chain of church fathers ending with Jerome as the origional Gospel. Jerome stated in his ealry days it was handed down from Mathew but after Constantine sealed the canon Jerome changed his story.

There is little reason to quote from a modern day translation as the codex its translated from didnt even exist till the 1500's at which time a number of codexs were used that did not agree with each other.

I agree with Vonspringer, and find the unsigned answer entirely beside the point. We know nothing of what Jesus said apart from what is in the New Testament, so to refer to his best-known statements means to refer to the best-known Bible-verses (best-known to US), which makes it absurd to cite them in an unfamiliar form. Even if "congratulations" were a good translation of the adjective makarioi (happy), which I doubt. --Doric Loon 10:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The traditional version is more elegant, but also has the problem of OR. The original version in the article had a verifiable secondary source. Ovadyah 12:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What was the reason for the push for FA status? Ovadyah has an lot of explaining to do along with a few other editors!

Below is an message from the group Phillips runs. Remember Ovadyah has actualy voted on other ebionite groups articals of deleteion and has ran countless people off the artical like a bulldog snaping at anyone that adds anything that goes aganist his leaders teaching. Calling almost all changed not approved by him "vandalous POV". Is this the making of a featured artical? I would say that a pretty low standard.

To revert this artical back to a billboard for his group the opinions of some scholars had to be snuffed entirely and then thier dead links dropped while others misrepresented. All to please this editor that we are suspsed to assume good faith in?

The assumptions of the wikipedians have been abused.


--- In evyonim@yahoogroups.com, Shemayah Phillips <spgehr@...> wrote:

Ovadyah wrote: > Shalom Shemayah, > > Just thought you would like to know. Fewer than 1/1000 articles make it > to Featured Article. FA status should make it easier to fend off > malicious mischief from our moonbeam friends in the future. > > The EJC stub is now well referenced. The source of specific content may > be challenged, but now it's highly unlikely that the entire article can > be deleted. The EJC is here to stay! > > Both the Ebionites and EJC articles are now listed under the Project > Judaism template. > > My next project is to work on improving an article on the Desposyni. > Currently, the article has a very conservative Catholic bias. The major > secondary source is Malachi Martin. > > Take care, > > Ovadyah >


And so the need for non-profit is clear to me. Shemayah

--- End forwarded message ---

Kind regards, NazireneMystic

So now truth" is being defined as "malicious mischief"?

Please refrain from posting private email correspondence in public places. I find it hard to believe that this email was reposted to the EJC list, which is supposedly a controlled list. That would mean it was more likely phished with some kind of redirect. Ovadyah 12:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess any wikipedian that would be interested in understanding your past actions regarding this artical need only join to find someone has been misleading them for a few years? What would that say about POV in this FA since this editor has been active in running off most people that tried to contribute to it?

Would the section on rival Modern groups look different if this agent did not take his POV with him to one groups deletion hearing? Did anyone from the deleted group try such tactics?

How has the POV efforts of this editor effected search ranking of his group since he has been able to use wikipedia as a billboard for his 14 member group while dening notibility of a group with around 400 members?

having an artical for the one and not for the other is like as if the wikipedian article for "earth" stated that it was indeed flat.

At this point would it not seem FA status would mean Frudulant Article status? Should mirrored sites that reflect wikipedia's ebionite artical be allowed as evidence of notibily of this agents group when such tactics have been used to gaurd his pet project?


Anyone interested in me sending them the deletion log from the group in question just ask for it on nazirenemystic"s talk page. Then you will see not only was this editor involved in the prosses but the RFC also voted and you can see from my talk page he indeed joined the Ebionite.com group and at a time when it tipicaly membered around 400 people but in his vote he claimed there were only 1 or 2 menbers. Not that anyone interested will be able to change anything but at least you will see how well connected Wikipedians operate to use Wikipedia as a advertisment. nazirenemystic

Why is wikipedia afraid to say the obvious, that they may not have been even existed?

I read on the front page, "there's no evidence, i.e. their nature can't be..". Shouldn't it read "their nature or even if they even existed"? --Leladax 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the terminology used is clearer then what you propose. The current wording makes it clear that there is no definite archaelogical evidence so we don't know if they existed and if they did what they were like and whether any of the history we have is true Nil Einne 13:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

By this standard we should have to say Jesus never existed.

There are too many historical references to concluded the Ebionites never existed.

Eusebius certainly had an ideological ax to grind, but I am not inclined to believe him a fabricator.

He certainly considered the Ebionites to have existed, and been existing.

Actually Jesus says exactly that, that some scholars believe he didn't exist and points to the Historicity of Jesus article (although I stick with my point above, it is not necessary to modify the wording, it's perfectly clear as is) Nil Einne 19:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Luke 6.20

Thankfully, the awful "congratulations" translation (aka "the Scholars' [sic] Version") has been replaced with the better known version. But that's by the by - why is this particular quote in the first section? Is it claimed to relate directly to Ebionites, or to be a pillar of their lifestyle? If the former, how can this be proven when other writers have claimed that it refers to Essenes, or more likely, simply poor people.--MacRusgail 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The connection was made by Tabor and Eisenman, among others. After much discussion on the talk page, now archived, the prevailing decision among the editors was that the views of multiple notable and verifiable secondary sources should be presented in the article. Ovadyah 13:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul v James v Historical Jesus

I think it is questionable to assert as fact that Paul of Tarsus introduced a brand of Christianity that rivaled James'. Further, I don't know that it is accurate to assert that Jame's brand of Christianity (whatever it was) is closer to the Historical Jesus' idea of what Jesus intended. Jesus lived as a Jew and for the most part observed the customs required of him. However, he certainly broke with many customs and pushed the limits on many issues. For which reason, any trajectory of his intent cannot be content to rest in a simple and straight forward observance of Jewish law and custom, he was clearly strecthing the boundaries. Thus, it makes sense that his followers would keep pushing boundaries.

Also, there were certainly many more communities out there in the early decades of Christianity, for whom Paul's actions would not have been decisive. The Paul v James dynamic grossly overstates the dynamic at the time. If Paul was immensely succesful and influential, it was because his teaching resonated with the spirit of the wider Christian community. In addition, Paul's letters and writings, I think should be seen as a reflection of his influence and not the cause. If we think of it that way and consider that that was not the CNN age of speedy information distribution, Paul simply could not have been that influential in a movement that was so widespread so quickly, if there were not at least multiple seeds of ideas out there that resonated with his.

Onoekeh 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As to your first point, that may be so. However, it is a viewpoint being articulated by a number of scholars that have studied the Ebionites. It's not sufficient for an editor to say that the views of multiple verifiable sources are unlikely or untrue. Your second point may also be possible, but it is an argument from silence. Ovadyah 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary Sources

We need to make access to the primary sources in Wikisource clearer than just a passing reference in the lead. I'm going to create a section below References for now. Ovadyah 18:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Noahide?

Um, according to Acts, James never forged any compromise concerning the Noahide Laws... Acts 15:19-20 says: "It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood" (NAB). The Noahide Law, at least according to its article, is a set of six rules that encompasses some but not all (e.g., "the meat of strangled animals") of the provisions in Acts, and has quite a few besides (e.g., the requirement to set up a government). This has to be changed. Korossyl 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. The Noahide Laws are only superficially similar to Acts 15. I have changed the text to reflect this. In fact, the pseudo-Clementines have a set of laws much closer to the Noahides, but that is not relevant to this part of the article. The ps-Cl make it clearer that "the meat of strangled animals" is "meat of animals strangled by wild beasts", i.e. don't eat the roadkill. On second thought, Acts 15 could also refer in this context to meat from animals that are improperly slaughtered and still contain blood. Ovadyah 21:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! ...pseudo-clementines, huh? That's like a... pseudo-pseudo-orange. Korossyl 22:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You could say that! For more info, see my detailed commentary on the Noahide Laws talk page regarding the similarities and differences to the ps-Cl. Ovadyah 22:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Clementine text potray Peter as eating only walunts,bread and veggies. While teaching Clement and traveling with him Peter would not eat with Clememnt till he Converted. To say the Ebionites followed Noahide laws is like spitting in thier face. While on the other hand people like Clement and thoes that drank strong drink or ate flesh were still learning and not rejected but they were by no means converted or a core group of Ebionites.

The current version of the Ebionites article doesn't claim that Ebionites followed Noahide Laws. However, it was James Tabor who argued in his essay Nazarenes and Ebionites - An Introduction that the Ebionites accepted "non-Jews into their fellowship on the basis of some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15 and 21)" and had a "disdain for eating meat and even the Temple slaughter of animals, preferring the ideals of the pre-Flood diet and what they took to be the original ideal of worship (see Gen 9:1-5; Jer 7:21-22; Isa 11:9; 66:1-4). A general interest in seeking the Path reflected in the pre-Sinai revelation, especially the time from Enoch to Noah." --Loremaster 15:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I made some changes regarding NPOV which were reversed by someone:

-Changed "brother" to "relative" with regards to James the Just, since many Christians (notably Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) believe that Mary was ever-virgin, and translate the Greek word to mean "relative." Thus, "relative" is more religiously neutral.

-"Despite possibly being more faithful to the teachings of Jesus." This is obvious bias in favor of the Ebionites. There was also a bias against the Ebionites, don't remember what it was, which I fixed and which was reversed.

I put up the NPOV template on the page. This article is very unprofessional. -RedBlade7 16:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Redblade, I reverted your edits. Allow me to explain why. While it is common in Christian circles to refer to Jesus' brothers as "relatives", the scholars that have actually studied the Ebionites do not; they refer to James and the other brothers explicitly as brothers. The editors are simply reporting what the secondary sources are saying. The translation of the Greek word as "relative" (I assume you mean in the gospels) is an interpretation of primary sources, and we are not allowed to do that as editors. However, please feel free to contribute content from additional verifiable secondary sources that support your POV.
The phrasing "Despite possibly being more faithful to the teachings of Jesus" is almost a direct quote from a noted scholar in the field. While this may seem biased, again, the editors are simply reporting what the verifiable sources are saying. Hope this helps. Ovadyah 16:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Brothers are one type of relative, how is that POV? Also, if "despite..." is a direct quote, it should be written as "despite, according to (the name of the scholar), possibly being more faithful..." -RedBlade7 16:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
After further reflection, I'm ok with changing brothers to relatives. It is more NPOV, although less accurate in terms of content. The direct quote "despite being more faithful to the teachings of Jesus" was from Hyam Maccoby. I will attempt to clarify the statement by adding the author's name. Ovadyah 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Since there are other scholars besides Hyam Maccoby who share the same view, it's better to say to mention them as a group rather than single him out. --Loremaster 01:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If the sources say "brother" so should the article. Atropos 23:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "brother" is more appropriate in light of sources. --Loremaster 01:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I changed "relative" back to "brother" because I thought we had reached a consensus based on this discussion. Ovadyah 14:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
So, are we good with changing this back or are we succumbing to Catholic dogmatism? Ovadyah 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, I favor the use of the term "brother" rather than "relative" when dealing with James. --Loremaster 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Redblade has a point but that the word "brother" is acceptable when referring to those four men who are called brothers of Jesus in the Gospels ... but only when they are clearly referred to, not in the case of Simon of Jerusalem. "Relatives" however is also NPOV.
I think many POV problems of this article stem (or stemmed, some of this is fixed right now) from a lack of proper attribution of views, which makes them look like factual assertions.
Since this article is on the Ebionite the Ebionite (or related) POVs of course are prominent but nonetheless this article has to adhere to NPOV too. So, "the scholars that have actually studied the Ebionites do not; they refer to James and the other brothers explicitly as brothers." will not do. The wording must either be attributed (which is not feasily everywhere) or sufficently neutral.
Ovadyah, you may consider not throwing around insulting epithets. I could just as well say that ... but I will tame my tongue right now. Str1977 (smile back) 17:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You are right and I apologize. Actually, you are doing us a big favor by presenting a more Orthodox view. We tried repeatedly during Peer review and the reviews for GAC and FAC to bring in editors with diverse points of view, including Orthodox and Kabbalist Jews, a Protestant minister, and Roman and Eastern Orthodox Catholics. The minister was the only one who contributed. So, we had to try our best by proxy to represent these other views in the article. It's a difficult task and one that, imho, should be driven by verifiable sources anyway, rather than the opinions (and biases) of the editors. Ovadyah 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
That's allright. Thanks for your positive reactions. We might disagree but that's no reason not to both contribute to make an article better. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 06:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Cheers indeed. --Loremaster 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

CE

What on earth is the matter with all of you? CE is not controversial. It could be Common Era or Christian Era. Readers can take their pick. What is really stupid (and unencyclopedic) is to write things like 212. 212 what?? I don't know who is introducing these picayune matters, but surely there are better things to fight about.--Gilabrand 06:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the Manual of Style on this. Generally, AD/CE are not needed, unless the event spans the year 0. Clearly a Christian sect is in the Christian Era. What's not acceptible is changing back and forth between CE and AD. The article needs to be reverted to whichever one was in use when the article originally, or at least when it became featured.--Cúchullain t/c 08:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The article used CE. After pointing this out at least five times on the day it was featured, I finally gave up in frustration on reverting AD. Thanks for fixing it. Ovadyah 14:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --Loremaster 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Similarly, I changed AD back to CE because I thought we had reached a consensus to go back to the original. Ovadyah 14:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Same thing here. Are we changing this back or going with Chalcedonian Catholic POV? Ovadyah 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, I favor the use of the term "CE" rather than "AD". --Loremaster 16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The original pick should prevail. Since we are dealing with dates around the turn of the eras we need to specify (just as we wouldn't need to in an article on the First World War).
Contentwise, there is no reason to opt for this or that style.
Editwarring on this issue is nonsensical and against WP policy.
Still, maybe some editors should not trow around accusations of POV ... MoS clearly states that either style is NPOV. Str1977 (smile back) 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
My accusations of POV in this case were against the many drive-by editors that reverted CE, despite careful explanations for why that option was chosen. When people are blind to reason, I tend to assume their emotions have taken over. Ovadyah 22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Str1977 (smile back) 06:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy?

Shemayah Phillips, shemayah@ebionite.org--207.144.255.252 19:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC) here. I am being contacted by a person who claims to be something with Wikipedia is some official capacity, demanding to join my list (open only to a governing group -now-) in order to investigate us and read through all of our messages on behalf of "NazireneMystic" (or something like that). I thought all this junk was cleared up when I suggested that links to modern Ebionites (i.e., my group) be deleted altogether. But I have people stealing messages somehow from our list and slandering us again. Just the same I gave this person, who I believe is an impersonator, information concerning Ovadyah, who was a member years ago, not very active, and who left most likely due to disagreements in belief, approach, and style of the group. Happens all the time. ;-) In fact, Alan Cronshaw as a member of my group at several points (because when I unsubscribed him, he rejoined under false identities.). I have also communicated with James Tabor and others. Perhaps their books are biased toward the Ebionite Community. But if this person is one of the wiki folks, he will not be getting on my list (through the front door at least) because 1) he is not Ebionite, 2) not a supporter, and 3) not a representative of Evyonut. And he(?) is not honest. This person uses the email address "wikipedianissues@yahoo.com" and signs "wiki pedia". Is this kosher?? ;-) --207.144.255.252 19:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

resolved debates?

So Major POV problems and endemic corruption through out this article are resolved by just ignoring them and archiving them away with your heads in the sand?

All my issues were substantive and none were rebutted. not even an attempt was made because you two have no defense. Major scholars have been misprepresented and or deleted when they did not conform to the religous dogam of Ovayah who has been an member of the featured group since 2003. The email evidence even pointed out he has been fooling with more then one article so one propaganda article will support another. One this has not changed in 1700 years is the way these wikipedian resolve the Ebionite issue very simular to the way Constantine did. What you can not debate you try to bury and then say " issue resolved ".

Without indulging in rants and tangents, please enumarate the issues you have with the current version of the Ebionites article as *concisely* as possible? --Loremaster 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have my own problems with the article but (asuming that the IP above is who I think it is) these complaints above are baseless. (Not to speak of the facts that no Wikipedian can be a member of the group described here, and that Constantine actuall did nothing with them, at least nothing is recorded). Str1977 (smile back) 18:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to indulge rants and tangents and publish religous dogma I should refure you to the current Ebionite article. Atleast now you are aware that the one that lead you into much of your positions is an agent for the group wiki features. Hay in a little time maybe he can make the EJC a FA?lol

The most astounding fact thoes involved in this article are over looking is the group that was called unotible has 100's of people in only one of its fourms and these fourms are active with muslims,christians,jews,new age... all debating with usand having mental melt downs when they cant defend their positions. Even an PHD'ed religous scholar reprinted an work of Allan Crownshaw on their site. Yet one group who has aledged world wide online community of around 13 people is in the article.

Are you going to tell me because of proceeding in which Ovadyah took part in to have a much more notible group then his deleted now Wikipedia is locked into a position of dogmatic ignorance it can't excape from?

At one time the Article "United States" claimed to have been founded 750 years ago. If a few less then honest editors held a sham proceeding and agreed that it was indeed so would wikipedia be bound to it?

The reality anyone will find that searches both groups is that wikipedia at this time is not reflecting reality. If they same people then go through the history of this article and its talk page they will then understand why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.128.182 (talk • contribs). (Claiming to be NazireneMystic)

Ooh my!  :^0 Ovadyah 23:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed! Str1977 (smile back) 12:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
NazireneMystic, the issue of whether or not the religious subculture you belong to is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article of its own and a mention in the Ebionites article was resolved during a deletion debate months ago. Although you may have legitimate reasons to feel that this decision was unfair, this minor if not trivial issue does not undermine the fact that the Ebionites article is still a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article. However, if you have other issues with the article, I will listen to, and debate, them with an open mind. --Loremaster 14:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying Wikipedia is locked into a position of dogmatic ignorance it can't excape from?
Time to grow up. Ovadyah 21:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No. My point is that until the Ebionite Restoration Movement meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria, you need to let this issue rest and move on to more productive things. --Loremaster 15:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I meant, only you said it so much nicer! It's pointless to keep grinding this axe. Two AfDs plus two Speedy Ds made the point better than words. :) Ovadyah 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Something has just dawned on me that loremaster may not care about but my buddy Ovayah isnt going to like.LOL

If you think that the Ebionite Jewish Community does not meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability for organizations and companies, you are free to dispute its notability in an appropriate manner. However, keep in mind that Shemayah Phillips has said that he doesn't care either way if his group is mentioned in Wikipedia. --Loremaster 14:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Loremaster-My comment of disinterest was for the Ebionites article only. My point to being not mentioned was that if reference to the Ebionites of today was a justification to include any group of fools who want to be every fringe group known in antiquity--nazarenes, essenes, ebionites--and name domains after them, then we would rather disqualify ourselves in order to stop such misdirections perpetrated by them. From the beginning we have not relied on Wikipedia to establish the facts concerning the Evyonim, but rather been more concerned with how it could damage the subject via poor information in the eyes of anyone taking this article as authoritative. I understand the novelty and accomplishment of the method of collaborative editing and research and how the wiki community has accomplished articles. But this article is decent but certainly not authoritative, and the authors are non-specialists. So again, the Evyonim are not depending on this article as some type of advertising on our behalf, nor does it point to the Ebionite Jewish Community (Restoring the Way of the Ancient Evyonim, Yahwism, and Renewed Covenant---where these funny guys stole their "Restoration" movement wording) as the Ebionites today, but our concern is how it may misrepresent or misunderstand or mishandle the facts and ancient sources. Nothing at all is better than inaccurate concerning articles about the Ebionites and their modern community. Being compared to or put in some weird competition with nazirenes-essenes-ebionites ala DaVinci Code/ Biagent/ Gnostic History Channel myth flavored cults only damages the religious ideas and history of the real Ebionites. It makes us unwilling accomplices in the process began by the Christian heresiologists discount the followers of Yeshua. Because of the nature of the wiki approach, it is as easy to have misinformation and raving nuts to give input than legitimate information and comments. Meanwhile, crazies whose only legitimacy is enough money to buy and name websites--and have the ability to steal email, impersonate wiki personnel to harass us, or attack domains, and delete comments that expose them--run amok. Read this quickly before it is deleted. Shemayah Phillips --64.53.76.34 16:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Phillips your agent deleted it as it was a second witness to the fact he is one of yours.lol Your group does use wikipedia as advertisment as before it was linked to wikipedia search results for your group were poor and often not even on the first page.I have further messages from your group that as late as 2006 your agent was asking how hard he should push things in this wiki artical. Your agent was covering his but for your sake when he removed your comment just as when i post verifible evidence scholars are being misrepresented to support your Hokey therories in this artical.
What is this verifiable evidence? --Loremaster 01:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Loremaster, are you asking for Evidence of Ovadyah asking Phillips how hard he should push in this artical? or someother topic? If it is regarding the above then the evidence would be a message I have from the Yahoo group archives of Phillips. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.128.182 (talk • contribs). (Claiming to be NazireneMystic)

Loremaster, I think I know what your asking for so here one is and if you can show me an online reference that says other wise Schope's is being misrepresented. But then the entire artical misrepresents the Ebionites, this one topic is just part of it.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28195203%2971%3A1%3C58%3AAFZRU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N&size=LARGE

Then scholars like Keith Akers whom even have wikipedia artical about himself have been discredited for only not being of the same POV as Phillips.

If you realy stuck to verifialbe references that can be found on the web and not disregarded the likes of keith the "ebionite" artical would read totaly different and a question mark about the Essene section would not exist. The artical is surpressing evidence while it also capitalizes on this very surpression to question an Essene connection.

There are other problems with this FA but no sence in going after complex issues when the simple ones in the past were not adressed and quickly archived away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.128.182 (talk • contribs). (Claiming to be NazireneMystic)

Phillips, your last post wasn't deleted; it was moved to Archive 5. I find what you did extremely offensive. You have no right to put out personal information about me on the talk pages of Wikipedia. Ovadyah 17:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Phillips, although I knew the reason behind your point about the Ebionite Jewish Community not being referenced, thank you for clarifying that it only pertained to its mention in the Ebionites article rather than Wikipedia itself. However, the point I was trying to make to NazireneMystic regarding the notability of the Ebionite Jewish Community article stands. --Loremaster 16:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I insist that editors refrain from posting information about my personal life on the talk pages of Wikipedia, whether it be NazireneMystic, Shemayah Phillips, or anyone else. What I do outside of Wikipedia is none of your damn business. If it doesn't stop, I will petition vigorously to have the perpetrators blocked or banned. Ovadyah 17:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ovadyah that all editors should refrain from posting info about the personal life of other editors on talk pages. That being said, I don't think Phillips was being malicious. I interpreted his comments as an attempt to explain why Ovadyah does not have the conflicts of interests some people accuse him of having. --Loremaster 17:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't interpret Phillips comments towards me as being malicious, just inappropriate and stupid. Whatever informal ties I may have had to Phillips over the years are in the past. Ovadyah 17:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
NazireneMystic, what I and the other contributing editors have succeeded in doing by raising the quality of the Ebionites article to FA level is not gain editorial control over the article but lose it. The article now has transparency, and you will never be able to sneak onto the article again, plaster religious sermons all over it, and try to remake the history of the Ebionites in your own image. The visibility of the article has been raised, and there are now many more eyes on it and the editorial process than Loremaster's and mine. Good luck, you'll need it. Ovadyah 22:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ovadyah, what you and a few editors have done was remove major scholars that have written articles about Ebionites that disagree with your point of view. You have misrepresented others and written the entire artical in a biased way. This is all for the greater good because if the truth were known about what the Ebionite's were then Judism in general would have to reject them as it did 2000 years ago. Islam already sees its ties to Ebionites and now the start of Judism seeing it is good. With the movement of the many messanic flavors of christianity sects it mayl also start to see the connection. Once all three groups see the missing link and THEN one of the first century Ebionite Gospels is unearthed and turns out to be nothing like the fundimental ignorance published on Wikipedia the three mayor religions including your little group will have a lot to ponder.

The question is if a text written in hebrew by people claiming to been Ebionite, containing many of the church fathers quotes were found and scientifly dated to the first century but did not support your therories and wild guesses about Ebionites .... Would you try to discard it claiming the text was only written by homeless people claiming to be "POOR ones"?

Untill then you can have your fun. I wonder if after this comes about Wikipedia could totaly delete this post from the pages history?69.29.128.182 23:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC) NazireneMystic

Wikipedia articles are always updated in light of new information. If a real Ebionite gospel was found, I would be the first one to to edit the article to reflect this new information even it meant that all the previous content, which I spent a lot of time and energy writing, was wrong and add to be deleted. That being said, you can please list the name of major scholars who disagree with the claims made about the Ebionites in this article? --Loremaster 01:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I am having fun, in fact, great fun at your expense. I have come to the conclusion that invitations by Loremaster for you to discuss your objections to the article are a useless waste of time. Likewise, my efforts to explain my positions and defend my character are also a complete waste of time. In the future, I intend to treat you exactly the way you treat me. Ovadyah 00:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Ovadyah I have come to the conclusion that ANY editor besides you and Loremaster duscussing anychanges about this artical is a waste of time. I also agree with you that there is no defence for your character. LOOK we are in total agreement! Isnt that wonderful? If your treatment of me AND other editors were the same as I've treated you then the way they and I are treated by you will be vastly improved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.128.182 (talk • contribs). (Claiming to be NazireneMystic)
On second thought, it would be a waste of my time and energy to respond to your meaningless blather. You have zero credibility on Wikipedia, and I don't want to reduce my reputation as an editor to your level. Instead, I will simply revel in your defeat and disgrace. LOL :) Ovadyah 01:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The many people you have run off this article would not agree with you. If you feel my reputation is zero then I would take that as a blessing from above to be viewed that way from you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.128.182 (talk • contribs). (Claiming to be NazireneMystic)
How do you endure the humiliation of being completely out-thought and out-edited by me? I'm laughing in your face! Ha! Ha! :^) Ovadyah 02:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You surely out wikilawyered me but then I do not engage in that type of stuff. You get to winn hands down. I just want a history in the archives to show how the bias was written into this Quagmire of Ignorance so anyone realy studing these things can determine for themselves if they by the trickery going on here. Are you still editing that archived sections like you used to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.128.182 (talk • contribs). (Claiming to be NazireneMystic)
NazireneMystic, can please provide a list of claims made about Ebionites in the article that are factually accurate and nuetral? Can you please provide a list the names of major scholars who disagree with these claims?--Loremaster 04:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My edits

My edits have been reverted en masse without explanation. I will now give my reasons:

  • (the least important:)It is common that CE is used as an abbreviation just as AD is. It is commonly no explained and no one commonly speaks of the "Common Era".
  • Ovadyah is correct in using the term "brother" for James - regardless of what the exact relation to Jesus was - James is called a "brother" in the sources. However, the same does not hold for Simon, the second bishop of Jerusalem. He might be Simon, brother of Jesus, but sources also identify him with "Simon, son of Clopas" - the two have been identified but under the premise that the brothers of Jesus are actually cousins. So we should be careful in his case and simply say relative.
  • The section "James the Just" contained various problems:
    • "not mentioned in patristic sources for the Ebionites" makes it questionable whether he should appear at all here, but I am willing to bear with it
    • "was the hereditary leader of the Jerusalem church" - no he was not, or rather, this is not a clearly established fact - if someone argues this, then it must be attributed
    • "followed by other members of the Desposyni (the blood relatives of Jesus)" - the D term is problematic
    • "who many Jewish Christians regarded as the legitimate apostolic successors to Jesus as patriarchs of the Jerusalem church" - and non-Jewish Christians regarded (and still remember) them as successors to James as well, because they were
    • "rather than Peter" - no one regards Saint Peter as a successor to Saint James. Peter in fact preceded James who only took over the leadership at Jerusalem when Peter left the city.
    • "Jewish Christians also viewed James as the legitimate high priest of Israel, by virtue of his righteousness, in opposition to the high priest recognized by the Roman Empire." - again, this is problematic: some patristic sources describe James in the manner of a High Priest (so this is no exclusively Jewish Christian view) and some authors (including the three mentioned fringe scholars) have taken it to mean a institutionalized anti-Highpriesthood. Of course, this should be mentioned but not as fact.

Str1977 (smile back) 12:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the James the Just section:

  • There are numerous secondary sources which justify James the Just being mentioned in the Ebionites article. We simply have to make that point clearer.
  • There are numerous secondary sources that were cited which argue that James the Just was the hereditary leader of the Jerusalem church. However, I don't think it is necessary to mention that in the Ebionites article.
  • Although that phraseology of that section wasn't clear enough, it was only implying that James and the Desposyni were the successors of Jesus rather than Peter. In other words, Ebionites believed that the church of Jesus was built on James rather than Peter.
--Loremaster 15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1. I only referred to the intro line.
2. The issue is "hereditary" - this is not a fact but an interpretation just because he was a leader in the religion his brother founded and was succeded by other relatives doesn't make the leadership hereditary (which is not the same as chosing bishops from one special family). Unless you have a source. If it's only interpretation (either by ancient Ebionites or by "scholars") it should be attributed as such.
3. Allright, if that is what was meant it should be included clearly and attributed to Ebionites, not related as fact. Str1977 (smile back) 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Having reviewed your recent edits I am generally content with a few tweaks, which I changed and explain here:
  • I have changed a few weasel words, especially "claim".
  • that James was the first bishop (patriarch really is an anachronism) of Jerusalem is acknowledged by basically everyone, so it's no specialty of the Ebionites, who rather accept James as the rock instead of Peter. I think my edits made this a bit clearer.
  • I also readded the High Priest thing as it is indeed argued
  • the wording should not suggest that Paul was an apostate - that is a view (of Maccoby and maybe of the Ebionites) but not a fact.
Otherwiese good work. Str1977 (smile back) 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --Loremaster 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Flight to Pella?

I have doubts of the factual accuracy of the following sentence (which I presumed used James Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty as a source) in the History section:

After the death of James in 62, the movement fled Jerusalem across the Jordan River to Pella, Jordan. Another of Jesus' relatives, Simeon of Jerusalem, led the community. After Simeon's execution c. 106, the Ebionite theology began to disperse throughout Southwest Asia, but was eclipsed by Pauline Christianity, which spread throughout the Roman Empire.

I have rephrased it and sourced it with a work of Hyam Maccoby:

Once the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 ended the First Jewish-Roman War, the primacy of the Jerusalem church began to fade and Jewish Christianity dispersed itself throughout the Jewish diaspora in Southwest Asia; it was slowly eclipsed by Pauline Christianity, which had previously been struggling to survive against the disapproval of Jerusalem but now could spread throughout the Roman Empire without impediment.

Any comments or objections? --Loremaster 05:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

For the flight to Pella, Eisenman's James the Just is also a source. --Michael C. Price talk 06:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
According Church history, "before the Jewish War against Rome broke out in AD 66 the whole Nazarene community, warned by an oracle, left Jerusalem and went to Pella in Transjordania." Maccoby argues "that this story is merely a legend has been well demonstrated by S. F. G. Brandon, and confirmed by later research. The Jerusalem Nazarenes never left the city at the time of the Jewish War; they stayed there and played their part, as loyal Jews, in the fight against Rome. When the Jews were broken by the Romans and their Temple destroyed in AD 70, the Jewish Christians shared in the horrors of the defeat, and the Jerusalem Nazarenes were dispersed to Caesarea and other cities, even as far as Alexandria in Egypt. Its power and influence as the Mother Church and centre of the Jesus movement was ended; and the Pauline Christian movement, which up to AD 66 had been struggling to survive against the strong disapproval of Jerusalem, now began to make great headway. It was not until nearly seventy years later that a Christian Church was reconstituted in Jerusalem, after the city had been devastated by the Romans for the second time (after the Bar Kokhba revolt) and rebuilt as a Gentile city called Aelia Capitolina. This new Christian Church had no continuity with the early 'Jerusalem Church' ed by James. Its members were Gentiles, as Eusebius testifies, and its doctrines were those of Pauline Christianity. It attempted, however, to claim continuity with the early 'Jerusalem Church', in accordance with the Pauline policy (evinced in the New Testament book of Acts) of denying the rift between Paul and the Jerusalem elders. The Pella legend was developed in order to give colour to this alleged continuity, since some of the members of the new Church had come from Pella. Jerusalem, however, never regained its former centrality. In the now dominant Pauline Christian Church, the centre was Rome; while the descendants of the former proud 'Jerusalem Church', now scattered and poor (for which reason, probably, they acquired the nickname of Ebionites', from the Hebrew evyonim, meaning 'poor men') were despised as heretics, since they refused to accept the doctrines of Paul." --Loremaster 06:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I've no problem with all POVs being presented. --Michael C. Price talk 07:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course you don't but my point is why should we highlight a "Chalcedonian legend" in this article especially when it isn't essential to understanding the history of the Ebionites? --Loremaster 07:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Your approach is fundamentally wrong. You are still -- after numerous corrections -- judging content, which is expressly forbidden. You are making a judgement that this is just a legend; other sources disagree. This is why I have no patience with you, Loremaster; all this has been explained (and even agreed!) many times but you always revert back to your old behaviour patterns. Wikipedia is not the place for you to conduct your own original research, to strip articles of the presentation of divergent POVs and core content by the monolithic presentation of an attempted judgemental synthesis.--Michael C. Price talk 07:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
For the third time, please avoid the personal attacks and needlessly inflammatory language. I am not judging content nor engaging in original research. First, by "legend", I meant to say a "POV presented as fact". Second, I am simply asking you why is this information essential to understanding the history of the Ebionites regardless of whether or not is is a legend. Also, can you provide one source which explicitly states that Ebionites fled to Pella? --Loremaster 08:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
First, you are judging content. Second presenting a referenced POV is not presenting something as fact -- simply represent the other referenced POVs as well. Third, I have already given you two references for the flight to Pella: Eisenman and Tabor. --Michael C. Price talk 09:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Michael is right about this. Although the narrative of the flight to Pella may be a "legend", it was mentioned in writings attributed to Hegesippus c165-175, or more probably Aristo of Pella c150, and recorded by Eusebius in Historia Ecclesiastica 3:5:3, by Epiphanius in Panarion 29:7:7-8, 30:2:7 and On Weights and Measures 15, and in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1:39:3. The multiple primary witnesses for this "legend" are solid support for Tabor and Eisenman as secondary sources. Ovadyah 14:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Ovadyah, I am not disputing this information which I was already aware of. See my comments below. However, I am questioning whether or not Tabor and Eisenman make explicit reference to Ebionites when discussing the flight to Pella. --Loremaster 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Micheal, first, you haven't answered my question: Why is this information essential to understanding the history of the Ebionites, regardless of whether or not it is referenced, since in the process of summarizing any subject there are always facts and POVs that are mentioned and others that are not. Second, I am actually asking for an explicit quote such as the one I provide above since that would be helpful to decide if and how to best incorporate this referenced POV. --Loremaster 14:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, since the last thing I want is to continue debating with Micheal, I've simply added a mention of the flight to Pella with the proper caveat. --Loremaster 16:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The implausibility of the Pella narrative was first argued by S.G.F. Brandon, "The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church" (1957). Ovadyah 14:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. I've added it to the article. --Loremaster 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Tabor mentions it implicitly, and he cites Eusebius and Epiphanius, wherein Epiphanius mentions it explicitly.

Tabor, "The Jesus Dynasty", in Chp. 18, The End of the Age p.299. I quote, "Eusebius and Epiphanius preserved a tradition that the Jerusalem followers of Jesus, now led by Simon son of Clopas, fled the city of Jerusalem just before the seige in response to an 'oracle given in revelation before the war'. They reported that the followers settled in the area of the Decapolis city of Pella". (cites Eusebius Church History 3.5.3; Epiphanius Panarion 29.7; 30.2)

Epiphanius, Panarion 30:2:7 on the Ebionites:

Their sect began after the capture of Jerusalem. For when all those who believed in Christ settled at that time for the most part in Peraea, in a city called Pella belonging to the Decapolis mentioned in the gospel, which is next to Batanaea and the land of Bashan, then they moved there and stayed...

– Epiphanius, Panarion 30:2:7

Hope this helps. Ovadyah 15:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Eisenman mentions it explicitly in "The New Testament Code", Chp. 18, The Pella Flight and 'Agabus' Prophecy, pp.510-514. He has extensive quotes from the primary sources sprinkled among his typically circuitous and tortured prose, and states after quoting Epiphanius 29:7:7-8, "Here too, it is clear that Epiphanius views the 'Nazoraeans' - like the 'Ebionites' - as the true successors to the community of James".

Epiphanius, Panarion 29:7:7-8 on the Nazoraeans:

The Nazoraean sect exists in Beroea near Coele Syria, in the Decapolis near the region of Pella, and in Bashan in the place called Cocaba, which in Hebrew is called Chochabe. That is where the sect began, when all the disciples were living in Pella after they moved from Jerusalem, since Christ told them to leave Jerusalem and withdraw because it was about to be besieged. For this reason they settled in Peraea and there, as I said, they lived. This is where the Nazoraean sect began.

– Epiphanius, Panarion 29:7:7-8

Ovadyah 16:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This answers all the questions I had for Micheal. --Loremaster 16:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk thread archiving

Loremaster, you frequently archive talk threads before they are complete -- it's one of your more odious characteristics -- especially when they show material that you find embarrassing. As for being offensive, I find your protesting that you are not pushing a POV as you overwrite material with your own non-consensual changes that violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV very offensive.--Michael C. Price talk 17:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no material that I've archived that I find "embarrasing". I can honestly say I've only archived talk threads when I've perceived them to be complete. I've never had any problem restoring talk threads when people have complained that they were not complete. For the record, I hope everyone has noted how, despite MichaelCPrice's constant personal attacks against me and my numerous request for him to stop, I've always remained civil. --Loremaster 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've only archived talk threads when I've perceived to be complete -- which is the problem. You archive them when you perceive them to be complete. Ever thought of asking other people first????? --Michael C. Price talk 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
When I've asked in the past, people never answered so I stopped asking. Like I said, I've never had any problem restoring talk threads when people have complained that they were not complete, which doesn't happen often. --Loremaster 17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It's something people complain of here a lot -- so stop. In future ask and wait a day or two. Then you can archive if no one complains or responds. --Michael C. Price talk 18:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, NazireneMystic has been the main (and loud) complainer but, as you know, all his complaints must always been taken with a grain of salt since he always sees conspiracies where there are none. --Loremaster 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I've usually always done. --Loremaster 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you ask before archiving the flight to Pella dialogue?--Michael C. Price talk 18:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No because I didn't feel I needed to, since I restored, with the proper caveat, the very content I was disputing, there was nothing left to debate. --Loremaster 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly; You didn't ask because you didn't think it was necessary. That's the problem. --Michael C. Price talk 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
In light of the fact that the debate was about whether or not to restore content I disputed which I ended up restoring, did or do you have anything more to add to the talk thread on the flight to pella? Did you or anyone else complain when I archived that talk thread? Is the archived talk thread unaccesable? Is anything preventing you from starting a new talk thread on this topic? Is anything preventing you from cut-and-pasting some of the content of the archived talk thread in a new talk thread? Regardless of your answers, my point is that, unlike other cases, in this particular case it was obviously NOT necessary to ask therefore there is no problem. --Loremaster 15:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of your answers pretty much sums up your whole attitude, doesn't it? --Michael C. Price talk 17:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Since your answers are always interwoven with personal attacks, which are the expression of a belligerent attitude inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines of behavior, I do confess to not being concerned by them. --Loremaster 17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
A nice way to avoid facing the fact that, despite claiming that you "generally" ask before archiving, you intend to carry on acting as judge, jury and executioner, archiving any thread as it suits you, despite the frequent protests on these talk pages (mostly archived, of courtse!).--Michael C. Price talk 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The frequent protests mostly come from one fanatical individual who is out to push a self-serving POV and sees conspiracies where there are none. That being said, I agree that I have and will archive *some* talk threads without asking when I perceive them to be complete. Sue me. --Loremaster 18:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for being honest about your egotistical behaviour - eventually. Oh and BTW, more than one individual has complained about stuff being archived away at the speed of light.--Michael C. Price talk 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with being "egotistical" since the only reason why I'm archiving talk threads that I perceive to be complete is so that we can all better focus on those that are not. That being said, although I am not criticizing him for it, much of the talk thread archiving that has generated complaints was done by Ovadyah rather than me. However, I take full responsibility for those that I have done. --Loremaster 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Critique of this article

Keith Akers wrote a critique of an earlier version of this article. For those interested see Wikipedia on the Ebionites. nirvana2013 10:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The commentary contains many telling points and, although I don't agree with it all, it is useful input. --Michael C. Price talk 11:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually Loremaster and I both read Keith's review and tried to incorporate some of his views in subsequent improvements to the article. The major POV Keith pushes on his website that we left out was vegetarianism. This "vegetarian Jesus" stuff was argued to death several years ago. Imho, it's yet another example of New Age spirituality masquerading as Ebionitism to claim "legitimacy". Ovadyah 12:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Vegetarianism was not done to death, it was dismissed in an offhand unscholarly fashion, of which the above is an example. Eisenman and other secondary sources lay great stress on the vegetarianism of the Ebionites (John the Baptist and James the Just, for example) and the Essenes. Dismissing it as new age rubbish is not NPOV, it is POV and another example of how the article has slid towards a collection of ragtail prejudices rather than just reporting the secondary sources.--Michael C. Price talk 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Excuse me! See Archive 1 for all the discussion on this I am aware of. If you think something should be added then by all means have at it. :^0 Ovadyah 15:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking back over the archives, I agree with you. The editorial standards were not nearly as high in the past. The crucible that this article has been through over the last year has raised them considerably, and that's a good thing for the article and for Wiki. Ovadyah 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ovadyah, you're starting to give me hope for the future of the article.--Michael C. Price talk 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The standards have not changed one bit, just the number of good faith editors that have been run off this article has changed. I believe the same biased editor that tried to deside the veggie issue by not discussing it and just declaring the edits "Vandalous POV" is still very active to this day and doing the same things, he has just learn more tricks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.128.182 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 July 2007

I believe you were the first and only person to use the term Vandalous POV, and you have applied it to me frequently. Character assassination will get you nowhere on Wikipedia. The more you attack me, the more you discredit yourself. You attack me as a diversion because you have nothing rational to say. Nobody here is fooled by your behavior. It simply reveals the extent of your desperation to be noticed. Ovadyah 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to you short edit notes that you make when you remove an good faith edit from the artical. Then after it is posted on the talk page and not adressed, if the good faith editor replaces it again, the edit note includes "RT". That way the lawyer while being in defult for not replying to the tALK page in a meaningful manor can still screw the good faith editor if he/she takes a chance and restores their uncontested edit. more then twice the same day.

This is easy to clear up if one goes the archive section were the veggie issue was dismissed and then search the history section of the actual Ebionite Artical for around the same dates. then you will see what I mean. Calling you names would be attacking you, pointing out wikilawyering is just doing my duty as a honorable wikipedian. You can see the Badges od honor several Admins have given me by looking at my talk page.

This will be my last edit for a few days as I do not even have time for this one.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.128.182 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 July 2007.

Are you really combing through the edit logs back to mid-2005 to pull this stuff up? How humorous! :^D Ovadyah 23:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It realy is humorous to see how sources unhelpful to a certian POV were dismissed because of what they would imply if mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.213.136 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 20 July 2007

You repeatedly mention unamed sources that were dismissed, yet when we challenge you to bring the specific content of those sources here, you have nothing to say to support your arguments. Ebionites is a featured article. If you think something is missing or misrepresented then prove it. Ovadyah 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, James and Simeon

Once more for MichaelCPrice,

  • there is no dispute that among the brothers of Jesus there was a man called Simon (and your bible verse references no more)
  • it is not clear that this Simon is the Simon that succeed James as bishop of Jerusalem.
  • sources call him Simon, son of Clopas - and one tradition has identified the son of Clopas with Simon, brother of the Lord and the other brothers with other people, considering them cousins.
  • By calling him a relative we need not take sides in this issue which is better dealt with elsewhere (and anyhow NPOV requires us not to take sides).

Str1977 (smile back) 12:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you check back through the archives of this talk page you would find that I know considerably more than "nothing about the issue"s, as you so politely claim. As for Simon the JustSimeon of Jerusalem being Jesus' brother I can cite plenty of Ebionite scholars -- including one you deleted the reference to, viz Eisenman. As for coping out and calling him a relative, that won't do; not taking sides does mean misrepresenting all positions. Have you any sources that claim he was a relative but not a brother? BTW please check out Tabor (another source), who goes into the whole son of Clopas thing.--Michael C. Price talk 14:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If you know so much, why did you not make a proper argument instead of pointing me to a bible verse that is irrelevant to the issue? That's what my comment referrred to.
Also, there is no "Simon the Just" (except for the 3rd century BC high priest) - being a brother to James the Just does not make one "Simon the Just".
In the sources Simeon of Jerusalem is called the son of Clopas (look into that article) - only in the Western tradition, which makes all brothers of Jesus into cousins was he identified with a brother. You might quote "scholars" but it would be POV pushing to relate their opinions as fact.
Str1977 (smile back) 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Correct -- I meant Simeon of Jerusalem, as mentioned in the article, not Simon the Just. --Michael C. Price talk 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Since you regard the bible as an irrelevant source I doubt that there is any evidence that you will listen to.--Michael C. Price talk 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The Bible is not irrelevant (don't twist my words) - it is irrelevant on the issue of who was the 2nd bishop of Jerusalem. The verse you gave names four brothers of Jesus, among them James and Simon. It does not say anything about bishops of Jerusalem. And the relevant sources for this, such as those quote by Eusebius, do relate that James was succeeded by "Simeon, son of Clopas". That is what the sources say.
Now this has been interpreted differently:
  • those who identify the brothers as cousins identified Simon the brother with Simon, son of Clopas (they also identified the other brothers with other people bearing the same names, but we needn't go into those right now). So they could say that after "James the brother" came "Simon the brother".
  • Tabor (if understand him correctly) supposed that Clopas is a fictional ploy to replace Joseph and to distance Jesus (born from the Virgin and God) from his brothers (born from Clopas and his wife). IMHO, this is violating the sources by assuming that one interpretation considered false (the brothers-are-cousins claim) can be turned into the truth by turning it on its head. As I said, I think this is bullocks BUT it is still the claim of a scholar and can be reported where appropriate. But only reported, not endorsed. Calling "Simeon of Jerusalem" the brother of Jesus assumes either of the two differing POVs and hence is POV pushing. Str1977 (smile back) 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The bible is not "irrelevant on the issue of who was the 2nd bishop of Jerusalem." since it records events of the early Jerusalem church. Your claim that it says nothing "about bishops of Jerusalem" is narrow minded and blinkered - and one many scholars dispute. All evidence has to be weighed together and the bible has valuable input on the subject.
  • You have not understood Tabor's POV. He regards Clopas as Joseph's brother and the 2nd husband of Mary, by Jewish custom, after Joseph's early demise.. Hence James, Simon, Judas and Joses were Jesus' younger half brothers. Whether you or I regard regard this as bollocks is irrelevant -- it should reported as the view of a leading Ebionite scholar.
--Michael C. Price talk 12:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not POV to report their conclusions; in fact it is a violation of WP:NPOV not to. That's what NPOV is all about -- but I am not getting into that argument with a newbie all over again; I leave you to the tender mercies of the other bigots here. You obviously have a religious agenda to push, like so many here. --Michael C. Price talk 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
No no. It would be POV to report one side and omit another. Your wording assumed one (or rather two) particular POVs and omitted all the others.
I wonder whom you are calling a newbie? I have been a WPn for two years and have 17181 edits (as I write this) under my belt.
And as for POV pushing and agendas: I am a Catholic and therefore should be fine with your wording if I pushed the POV of my Church (whose members have most commonly adhered to the "brothers as cousing" claim).
Those whom you accuse of bigotry (in violation of WP:NPA) obviously understand things better than you do, even though I disagree with them on certain issues. Good day, Str1977 (smile back)
Well stop acting like a newbie then. I am not saying only one view should be reported. All views should be reported, subject the constraints of reliable sources etc..--Michael C. Price talk 12:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Michael, insults won't help you. You are saying one view (rather two views) should be endorsed by referring to Simeon of Jerusalem as the brother of Jesus, ignoring those views that consider him a relative but not a brother. Sure, all views should be reported ... in the proper place, such as the article on Simeon of Jerusalem and the articles on the brothers and relatives of Jesus. But here he is mentioned only in passing and it is not feasible to say "followed by Simon who some consider a brother and some consider a cousin of Jesus and the son of Clopas who however is identified with Joseph by Tabor" - no, we simply link to his article and remain vague about the relation, thus not endorsing any one view. Str1977 (smile back) 13:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Str1977 100%. --Loremaster 03:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That James and Simon might / probably have been Jesus' brothers is relevant to the Ebionite article, since it indicates the Ebionites may have been following what they perceived as a royal bloodline succession. As for it not being feasible to report all views, that is just plain silly. Split the article up and report the divergent religious POVs in separate sections. As is done on other controversial subjects. --Michael C. Price talk 13:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
That this might be relevant to the Ebionites is no reason to set aside NPOV. The status of Simeon of Jerusalem as a brother of Jesus is not established fact. Also, it is only relevant if it is true and it is not established fact. It is just as relevant if the Ebionites took special prestige in a family relation to Jesus and were no restricted on brothers. Str1977 (smile back) 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Str1977: pay attention; I am not setting aside NPOV, I'm trying to adhere to it by reporting on all the views that are out there. You clearly don't understand Wikipolicies with regard to reporting secondary sources; we are NOT sitting here to establish what is fact and what is myth/legend. Wikinewbies have a hard time comprehending this, which is why I assumed you were a newbie. Please don't take offense, but go and read WP:OR and WP:NPOV. We do not have to establish whether or not Simeon of Jerusalem was a brother of Jesus before reporting that as a conclusion that reliable sources have reached.--Michael C. Price talk 14:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[Loremaster] As I've pointed out, that [sentence you have edited] should read Jesus' brother, not relative; I don't believe there are any sources that claim that Simeon of Jerusalem was just a relative but not a brother of Jesus. As it is this is pure Chalcedonian POV.--Michael C. Price talk 06:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlike James, Simeon of Jerusalem being mentioned as a "relative" rather than a "brother" is NOT a "Chalcedonian POV" because part of the intent behind my use of the word "relative" was to allow us to embed an internal link to the Desposyni article. --Loremaster 07:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Utter bollocks. The effect is Chalcedonian POV pushing - and the same link can be made no matter how the description is presented. This is pretty thin rationalisation even for you, Loremaster.--Michael C. Price talk 07:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, there is no need to use such potentially inflammatory language so please refrain from using it again. Second, this is NOT a rationalization but simply an explanation of my thought process when I wrote that sentence which has always been informed by an anti-"Chalcedonian POV" on this particular issue. Third, this is such a trivial issue that I don't think it is worthy of a needless dispute. --Loremaster 07:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
First, if you listened to reason, I'd try that, but you don't. Second, explanations can be rationalisations. Third, if it is such a trivial issue then you have no objection to changing it back? --Michael C. Price talk 07:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, please avoid the personal attacks and needlessly inflammatory language. I have no objection but I am probably going to delete this trivial mention of Simeon of Jerusalem's relationship to Jesus completely to resolve this dispute. --Loremaster 08:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
How childish of you. --Michael C. Price talk 09:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleting mention of Simeon of Jerusalem's possible, sourced relationship to Jesus speaks volumes about Loremaster's lack of objectivity.--Michael C. Price talk 16:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Micheal, if it was only up to me, I would use the word "brother" rather than "relative" in the article because of my POV on this issue but for the sake of 1) a neutral point of view, 2) embeding an internal link to an important article, and 3) ending a dispute between Str1977 and you, I went with "relative". However, if this reasonable compromise simply perpetuates this dispute, deleting the mention of Simeon of Jerusalem's relationship to Jesus, which we all know is unclear and is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article on him, seems the only solution. So this has nothing with being childish or lacking objectivity. --Loremaster 17:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
All your points are transparently incorrect. 1) suppressing information is not supportive of a NPOV -- again you continue to misrepresent wikipolicy 2) any description is compatible with the embedding 3) disputes are not resolved by censorship. BTW your claim about the Simeon of Jerusalem article is not true -- it's from where I got the bible chapter and verse that so upset Str1977. As for the factual basis for the claim being unclear -- well of course, that's what history is all about; it is not an excuse for deletion. Perhaps we should say nothing about Jesus anywhere since all the factual bases of every aspect of his life is disputed! --Michael C. Price talk 00:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Correction: I meant to say "emphasized" rather than "mentioned". That being said, let me ask you one question: Did and do you have a problem with the fact that this article never mentions that Jesus and John the Baptist were cousins? The answer is probably No and the reason why it didn't bother you or anyone else is that no one felt it needed to be mentioned. This isn't POV pushing or censorship. It's simply focusing on the most important and relevant facts at the expense of trivial ones when summarizing any subject. Regardless, the Ebionites article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. I am satisfied with the current version whether or not we mention the relationship of Simeon of Jerusalem with Jesus. I am no longer going to participate in this dispute between you and Str1977. --Loremaster 03:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Loremaster, I have to say you really are an idiot with a short memory: The answer is most definitely Yes; I have objected many times, most strenuously to the downplaying here of John the Baptist's role in the formation of the Ebionites, and part of that downplaying includes not mentioning the probable cousinship of John and Jesus. Downplaying John's role is most definitely "POV pushing or censorship", since you are making a judgment about what is important - a stance that here I do not support and which many of the sources don't either. Jesus' blood relationship to John the Baptist, James the Just and Simeon of Jerusalem is key to understanding the Ebionites. Your POV is that only Jesus is relevant, and not one shared by me or many of the sources.
It's ironical, the over-focus on Jesus and the downplaying of the other members of the Desposyni (a term no longer mentioned in the article's text) gives the whole article a Pauline Christianity bias. And for an article about Ebionites that is truly sad. --Michael C. Price talk 05:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I was fully aware of your "upplaying" of John the Baptist's role in the formation of the Ebionites. I was refering to the fact that you never stressed the probable *cousinship* of John and Jesus in your own edits of the article. Regardless, Jesus' blood relationship to John the Baptist, James the Just and Simeon of Jerusalem may be the key to understanding the Jerusalem Church but not *necessarily* the Ebionites. The latter is POV pushing since "it is an open question whether the Ebionites, denounced by the Church Fathers, were direct descendants of the earliest Jerusalem church." That being said, the real irony is that not only was I the first editor to push the notion that John, Jesus and James had an equal role in the formation of the Ebionites by virtue of being Desposyni in this article but I was the creator of the Desposyni article! It was only until other editors made me realize that I was pushing a POV that I began to "downplay" what they judged to be speculation. --Loremaster 17:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Strange, if you were so fully aware of everything (as you always claim post fact) that you don't remember my cousinship edits, later removed. And once again I see you try to present representing all POVs as POV pushing; this is just soooo stupid: Everything about the Ebionites is disputed, so don't try the tired old canard that we can only present material that is universally accepted - that's not NPOV, that's censorship and your own (unconscious) Pauline bias. --Michael C. Price talk 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Correct if I am wrong but I find no evidence of your cousinship edits. That being said, I was specifically refering to your edits during the month of February 2007 where we gave you the freedom to edit the article without any inteference. Regardless, I am not representing all POVS as POV pushing, I am pointing out that you often present your POV as fact and that we have to remind you that it is speculation. There is nothing wrong with adding speculative content in this article as long as it presented as such. --Loremaster 16:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
When the article is finally divided into POV sections you will no longer be able to use the lame excuse that I don't know that everything about the Ebionites is speculation. BTW you are wrong about the cousinship edits -- whoever said I was just referring to Feb? --Michael C. Price talk 20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I never said you don't know that everything about the Ebionites is speculation. My point is that, despite this knowledge, you often make statements about the Ebionites as if they are facts when they are not. Regardless, I am opposed to dividing the article in more POV sections. As for your cousinship edits, my point was that when you had a chance to reinsert them in February, you chose not to. My question is why didn't you? --Loremaster 15:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I can see why you would oppose having separate POV sections -- despite us having already agreed to this approach back in around Feb07 -- since it would hinder you pushing your Pauline POV over the entire article.
As for John the Baptist, I'd given up at the time, since you were always removing any such material, and was trying to get James the Just and Simeon of Jerusalem represented. BTW, your original claim was that I was refering to the fact that you never stressed the probable *cousinship* of John and Jesus in your own edits of the article. not that I made any such edits in Feb. --Michael C. Price talk 17:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)--Michael C. Price talk 17:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not opposed to POV sections since there are some in the current version of the article, which you are free to expand. I am simply opposed to the ones you proposed because I think there are unnecessary. As for the John the Baptist issue, putting your February edits aside, you never stressed the probable cousinship of John and Jesus in your past edits of the article either. Your edits stressed that John, Jesus and James had an equal role in the formation of the Ebionites. My counter-edits only reflect that I was and continue to be opposed to this speculation being presented as fact especially in the lead of the article. --Loremaster 17:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of other readers I must point out that Loremaster has made several errors here. First, I did mention the relationship of John and Jesus in the article. Second, I never claimed that James the Just had an equal role in the formation of the Ebionites as either John (or Jesus) had. Details, but important ones. --Michael C. Price talk 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Semantics. I was refering to the fact that you have always wanted to report as fact that John, Jesus and James were leaders of the Ebionites (rather than "over-focusing" on Jesus, to use your words) in the article. --Loremaster 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
you have always wanted to report as fact that John, Jesus and James were leaders of the Ebionites -- your deceits are not very convincing. It is me that has been pushing for separate POV sections to report everything in, precisely so that reporting what the literature says is NOT seen as reporting facts. But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your paranoid delusions.--Michael C. Price talk 20:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about POV sections. Before you ever suggested the idea of POV sections in reaction to us pointing that you keep reporting speculation as fact, your edits of the article always reported as fact John, Jesus and James as leaders of the Ebionites (rather than stressing the probable cousinship of John and Jesus). Shall we look through the history of the article? I have. --Loremaster 20:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I note the sly shift from "formation" to "leaders". Really Loremaster, stop assuming that everybody else is an idiot. --Michael C. Price talk 21:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow... as usual, you keep seeing "slyness" where there isn't any. Both sentences mean the same thing to me even if they don't to you. Regardless, you are obviously focusing on such triviality to avoid answering the question. --Loremaster 21:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow... can't see the difference between a founder and leader. Ho hum. --Michael C. Price talk 23:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Please show us evidence that you mentioned *more than once* the probable cousinship of John and Jesus. --Loremaster 20:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
*more than once* -- you really crack me up :-) --Michael C. Price talk 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)-
Although I am questioning if you mentioned it even once, you implied that you stressed this notion through several edits. Mentioning something only once does not sound like "stressing". --Loremaster 21:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the Desposyni material was removed by STR. It's a term he apparently dislikes for some reason I don't fully understand. See my "spirited disussion" with him over this issue on the Talk:Desposyni page. Ovadyah 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as I see. I imagine it is rather hard to accept that Jesus had close relatives if he is the son of a perpetual virgin, herself immaculately conceived.--Michael C. Price talk 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Enough with personal attacks! STR has said that creating a "relatives of Jesus" article which systematically presents accurate information and interpretations in an NPOV manner is a good idea. He is simply criticizing the use of the term "Desposyni" because it may not have any historical legitimacy.--Loremaster 20:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Chalcedonian POV is utter nonsense (and needlessly inflammatory) as the issue cannot defined along the lines of Chalcedonians, Monophysites and Nestorians. I know nothing about the views of the latter groups on this, but I know that the Chalcedonians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, classical Protestants) disagree among themselves about the brothers.
As for the sources, Michael, which sources (and I mean primary sources) call Simeon of Jerusalem the brother of Jesus? Pray tell! And I please come up with sources that include all elements, as there is no dispute that there was a brother of the Lord called Sim(e)on.
OTOH, there are sources (those quoted in Eusebius) that call him "Simeon, son of Cleopas".
In the name of factual accuracy and NPOV we cannot write "brother" in this context.
12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Str1977, I should point out that I said Pauline POV, not Chalcedonian POV. And please don't call for primary sources -- that issue was done to death (repeatedly!); we should be reporting the secondary modern sources, not the ancient primary sources. This went to Arbcomm. Check the talk archives.--Michael C. Price talk 13:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Michael. You can't base an argument on primary sources. That would be interpreting them by definition, which is a violation of Wiki policy. Primary sources can be "stated" with inline quotes or archived in Wikisource, but only within the context of reporting what the secondary literature has to say. Yes, we did beat this to death. Ovadyah 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not touching this dispute other than to point out that Simon and Simeon are the same name. Either one could be translated from Shimon in Hebrew. So, don't waste your time arguing about spelling. I should also mention that Clopas, Cleopas, and Alpheus are all the same name (or title) in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, respectively. Ovadyah 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. --Michael C. Price talk 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
En contraire: We need to look at (primary) sources too. If these called Simeon of Jerusalem a brother of Jesus we would be correct to use that term as a default, even while addressing theories that he was not a brother in the strict sense. We do this in the case of James, who is called "brother" by the sources.
Sure we should report scholarly literature (the so-called secondary sources) but only those of a single POV.
The point is not "basing an argument on primary sources" - we don't do arguments at all. We report.
But we report all POVs and do not endorse one. Calling someone a brother who not clearly is a brother is POV pushing to the extreme.
Even if the claim that Clopas, Cleopas and Alphaeus are the same were true. Funny how this invention of Roman Catholic hagiography pops up in strange places.
Simon and Simeon are of the course the same name. We use them in the form the sources use them (predominantly) - but that is no basis of simply identify all Simons around. Str1977 (smile back) 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you go and read WP:OR ? It doesn't look like it. I hope you are not going to argue for theorizing from primary sources, like Loremaster did for ages, before checking the wikipolicy documents. As I said, this went to Arbcomm, so check the talk archives as well. There's simply no point arguing the issue here; go and have your say at WP:OR if you must -- but not here. --Michael C. Price talk 15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the critical paragraph from NOR:

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

As I said before, you are allowed to merely "state" the content of primary sources. You cannot analyze/expound on/interpret them because that would be the equivalent of an editor acting as his/her own secondary source. This is a foundational Wiki policy. Even within this narrow scope, a primary source can only be used as support within the context of a verifiable secondary source, such as a reference provided by that source. It can never be used as a replacement for a secondary source. We can bring this to RFC if necessary, but it can't be allowed to continue. Ovadyah 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ovadyah. This situation is obviously going to crop up again and again. I suggest we collectively write a warning box for the start of the talk page, with this passage quoted and perhaps Alec's arbcom judgment about "secondary sources" = "modern sources" for Ebionite purposes either linked to or quoted from. --Michael C. Price talk 17:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a great suggestion. I suspect that many editors are confused about this aspect of NOR. Ovadyah 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I know WP:NOR, thanks very much. Only it is irrelevant to my point that we, as NOR says, correctly report the sources. In the appropriate place theories about the actual relationship can be included and these of course are of a secondary "source" nature.
But it is unacceptable to state as a fact what is not a clear fact but merely interpretation. And it violates WP:NPOV. Str1977 (smile back) 18:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I think the article needs dividing up more into POV sections. There's no point having a history section along the lines of the one at the moment, since much of the historical material is disputed and dependent on one's religious POV.--Michael C. Price talk 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that is feasible only (and that is the big issue) if this article includes a discussion of the importance of brotherhood (as opposed to mere relation) based on RS.
What I opposed and still oppose the coverage of a whole range of views in a passing note (because that is not feasible and you never suggested it yourself) and the endorsement of one view in a passing note (as you suggested by using "brother" instead of the vaguer "relative").
I don't think this article needs to be carved up in POV sections. It needs to neutrally report the information (and views about) the Ebionites without endorsing any of the views and also the views held by Ebionites without endorsing them either. Str1977 (smile back) 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What is "RS"?
Your last two points are related. It is precisely because I don't think we should mention views in passing that I think the history section should be moved into the POV sections. Trying to cram all historical views into one section has led to the monolithic misrepresentation of every view. Using "relative" instead of "brother" is exactly the sort of think that I'm complaining of -- there's not a single source that says that Simon was relative but not a brother. By all means mention that this view is disputed (well that would be implicit if it only appeared in a POV section) but let's not dilute the factual content of the article with some politically correct woolly version of history hoping that the reader will depart with some warm fuzzy feel-good glow. Apart from anything else, it's an insult to the intelligence of the reader.--Michael C. Price talk 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
RS = reliable sources and the name of the WP guideline.
But that is the problem: we cannot cover all issues relating a person everytime he is mentioned. For that we have an article on that person which covers everything in depth and to which this article links. That's how encyclopediae work. - Currently Simeon just pops up as James successor. There is no treatement of any Ebiotic preference of brothers (which would be in retrospect, as the Ebionites did not exist in the year 62) - if there is such a preference it can and should be covered. But as long as Simeon is only mentioned as he is, we cannot append such a treatment with different POVs presented side by side. We should word it in an NPOV manner.
Sorry but you are mistaken: there is not a single early sources that calls him a brother of Jesus. The sourcs call him "son of Clopas". "Relative" is not a term endorsing a POV but a more general, neutral term. Hence it is not disputed. No one disputes that Simeon was a relative, not even you, or do consider that a brother is not a relative.
And please spare me your name calling. I could say the same about you. Str1977 (smile back) 12:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You claim there were no Ebionites in 62, others disagree, and they are reliable sources.
Although you claim to understand NPOV I don't think you do; NPOV requires that all POVs be presented -- it is not about writing in a style that everyone agrees with.
Again you insist that "relative" is a neutral term -- and again I tell you that you do not understand what NPOV means; NPOV means representing all reliably sourced claims -- but there are no sources that say Simon was a relative but not a brother.
And I'm sorry to say you still continue to misrepresent WP:NOR by asking for ancient primary sources to back up claims. Read the notice the top of this talk page.
As for name calling, I restrained myself in the last response. Do you perhaps imagine that anyone disagreeing with you is calling you names???? There is name for that, but I sure you can figure that out. --Michael C. Price talk 21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Should we bring back Ebionites/wip to head off an edit war on the main page? FAs are supposed to be stable. Ovadyah 03:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Sound idea. I suggest that we write the different POV sections first before adapting the outline/header in situ. But the basic idea is that there should NOT be a single history section. The POVs might be :
  • Ebionites as Qumranite Essenes / Early Church at Jerusalem/Pella
  • Ebionites as Heretics (mainstream Christian POV)
  • Ebionites as Gnostics
But we can add to them as we go along.--Michael C. Price talk 05:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That is neither feasible nor needed, at least not along the lines outlined here, especially since "Qumranite Essenes" are not "Early Church at Jerusalem/Pella" and "as Heretics (mainstream Christian POV)" is not a different outline to the latter but merely a value judgement. Str1977 (smile back) 12:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Str1977, you are obviously unfamilar with some of the literature (as I am as well) -- which highlights the need for a "Qumranite/Essenes/Early Church at Jerusalem/Pella" section; it also shows what a lamentable job the current article does of explaining various reliably sourced POVs. As for value judgments, there's no problem as long as we are reporting them from acceptable sources, instead of theorizing about what we "know" to be true. --Michael C. Price talk 21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I am opposed to the POV sections you propose, I encourage you to improve the Essenism or Gnosticism section with material regarding the Jerusalem Church. --Loremaster 16:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Str1977. Ebionites is a featured article; it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Although we should update or improve it when necessary, I find Micheal's suggestions to be unecessary. --Loremaster 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether we ultimately adopt Michael's suggestions or not, I am strongly opposed to tearing apart the current article (other than /wip where these ideas can be tried out). In the interest of heading off any looming edit wars, I should also point out that slapping Disputed tags on featured articles will earn you a block, as CS recently found out the hard way. Ovadyah 16:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree.
The article should proceed from our knowledge about the historical group called Ebionites, their when, how, what, in NPOV fashion, including their beliefs, and the estimation of this by others.
IMHO this means two things: we do not retell a history of the Ebionites according to their POV from the crucifixion onwards (saying that "Pauline Christians" committed apostasy while they were faithful, following James etc.) - instead we related their views on those early Christian figures, that they thought James good and Paul bad and Peter whatnot. To relate a recontructed history of the Ebionites according to their POV is what would get us into trouble and require a similary annyoing "but others say" section about the same time span.
Str1977 (smile back) 13:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that "but others say" sections are unavoidable. That's what NPOV is all about.--Michael C. Price talk 13:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No, they are not.
NPOV requires us to cover all notable POVs. I agree. But not to create separate POV sections.
I am afraid currently the "history" section in parts is a history according to the Ebionite (or modern-Eisenmanic/taborite) POV. That will not do. Str1977 (smile back) 13:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair criticism Str, but you need to bring in secondary sources with an alternative POV, not just say you "know" something else is true based on church history or scripture. I think you already know this. It's hard work digging up sources. But if you are not willing to put in the time (we are all busy), your complaints seem hollow. Ovadyah 14:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair enough demand and I will not shrink from it when it comes to putting in "alternative" views. Str1977 (smile back) 14:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Super! Generally speaking, if people are going to challenge the accuracy of a featured article, they need to come to the table with evidence. Ovadyah 17:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Str1977. The paragraph in the History section (which starts with "some scholars argue" and ends with "by both Jews and Christians.") should better convey the impression that it is a speculative POV from minority scholars and fringe researchers. --Loremaster 10:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added a new introductory sentence to that effect. --Loremaster 08:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Jesus Section

I've been trying to edit the Jesus section in order to restore or edit some content but there seems to be a technical problem preventing me. Is anyone else facing this problem? --Loremaster 15:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not me, although it looks as if it should have some paragraph breaks which don't appear, so perhaps there is something awry.--Michael C. Price talk 19:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It was a wiki code typo which I fixed. --Loremaster 14:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Schoeps revisited

I've removed the following sentence from the Legacy section until someone who has read his works can confirm it:

The legacy of the Ebionites is debated. Scholar Hans-Joachim Schoeps argued that the primary influence of the Ebionites was on the nontrinitarian origins of Islam due to their exchanges with the first Muslims.[1]

--Loremaster 06:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I copied the Schoeps content and reference here so it doesn't get buried in the archives. I will try again to find a copy. Ovadyah 17:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the mention of the role of the Ebionites in the origin of Islam but a new citation is needed since no one has read Schoeps to confirm that he explored the issue. --Loremaster 21:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The German text that Str translated below is based on Schoeps and a reference was included. Ovadyah 21:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'll restore the original sentence and reference then. --Loremaster 14:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page warning

Here's a suggested warning banner -- I've copied liberally from Overdayh's text :

  • Please do not complain if this article contains material which you are convinced is not true or unproven (e.g. that Simeon of Jerusalem was Jesus' brother or that John the Baptist was a vegetarian). Everything about the Ebionites is disputed and conjectural. It is the aim of the article to report on all the divergent views about the Ebionites that exist in the modern literature, and hence to be in conformity with WP:NPOV.
  • Please do not insert material into the article which you "know" are true based on primary sources (such as the Bible or the Church Fathers). WP:NOR requires that we only report what the secondary sources says about the Ebionites. This is the critical paragraph from WP:NOR:

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

You are allowed to merely "state" the content of primary sources. You cannot analyze/expound on/interpret them because that would be the equivalent of an editor acting as his/her own secondary source. This is a foundational Wiki policy. Even within this narrow scope, a primary source can only be used as support within the context of a verifiable secondary source, such as a reference provided by that source. It can never be used as a replacement for a secondary source.

This topic has been extensively discussed in the past and most of the contributors here are sick to death of re-explaining Wikipolicy. It went to Arbcom awhile ago, which clarified that, for Ebionite purposes, "secondary sources" means "modern sources" and "primary sources" refers to the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers about the Ebionites. --Michael C. Price talk 18:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is very good, and will hopefully prevent future misundertandings. Good work! Ovadyah 19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully :-) --Michael C. Price talk 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And what do you want to do with this banner? Where shall it go? Do we need examples in this? I object to that as it highlights a certain POV and misrepresents the current conflict. Str1977 (smile back) 20:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We need examples because otherwise people will misunderstand it. How would you explain WP:NOR ?? --Michael C. Price talk 21:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to have a go at any POV with the examples; one is a recent example, the other from further back. --Michael C. Price talk 05:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's great. We could have avoided reams of heated discussion and some hard feelings if we had this before as a guideline. Can we formalize it into more of a template format? A generalizable template with space for article-specific comments at the bottom would be ideal. Ovadyah 02:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Formalizing it into a generic template sounds a good idea. How do we do that? --Michael C. Price talk 05:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand where you want to put this (at the top of the talk page?) and where it does begin and end.
And no, I don't think it would have stopped our debate above as I don't think that was about OR but about how word passing references. Str1977 (smile back) 13:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Michael, a separate template page needs to be created which is then {/*{linked}*/} like this (remove /* */). You can get general info on templates at WP:Templates and specific instructions at MediaWiki Templates. Loremaster knows how to do it, and he can give you more specifics. Ovadyah 13:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't such a note also include the opinions of "secondary sources" should not be portrayed as fact. I think turn around is fair play. Str1977 (smile back) 17:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
We have different views on this. Loremaster and I support reporting author's speculation as just that, speculation. I think Michael would say this is editors using selective judgement, and therefore POV. Thus we enter into the murky realm of "undue weight". We need an RFC on this so we can lay it to rest, as we did for primary sources. Ovadyah 17:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Ovadyah, you have correctly represented my view. Whether a secondary source's POV is a fact or not is to judge content, which is not permitted. All these problems go away if we move the histories into separate POV sections: then it is clear that all views, no matter how plainly reported, are opinions. Of course that should be always be obvious about everything, but sometimes people need reminding... :-) --Michael C. Price talk 21:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"to judge content" is not permitted. But neither is it permitted to portray one branch of POVs as fact while ignore the opposing views. Str1977 (smile back) 10:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
A complete strawman -- I've always said all views should be represented.--Michael C. Price talk 10:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Do the present group of editors want me to contact RFC and have someone advise us about how to apply undue weight and properly present the speculations of verifiable sources? I'm all for heading off heated arguments. Let me know. Ovadyah 22:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think an RfC is need for the "Simeon" issue. It is simply a matter of applying policy. NPOV, so "relative".
If you however refer to another issue, then maybe. Str1977 (smile back) 10:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather we all just agreed to represent separate POVs in separate sections, as many other articles do, but failing that then I guess an RfC (Request For Comments?) may be required. What do you plan -- just ask Alec to have another look? That would be a good idea -- I found his guidance clear last time. --Michael C. Price talk 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with presenting separate POVs in /wip, but not in the main article, at least not yet, because it's so disruptive to the structure of the article. In the interests of transparency, I prefer to post a request to RfC (Request fo Comments). When we asked Alec for comments last time, some editors objected and accused him of being a "ringer". If we don't get a response from RfC after a week, then I think it's fair and reasonable to ask Alec. Is anyone not ok with this? Ovadyah 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm OK with working off-article (eg /wip) for the moment -- but longer term the situation is intolerable. Waiting a week for RfC feedback before going to Alec is OK with me. I understand your reservations about transparency, but Alec does have the advantage of having some background about Ebionites. But let's see how it pans out.--Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, Ebionites is a featured article; it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Although we should update or improve it when necessary, there is no need for any radical restructuring of the article especially if it intentionally or unintentionally gives some POVs undue weight. That being said, the old Ebionites/wip page can be used for off-article work. --Loremaster 16:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The need to restructure comes from the evident impossibility of representing all relevant views (witness the fiasco over "relative" vs "brother") in the present format. A clear obfuscation of material. --Michael C. Price talk 17:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The Essenism section was created to present most of the views you wanted to include and have included. Feel free to expand it. That being said, the so-called fisaco over "relative" vs "brother" was not only something not worth a dispute but it certainly isn't worth creating a new section about it in an article that isn't primarily about that subject. This article is about the Ebionites not the different points of views on the family of Jesus. That's what the Desposyni article is for. --Loremaster 17:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The irrelevance of the "relative" vs "brother" issue it merely your POV. As I have repeatedly stated, it is a POV that appears NOWHERE in the literature, yet you continue to defend the undefendable.--Michael C. Price talk 17:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
My point is that it simply does NOT matter whether or not we use "relative" rather than "brother" since a brother IS a relative. It is a completely appropriate *alternative* way of stating a fact. It's only when Str1977 and you made a dispute out of this trivial issue that POVs became an issue. Do you get it? --Loremaster 17:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The point you do not get is that your judgement that the distinction between "brother" and "relative" is irrelevant is not a judgment that exists in the literature. And I have explained its relevance to the Ebionites elsewhere on this talk page. We should stick with the sources, not twist facts to suit our own agenda. Yes, all brothers are relatives, but not all relatives are brothers. Do you get it? --Michael C. Price talk 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
My point is that it is irrelevant what the literature says since the sentence was NOT written to satisfy an agenda or some "Chalcedonian POV" or "Pauline POV". This accusation is utterly ridiculous! --Loremaster 20:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
So it was just a mistake, was it? And you have no objection to changing it back? -Michael C. Price talk 20:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
To end this needless "dispute", I willing to give in to your bullying. However, if Str1977 reverts your edit, which he would have a legitimate reason to do, you will have to resolve this nonsense with him. --Loremaster 20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I wondered if you'd be able admit your error -- I see not. --Michael C. Price talk 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
My entire point is that the notion that that using the word "relative" is a part of agenda or POV pushing or mistake is non-sense! --Loremaster 15:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to say that "relative" nowhere appears in the sources, to equate this with a "Chalcedonian" or "Pauline" POV. "Relative" is more general than brother and hence encompasses many views. Also, the sources do not clearly call him brother (but looking back I have written this a hundred times so far). The fiasco consists in Michael's refusal to adhere to WP policy or to the concept of articles being focused on one subject and relegating other information to other articles. Str1977 (smile back) 10:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It amazing how people will argue that black is white to push their POVs -- the secondary sources do call Simon a brother of Jesus. You're not still going on about primary sources are you? I think it is telling that I have repeatedly asked for a scholarly reference that represents Simon of Jerusalem as Jesus' relative but not his brother and not one has been forthcoming. Not one. --Michael C. Price talk 10:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it is amazing how you turn black into white. I am a historian and when I say sources I mean the actual sources (=primary sources) not some books written about the subject. Anyway, I know this is not the place for Original research. But still, you cannot call him a brother in direct contravention of the source, you can only say that Tabor and Eisenman and Maccoby and Saint Jerome identify him with Simeon the brother, while others consider things differently. And in this context, given that the article is not about Simeon at all, nor about relatives of Jesus, we needn't cover it at all. And this is why I have not taken the trouble to come forth with anything because the issue is not the scope of this article and I have no intent to waste my limited time on non-issues that stem from your failure to adhere to WP policies and the basic concept of an encyclopedia (topicality). Str1977 (smile back) 13:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
when I say sources I mean the actual sources (=primary sources) not some books written about the subject. -- I see you are still going on about primary sources and are grimly determined to bring your own POV to article, in direct contravention to wikipolicy. This is not acceptable, but at least it will bring things to a head. Change the article all you like but you will find it is very easy for all your changes to be reverted back out.--Michael C. Price talk 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You will also find that your POV pushing can be easily reverted before continuing to make actual improvements. I am not pushing my own POV at all. If I would, I would instantly removed Eisenman and Maccoby and relegate them to a "loony section" ... do I do it? No. Relative is a neutral term, brother doesn't appear in the source. There is no WP policy that requires us to ignore the sources. Str1977 (smile back) 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "the source". And, for the nth time, Wikipedia is only interested in what 2ndary sources have to say.--Michael C. Price talk 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself on another thread, if "others" consider things differently, then you need to bring in those verifiable sources so that we can see what they say. Appeals to lack of time will not do. If you don't have time for due diligence, then you have little room to criticize others as POV pushers. Ovadyah 14:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Your demand above was fair enough and if you mean the same here, that opposing views must be sourced, I agree. The problem is that the exact relation of Jesus and Simeon is really a no-issue in this article. If it were, I would agree with Michael's preaching "let's put all views side by side" (though not with hitherto practice). But it is simply not feasible when the reference is just in passing. That's not dillegence, than circumstance:
Currently we have: "Simeon, another relative" (my and Loremaster's favourite)
Michael wants: "Simeon, another brother
But the proper way to go according to Michael's demand would be "Simeon, who some scholars deem another brother of Jesus (source), while others deem him a cousin (source) or a relative of another king (source).
At the risk of repeating myself, the first alternative seems to be the best way to go in this context (another context, another issue). Str1977 (smile back) 14:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Str1977. --Loremaster 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
My two-cents, which I stated long ago in the archived NPOV talk section, is that "relative" may be more NPOV, but it is less accurate. If we are supposed to be reporting what the secondary sources are saying, we should use "brother" because the sources are saying brother. Arguing that the sources we have documented are "fringe" or "marginal" is not a rational argument based on evidence. If we can bring in additional verifiable sources that say "relative" then I may change my opinion. Right now, imho, it's a no-brainer that we should use "brother". Ovadyah 17:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Less accurate only if he was a brother. But that is contentious if one goes beyond the trinity of secondary sources very much cited here (Tabor, Maccoby, Eisenman) and even more so if one looks at the actual sources. I see no reason to change my mind on this: the statement of primary sources cannot be ignored simply pointing to NOR - even the advise above says that the statements of primary sources can be included. I am not talking about analysis (which the primary sources do not contain) but in this case about the mere statement of names.
And yes, these writers are fringe and marginal. I will look into more sources soon. Regarding the Ebionites that is. As I repeatedly said, the article is not about Simeon and hence no in depth coverage of his exact relation to Jesus is called for unless any RS claims that the Ebionites placed a special importance on brothers as opposed to mere relatives (though I have never heard this and it seems incredible since at lest the third bishop of Jerusalem was not a brother of Jesus). Str1977 (smile back) 08:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Str1977. --Loremaster 09:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and Loremaster I'm surprised you reversed your position on this, articulated here. If all the secondary sources we have available to us are saying the same thing, that is what matters. What you "know" to be true is OR and irrelevant. If you think the designation "brothers" is controversial and only pushed by marginal or fringe scholars, then prove it. But until you can bring evidence to the article beyond your own gnosis, that there is a different "mainstream" view, it should remain "brothers" in the article. Ovadyah 14:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken: If you read carefully the archived talk thread, I said: I favor the use of the term "brother" rather than "relative" when dealing with James. --Loremaster 05:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but I'm talking specifically about Simeon. Ovadyah 14:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Loremaster: I too favour the term "brother" when talking about James and the other three brothers when they are clearly referred to (even though personally I do not believe them to be sons of Mary, for a variety of reasons, not just religious ones).
And I favour "relative" when talking about those not clearly identified with brothers, as I have explained time and again.
This is not about "what I or anyone knows to be true" or OR but about the designation given in the sources: the sources clearly call James a brother, they do not clearly call Simeon of Jerusalem a brother. Scholarly explanations of the details should be covered in the proper place but this article is not it. Str1977 (smile back) 18:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Since the secondary sources do describe Simon and James as brothers of Jesus that is how we should report it, when describing the conclusions of those sources. --Michael C. Price talk 19:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You still don't get it.
a) even if all secondary "sources" would say it should still be attributed. (However, they don't.)
b) the issue is totally off topic here. Str1977 (smile back) 12:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
a) Agree. Your point is?
b) Rubbish. As I previously said: the brother issue is relevant since it indicates the Ebionites may have been following what they perceived as a royal bloodline succession. Plenty of sources for that as well. --Michael C. Price talk 13:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
a) the point is that you cannot state as fact something that is merely the deduction of (some) scholars (and non-scholars)
b) You have not shown from any RS that the Ebionites placed importance on a succession among the brothers (as opposed to mere relatives). No sources for that. We have sources for an emphasis on succession among relatives (though your playing John the Baptist in this regard is seriously misguided, ignoring the special position of Jesus). If we had a passage about such brother-succession we could mention Simeon (or rather would, as it falls apart without a second brother), but for lack of sources we haven't got one. So, the issue is not relevant TO THIS ARTICLE.
Str1977 (smile back) 13:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
a) Still in complete agreement. Your point is?
b) False. Plenty of sources make the same blood line argument I have reported. Try reading Tabor or Eisenman instead of shouting your mouth off.--Michael C. Price talk 13:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
a) then why do you want to do just that all along?
b) First of all, clean up your language. Secondly, you have not shown that anyone makes that argument. Again the argument need would be a SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON BROTHERS (AND NOT JUST RELATIVES) SUCEEDING JESUS. I hope you get it now and stop playing as if you didn't understand it. Str1977 (smile back) 14:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Tabor and other sources make EXACTLY THAT POINT. YES, THAT MEANS BROTHERS (AND NOT JUST RELATIVES) SUCEEDING (sic) JESUS..--Michael C. Price talk 14:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Stop throwing around personal attacks and for once contribute something to the discussion. WHERE does TABOR make that claim? QUOTE HIM! And after you have done this, suggest WHERE AND HOW YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THIS! Before that the Simeon was actually a brother is off-topic even if you stand on your head. 16:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have answered (well, refuted actually) your claim that no sources exist for the brother-bloodline claim. Now you demand page numbers -- well that's fine (and they will appear), but there's an awful lot of the article that doesn't meet that standard. So put you own house in order as well. And BTW there is no requirement to QUOTE Tabor, since he is not a primary source.
Your claim that "Simon as brother" is off-topic is just your opinion; it's an opinion not shared by all the sources, and that's what's relevant. I have explained the relevance of the "brother" issue a number of times and not once have you made a substantive response -- which is quite funny from someone who claims I haven't contributed to the discussion. --Michael C. Price talk 17:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Funny how some people take personal attacks and endless repition for refuation. Thus far you have only stated that Tabor says that but not shown anything.
I do not demand page numbers - I want to see what Tabor writes and since you are the chief Taborite it is easier that you just bring it on.
I do not want it quoted because WP demands that and have no interest in your wiki-lawyering. I want to see what Tabor writes since by now I cannot take your word for it. And I did AGF.
Do not point to other faults of the article (and they way exist) as an excuse for trying to include spurious things.
You have not explained the relevance, you have only exclaimed that it must be included. You have not demonstrated anything. And no you haven't provided anything to the discussion yet aside from personal attacks, endless repititions of the same stuff. And yes, that is only my opinion.
My opinion is my opinion BUT your opinion is your opinion. You are basically saying that your opinion should govern this article. It doesn't matter whether "my opinion" is not shared by ALL THE SOURCES (a funny way of trying to turn things around) as I do not want "my opinion" to be included - you want your opinion to be stated as fact, even though it is unfounded in primary sources and contradicted by some secondary sources. And I won't allow that. Str1977 (smile back) 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thus far you have only stated that Tabor says that but not shown anything. I agree -- you really don't get Wiki, do you? All we are here to do is to "report" what the sources say. We do not have to "show" anything -- in fact we are banned from that. You may call that "wiki-lawyering" -- I really don't care what you call it. They are the rules and that's that. --Michael C. Price talk 17:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging the article

Perhaps my previous words of caution were too subtle. Featured articles do not need "cleanup" or any other disputed tags. If you disagree with the content or layout of the article, that's why we have a talk page and a /wip page to try things out. I will take anyone that tags this article to AN/I and have you blocked. Ovadyah 14:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about the fact that it is a featured article (though how this came about is beyond me). The "history" section will nonetheless require a clean-up some time soon. Str1977 (smile back) 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. Ovadyah 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree. The History section needs a clean-up to better differentiate facts from speculations. The introductory paragraph I added was the first step. --Loremaster 21:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicking

I am a bit concerned about some elements of the passage:

"Their name, which had previously been used by the Essenes, is thought to derive from several religious texts, including a verse in the Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."(Matthew 5:3) based on related religious texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones."
  • "which had previously been used by the Essenes"
That's actually not true. The Ebionites are the Ebionites and the Essenes the Essenes and the latter didn't call itself "Ebionites". At best they used the Hebrew expression for "the poor" but that's not quite the same. Also the sentence reads as if that was the name of the Essenes, which it isn't.
  • "based on related religious texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones."
seems like it talks about the Sermon of the Mount. This is quite a bold statement, especially for an intro. It is unreferenced and with no balance. If it talks about the Sermon it is also off topic.
If however it really wants to refer to the name then it is perfectly okay, but a bit too much for the intro. How about creating a "name" section which deals in depth with name issues while intro remains free of too much detail.

Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 16:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • "based on related religious texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones." was cut-and-pasted from the source provided, so stop claiming it is unreferenced. Okay???
As for the Essene self-designation, "the Poor" was one of them. We had this conversation a long time when CS was around. --Michael C. Price talk 17:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I've edited that bold statement (which I agree with Micheal is referenced) to make it clear that it is the opinion of one scholar (Tabor) rather than a fact (there is no consensus that Matthew 5:3 was based on Isaiah 66:2) and explain what the remant group is being faithful to. --Loremaster 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I read Tabor slightly differently. He's not claiming that Matthew 5:3 is based on Isaiah -- or at least it is not clear that he is. Personally I think we should remove all speculation about the Ebionite name sourcing from the lead.--Michael C. Price talk 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should remove the Tabor's speculation. However, the entry on Ebionites in the Jewish Encyclopedia reports the fact that it has always been assumed that their name came from Matthew 5:3., therefore it should stay. --Loremaster 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Such selective quoting does your cause no good. The Jewish Encyclopedia also cites "Luke iv. 18, vii. 22; Matt. xix. 21 et seq., xxvi. 9 et seq.; Luke xix. 8; John xii. 5; Rom. xv. 26; II Cor. vi. 10, viii. 9; Gal. ii. 10; James ii. 5 et seq.)" --Michael C. Price talk 23:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't deny this. This is why the article mentions "several religious texts" but focuses on Luke 6:20 like many secondary sources such the Jewish Encyclopedia does. --Loremaster 16:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
As usual I see Loremaster couldn't wait to have a discussion about the above but reverted non-consensually. Well, it will all be changing back, I assure you. --Michael C. Price talk 23:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* --Loremaster 21:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What are you exasperated about? That I should engage in edit-warring with non-consensual editors? Or perhaps you think that you are entitled to make whatever changes you like without discussion, whilst we just sit and watch?--Michael C. Price talk 22:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What exasperates me (and others I assume) is your generally fanatical approach towards this entire article. In others words, relax. --Loremaster 23:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
That's right, it's always the other guy that's the fanatic, isn't it? I note you avoided answering the question. --Michael C. Price talk 00:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with so-called "non-consensual" edits when they are minor. --Loremaster 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
All claims about the origin of the Ebionite name should be removed from the lead, since it is too tightly bound up with the disputed history of the Ebionites themselves. There is no unanimity about about the name, with origin theories ranging from Isaiah, various NT passages, the Essenes, as an eponym from their founder (which has been lost from the article), "the poor in spirit". An interesting subject for the article, but not for the lead. --Michael C. Price talk 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
For once, I agree with you. I've completely deleted such speculation and replaced with a different text focusing on the history of the term. --Loremaster 16:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks much better, although I still don't like the "due to their poverty".--Michael C. Price talk 22:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Working on it. --Loremaster 23:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for neutralizing the Pauline POV in the earlier version of the paragraph since I was planning on doing just that today. --Loremaster 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
And thank you for making the point that all early Christians were originally called Ebionites -- I was going to raise that, but you beat me to it.--Michael C. Price talk 19:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Praise for the Ebionites article

Mark Goodacre recently dropped me a note and said he liked the article. For those who don't know, Mark is a renowned scholar in NT studies at Duke U. He is perhaps best known for his work on Synoptic Problem (The Case Against Q). It's nice to know we have the attention of academics in the field. I invited Mark to work with us to further improve the article. Ovadyah 14:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. If true, this can used as one of many arguments for why Ebionites was chosen to be a featured article. --Loremaster 16:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If true? I sent you the email of our correspondence, so I guess you can decide for yourself if it's true. Ovadyah 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I believe you. I was just being careful. --Loremaster 22:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ovadyah's criticisms

Ovadyah,

If you have any, could you make a list of issues you have with the article beyond the ones regarding the Essenism section. If you don't have any, I will be taking a break from editing the article for next few weeks. --Loremaster 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I will take a thorough look at it this weekend. I want to compare the current article to the article as it was just before the day it was featured. I still have this nagging feeling some things were removed by all the drive-by editors. Rather than insert them, I will bring whatever I find here. Ovadyah 17:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. --Loremaster 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Writings and Archaeology

The Writings and Archaeology sections are in good shape after a few minor reversions. Some references are missing elsewhere, which I will detail shortly. I'm doing the easy stuff first. Ovadyah 02:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood. --Loremaster 02:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

James the Just

Although he is not mentioned in patristic descriptions of the Ebionites, some scholars argue that the Ebionites may have claimed unique legitimacy in terms of apostolic succession from James the Just, the first bishop of Jerusalem, whom they believed the rightful leader of the Church due to a patrilineal succession of relatives of Jesus, who many Jewish Christians regarded as the legitimate apostolic successors to James as patriarchs of the Jerusalem church, rather than Peter. Futhermore, they argue that the Ebionites viewed James as the legitimate high priest of Israel, by virtue of his righteousness, in opposition to the officially recognized high priest.

– [2][3][4]

The clause in italics was deleted along with the Eisenman reference. Was this clause an editorial POV or deleted by a POV? Ovadyah 03:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a sentence I orginally wrote which I decided to delete due to Str1977's criticisms. The Eisenman reference, however, was deleted by mistake so I will restore it. --Loremaster 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to think about this one. It makes the important point that the Ebionites did not regard Peter as being in the line of succession. I can see why our Catholic friend would find this hard to bear, but that's consistent with the family patriarchy of the Desposyni. If our verifiable sources said this, it should be put back. Ovadyah 03:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we need to put back the entire sentence. Simply restoring the mention of Peter should be sufficient. --Loremaster 04:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Ovadyah 04:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul of Tarsus

Patristic sources report Ebionites as denouncing Paul of Tarsus as an apostate from the Law,[5] for his slander of the pillars of the church, and condemnation of their "judaizing teachings" as a threat to the spread of his schismatic religion. Epiphanius relates that some Ebionites alleged that Paul was a Greek who converted to Judaism in order to marry the daughter of a high priest of Israel but apostasized when she rejected him.[6] Hyam Maccoby argued that Paul was an apostate and developed the early Christian church as a Gnostic Jewish mystery religion.

– [7][8]

The clause in italics was deleted along with a reference to 2Cor. Again, was this clause an editorial POV or deleted by one? Ovadyah 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a sentence I originally wrote which I decided to delete due to Str1977's criticisms. --Loremaster 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with leaving this out. It's a speculation about why the Ebionites denounced Paul as an apostate. Epiphanius never said anything like this, so it's just editorializing. Ovadyah 04:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. --Loremaster 04:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

John the Baptist

In one excerpt from the Gospel of the Ebionites quoted by Epiphanius, John the Baptist is portrayed as a vegetarian Nazirite teacher and a prophetic forerunner to Jesus. Scholars argue that Jewish Christians viewed the ministry of John as an alternative to what they perceived to be the culture of corruption surrounding the Temple in Jerusalem.[2][3][4]

Same type of thing going on here. The references are ok. Ovadyah 03:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a sentence I originally wrote which I decided to intergrate into the second paragraph of the History section. --Loremaster 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok. But the resulting one-sentence section seems awkward. Maybe JTB and James should be combined into an All Other bucket. Ovadyah 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Or we could report the claims made by Eisenman and Tabor about John the Baptist and his relationship to Jesus if they are at variance with the traditional Christian portrayal. Otherwise, no need to bother to report fact that Christians don't dispute. --Loremaster 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesus

The first two paragraphs are ok.

Like traditional Christians, Ebionites believed Jesus invited his disciples to live according to an ethic of social justice that would be standard in the future kingdom of God: Since Jesus revealed what the ethic of the Messianic Age will be, his disciples should immediately adjust their lives to this ethic in this age.[9] The Ebionites believed that all Jews and gentiles must observe the commandments in the Law of Moses,[10] in order to become righteous and seek communion with God;[11] but that these commandments must be understood in the light of Jesus' expounding of the Law,[12] revealed during his sermon on the mount.[13] The Ebionites may have held a form of "inaugurated eschatology" positing that the ministry of Jesus had ushered in the Messianic Age so that the kingdom of God might be understood as present in an incipient fashion, while at the same time awaiting consummation in the future age.[8][12]

Similar to the others, content was deleted along with the reference. Ovadyah 03:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a sentence I originally wrote which I decided to delete after realizing it wasn't supported by the reference I provided. --Loremaster 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Good enough. Ovadyah 04:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Legacy, Judaism, Gnosticism

These sections are all ok. The new Essenism section needs work. Ovadyah 03:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Can you write here your ideal version of the Essenism section so we can debate it? --Loremaster 03:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I will put my version on the Ebionites/wip page. Ovadyah 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. This should be our priority cause the current version is dubious to say the least. --Loremaster 04:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Patristic sources

Please get rid of the bullet points once and for all. A clause was added to Justin Martyr, "whom he considers heretics". This is factually untrue. JM said their salvation was at risk. Irenaeous was the first to call them heretics. I'm not sure I like this as a separate section from History, but let's leave it for now. Ovadyah 04:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit this section to make these changes. --Loremaster 04:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I did this once already and Str immediately reverted my changes. Please explain to him that the Summary style should be used where possible rather than lists. I will make the necessary changes. Ovadyah 04:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of what happened in the past. I will support your changes if Str disputes them again. --Loremaster 04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

History

The last paragraph about al-Jabbar et al. is ok. The rest of the History section needs work as you said. Unfortunately, I don't have the energy to work on it tonight. Ovadyah 04:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood. --Loremaster 04:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael, thanks for providing those references. Ovadyah 12:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with the paragraph on the decline and fall of the Ebionites in the Roman World, but I'm going to do some research to find out more about the details. I'll let you guys fight it out over the Essenes. Ovadyah 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)