Talk:Ebionites/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Passed Featured Article

The article passed Wikipedia GA. Merely 1 in 1300 articles are that sufficient. I told you guys this article was a superb expose on the Ebionites, which gives the author even more credit considering the near completely insufficiant sources and knowledge of the topic, the Ebionites. 66.161.185.110 12:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Joshua

Thank you, Joshua. --Loremaster 00:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Loremaster! The Ebionites article is now comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced, and NPOV. It is the best encyclopedic article on this subject that I have seen. You have another FA to add to your growing list of accomplishments on Wikipedia! Ovadyah 13:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Ovadyah! If you hadn't convinced me to come back and contribute to the article, none of this good work would ever have happened. :) --Loremaster 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations to you folks. Well done. Metamagician3000 13:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About See also

According to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Loremaster, Articals explaining offical Wikipedia policy have "see also" sections. NazireneMystic 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I know but official Wikipedia policy pages and encyclopedic articles are not held to the same standard. Futhermore, I have spoken to Wikipedia administrators about this issue and I've confirmed that this rule of thumb is an unofficial policy that is highly recommended. --Loremaster 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
"See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and "see also", which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. --Loremaster 19:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference audit

Connected Klijn and Reinink reference back to article using ref tags. Ovadyah 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The following are "dead references" that don't connect back to anything in the article:

  • Akers, Keith. The Lost Religion of Jesus : Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity. New York: Lantern Books, 2000.
  • Cameron, Ron. The Other Gospels. Philadephia: Westminster Press, 1982, pp 103-106.
  • Danielou, Jean. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Chicago: The Henry Regnery Company, 1964.
  • Lüdemann, Gerd. Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
  • Skriver, Carl Anders. The Forgotten Beginnings of Creation and Christianity. Denver: Vegetarian Press, 1990.
  • Vaclavik, Charles. The Origin of Christianity: The Pacifism, Communalism, and Vegeterianism of Primitive Christianity. Platteville, Wisconsin: Kaweah Publishing Company, 2004.

These were added to the reference list during the early stages of writing the article. I'm preserving them here on the Talk page but removing them from the article. Ovadyah 01:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted references

I think we lost some references during the heated editing and vandalism that occured on the day the Ebionites article was featured. I will attempt to go back thru the history and bring them here, if anyone else wants to help. Ovadyah 14:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been concerned anout this possibility as well but I've never had time to look into it. --Loremaster 15:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You can find the pre-feautured article version of the References section here.

Why has reference to Shemayah Philips at ebionite.org as being the foremost leader in the modern reestablishment of Evyonut been deleted? I've been watching his site since 1997 and his leadership went unrivaled for years.

I can answer that. Since the Ebionite Jewish Community is specifically mentioned in the Ebionites article, all the references and links to the group were moved to that stub as well. (I think it was also done so that NazireneMystic wouldn't have a stroke.) :0) Ovadyah 03:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It also made sense to move the link when we got rid of the See Also section during Peer review. See Also and External Sources can become billboards for every Tom, Dick & Harry with a website. We needed to get away from cheap advertising to whip the article into shape for FAC. Ovadyah 03:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NazireneMystic's criticisms

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)

  1. Since I can't access Hans Joachim Schoeps's article, can you please explain how he is being misreprented so when can correct any mistake?
  2. Keith Akers was never discredited. We simply chose to no longer cite him as a source because he himself said he was a commentator not a scholar. Although I have no problem mentioning him and citing his work (which I have now done), the article would not read any differently since the claim that the Ebionites were an Essene sect is NOT a fact - it is only an hypothesis - which is the reason why there is a question mark about the Essenism or Gnosticism section.
  3. The claim that evidence for the Ebionite-Essene connection is being suppressed is non-sense since the view of proponents of this connection is fairly and accurately presented.
  4. I encourage you to tell us the more complex issues you have with this article in order for us to resolve this dispute once and for all.
--Loremaster 00:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I (Keith Akers) am a scholar. I am not associated with an institution. I may have said "I am not a scholar" because I am not getting my living by teaching and am not associated with an institution. The article on "Academia" says: "The term scholar is sometimes used with equivalent meaning to that of 'academic' and describes in general those who attain mastery in a research discipline. It has wider application, with it also being used to describe those whose occupation was research prior to mass organized higher education." I had a recognized, and in fact quite distinguished, person who IS associated with an institution and IS making (or has made) their living through teaching write an introduction to each of my books (Peter Singer for "A Vegetarian Sourcebook," Walter Wink for "The Lost Religion of Jesus").Keith Akers 15:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I would urge those trying to "improve" this article -- and I think there are at least three, maybe more, such sincere people -- not to do so. It is a waste of time. I spent countless hours editing this several years ago and almost everything has been edited out and replaced by silly statements. There is some good material but you have to be an expert to sort out the good stuff from the nonsense, which exactly defeats the purpose of an article. I have given my the reasons elsewhere. Wikipedia does quite well on countless subjects, but it fails in more specialized areas such as this one. I am not sure if Wikipedia can be made to work in such areas, but you are not going to be able to recruit competent people to help you if you treat them this way. James Tabor has made similar statements in his blog. Good luck. Keith Akers 15:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I preferred the article back in the days when it was peppered with Panarion quotes to support statements. I'm not so sure that the problem is just the lack of experts -- it also suffers from a surfeit of POV-pushing editors who lack objectively and a willingness to play by the Wikipedian rules. Things have recently improved there, though, so perhaps we've turned a corner for the better.--Michael C. Price talk 22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello Loremaster, I will respond but will be busy with work and other things the next few days. This artical is not going anywere so hopefuly your question will survive till wensday or thursday before being archived away. I would like to say we have been through this before and shortly afterwards the artical would be somewhat NPOV but in time without constant checking, through little tweaks in the name of improvment it starts becoming rather biased. Science has already proven the attitude of the experimentor does effect the results of an experiment thus left alone with Oyvdahy's dogmatic mindset along with your secular humanist mindset that would prefer to see the real Yeshua movement being nothing more then ignorant people, will cause the "Improvments" to lean in one direction . I'm tring not to be offenisve but as I said this has happened before. The problem is you cant excape the laws that science has started to get glimpes of, and ether can the Scientist.

  1. I wouldn't archive a question before you have answered it. Even if I did, that shouldn't prevent you from answering it.
  2. Although I've always freely admitted that I view the Ebionites through a secular humanist POV informed by the works of the Jesus Seminar, I haven't let this POV interfere with my duty to write an encyclopedic article that is the most neutral possible. I have never said that the Ebionites were nothing more then ignorant people. I have said that it is *possible* that some or even all "Ebionites" were not faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus. This is a possibility that cannot be denied by any reasonable person. However, the article has never claimed that this possibility was a fact nor have any of my edits implied that.
  3. Although you may think you are not trying to be offensive, you in fact are being extremely offensive due to your constant personal attacks against me and other editors of this article. So please focus on exposing the flaws of this article rather than contributing to more animosity between us.
--Loremaster 17:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Until clearly seen problems are fixed there is no need to work on others. That being said the article by Hans Joachim Schoeps's that the link I posted is about is at least verifiable. Do you have an online verifible source for the summary of Schoep's view given in the FA? On the archive page 3 all I see is one editor point out what that link might imply as to why it should be disgarded. How could that be taken in good faith? I have written in his view of ebionites and were he believed they drew thier ideas from only to have them deleted but I am only reporting the facts. Since the FA relies on only a few opinions to debunk the camp that is rather pro Essene, could pulling Schoeps out of one camp and placing him were he belongs be problemitc to some editors? With Schoep in his proper group and the Essene debunkers losing an ally wouldnt the question mark on the Essene section becomes even more questionable?

Actualy the link I posted is a better reference then most of the references given in the artital. Most all the links are dead. Why is this FA dependant on so many dead links when at the same time online sources are not used? Are we going to be dependant on the private book collections of one or two editors on such a highly debated subject?

Unitll this in worked on why should we discuss more issues? NazireneMystic

NazareneMystic, rather than talking about how other editors are trying to be misleading, why don't you lay out your case for what Schoeps is saying here on the talk page. That means actual content from Schoeps' publications, not your opinions of what you think he is saying. Ovadyah 00:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ovadyah. The only thing I would like to to point out is that the question mark in the title of the Essenism section is perfectly justified since the suggestion that Ebionites were Essenes is not fact regardless of the number of fringe scholars promote it. --Loremaster 05:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to any verifible source supporting what the present article is claiming about his views?

I expected that answer. A direct request for source information is met with accusations. As I said before, you have nothing rational to say to support your own views, so you accuse others of being purposely misleading. How can you expect anyone here to take you seriously? If you are going to challenge the accuracy of a featured article, you need to bring your evidence here, not your opinions and accusations. Ovadyah 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That was a question, not an accusation, to which I gather the answer is no. --Michael C. Price talk 23:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I know that, but the implication of the question is that what is now in the article is unsupported. The answer is I'm not sure, since I didn't add that material to the article. However, I know we have been through this exact discussion already at least twice. My point is that you don't answer a direct question by questioning something else if you expect to have a rational discussion. But having a rational discussion is not NM's intent. It's a typical tactic in debates among religious sects called an honor/shame riposte. The idea is to never be pinned down by having to defend your position. You just keep escalating the argument by attacking your opponent. The objective is not to understand and seek to be understood but to dominate and humiliate your opponent. It can be quite amusing, but it doesn't accomplish anything of practical value here. Ovadyah 02:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. --Loremaster 17:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

NazireneMystic, we are still waiting for your comments. --Loremaster 15:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Subsections

Unless someone intends to expand the new subsections and rather quickly, the article looks really crappy all broken up like this. I disagree with having Patristic Sources at the top and History near the bottom. I don't care what other articles do. It makes the article appear disjointed. Ovadyah 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it looks pretty fucked up. I've thought so for awhile; now it looks even worse. --Michael C. Price talk 21:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Michael for your qualified and dignified judgment.
Ovadyah, I broke up the sections because they covered different things. And I moved it to the bottom a) because other articles do it like this, b) this makes sense: a religion (or anything else) is first defined by what it is (or was, if it is something of the past) and only later by its development, c) the history section is necessarily the most contentious - once the secion is improved to a proper NPOV coverage this will be clearer (what we KNOW about the Ebionites is from observations from the mid-2nd to the 4-th century - anything earlier, i.e. how the Ebionites of the 2ns and the Jerusalem Christians of the first are linked, is reconstruction and to a large extent speculation)
Whether the Patristic sources should be on top is of course debatable. But since it is what we know, it should come before the history section. On a second thought, it is maybe better to place the "beliefs and practices" first. OTOH, the sources are the basis of that information as well.Str1977 (smile back) 09:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll give other folks a day or so to add material or fix the order. Otherwise, it goes back to something more like the old structure. This is embarrassing! Ovadyah 22:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, let them knock themselves out, then we'll revert it all back to some semblance of sanity. --Michael C. Price talk 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
For once, we all agree. Although I appreciate the work Str has done to make the article more neutral, I don't like the new subsections. This is a major change which should have been discussed with other editors before being done. --Loremaster 17:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Good. Please restore something close to the original structure, as I will be tied up for awhile today. Ovadyah 18:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't stand it. I restored the original order of the history section, but I left the new subdivisions for now. I see no reason for these subdivisions unless someone intends to add more content to them quite soon. Othewise, try out your ideas on /wip. That's why it was created. Ovadyah 23:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course, there will be additions. But even if not, the divisions are needed because "Legacy" is something else then history. Str1977 (smile back) 09:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I expanded the Legacy section slightly with some new content and references about neo-Ebionites (not the EJC). Ovadyah 02:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Great stuff! --Loremaster 03:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Good additions. However the "A Messianic leader recently commented on the Torah-observance of neo-Ebionites and asked whether Christians should do likewise." should be expanded to say what the man said, not just that he said something. Str1977 (smile back) 09:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The point is not what he is saying Christians should do. The author is reacting polemically to neo-Ebionites that are Torah-observant, and in so doing, acknowledging their influence is a concern to Messianic Judaism. Ovadyah 14:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
What Str1977 is saying is that you didn't make it clear that the author was reacting polemically. --Loremaster 05:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now I understand. Ovadyah 14:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed that's what I meant. Sorry for not being clearer. Str1977 (smile back) 18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you all approve of the current subsections or do you think some should be deleted? --Loremaster 15:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Str that Legacy is not History. Imho, the Legacy section should be kept separate and expanded by further research into the influence of Ebionitism on Islam. Patristic Sources is clearly a part of History and so should either be made into a subset or recombined with the History section. We also need to get rid of the stupid bullet points in Patristic Sources. Lists are to be avoided in favor of the Summary style. We fixed that problem during Peer review almost a year ago. Ovadyah 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --Loremaster 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Generally I think all the subsections devoted to individuals should be removed and replaced with POV sections. Any material on individuals can be absorbed into these and/or the history section(s).--Michael C. Price talk 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I am not opposed to this suggestion, I would be concerned that a neutral point of view on these individuals would be lost if the material on them is absorbed in highly speculative POV sections. --Loremaster 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It would be better to keep this section as it is than create POV sections. Ovadyah 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The neutral point of view would not be lost by having POV sections. NPOV means representing all relevant POVs. --Michael C. Price talk 08:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I am refering to the mixing of facts and speculations to such a degree that we can't distinguish the two. --Loremaster 12:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical revisionism: Essenes and Christians

According to various sources, including one of the works of the Jesus Seminar, theories trying to link the Essenes to Christianity (whether Jewish or Pauline) have been discredited by the biblical scholarship community. The implication is that only minority scholars (like Robert Eisenman), fringe researchers (like Michael Baigent), and fiction writers (like Dan Brown) continute to promote such theories. We should expand the Essenism section of the article to include this rebuttal. --Loremaster 03:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

From A Christian Thinktank: Good question... ...how well-respected are the theories of Eisenman, Allegro, Thiering, and Baigent & Leigh concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls? --Loremaster 05:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ovadyah, Str 1977, do you know of strong academic sources we could cite? --Loremaster 04:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Essenes it would be easier (though the names that first come into my mind are naturally in the German language) - but the discredited part of Eisenman is primarily his "Qumranites are Christians are Zealots and James the Teacher of Righteousness" claim, not that there were contact/influence between Essenes and Christians (though they are indeed marginal and hard to catch)
Regarding the Ebionites it is a bit harder, given the subject nature. Let's face it, sources are not very good for the Ebionites and literature is either covering the little knowledge there is (which doesn't make for a bestseller) or sensationalist-revisionist transforming them into a bigger movement than the sources tell us (they might have been one, but we cannot know)
A good step should be looking into other encyclopediae. I have started this on my talk page by copying the entry on Ebionites in the German "Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart". I will translate it in time. Str1977 (smile back) 08:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is one you should read. A critical review of Eisenman & Wise's book, "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" by Geza Vermes. > He is highly critical of Eisenman's theories and methods. Geza Vermes is a specialist in the Dead Sea Scrolls (he published a complete translation in English) and a scholar of the first rank. His books "Jesus the Jew" and "The Religion of Jesus the Jew" are ground-breaking in their importance to New Testament studies, and he is one of the pillars of the Third Quest. Ovadyah 00:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It may take some time before I get around re-reading Vermes' books. In the meantime, should we cite his critical review? --Loremaster 00:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, by all means. Ovadyah 01:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Loremaster 06:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Had I thought harder, Mr Vermes would have come to mind. Str1977 (smile back) 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, cite him, but remember that whether we accept Eisenman's theories in total is not point. Eisenman was not the first make the John the Baptist-Essene link, so independently of Eisenman we have strong link between the Ebionites and Essenes -- unless we deny the influence of John the Baptist on the Ebionites. There is also the Qumranite self-designation "The Poor" to consider. And the vegetarianism of the Qumranites and John the Baptist - as he appears in the Ebionite gospel. Epiphanius notes the similarities between the Samaritans and the Ebionites in their custom of ritual purification bathing -- a trait shared with the occupants of Qumran. All these points have been noted by a slew of authors, not just Eisenman. --Michael C. Price talk 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that whether we agree or disagree with Eisenman, we should truthfully and neutrally report his theses and the acceptance of it (or lack thereof). Str1977 (smile back) 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Refutations of Essenes-Christians theories often include the notion of John the Bapstist as Essene and go beyond simply refuting Eisenman's personal theories. As Vermes points out, although an identification of early Christians with the Essenes/Qumranites has been discredited. This does not, of course, mean that no correspondence between the two exists. It does. But it appears on a superficial level, in the employment of religious language, ideas and biblical proof-texts shared among them and all the other branches of first-century Judaism. The problem is that the slew of authors misinterepret similarity as evidence of shared identity... --Loremaster 01:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
and all the other branches of first-century Judaism Eh? So what, that in no way diminishes the Ebionite-Essene link. --Michael C. Price talk 08:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't. But these similarities are no valid basis to claim any identity between Essenes, Christians, Zealotes etc. ... and Eisenman used them as such. Str1977 (smile back) 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
In your opinion, which is irrelevant since we should just be reporting published opinions. --Michael C. Price talk 19:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
In your opinion, which is irrelevant since we should just be reporting published opinions. Str1977 (smile back) 12:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Pathetic. I was citing policy, you were spouting an opinion. Get it right. --Michael C. Price talk 13:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
So? Really? I was just explaining Loremaster's point to you to which you reacted by quoting policy? Laughable! Why did you quote policy? To tells us something we already know or to silence those disagreeing with us. Also, it is funny that only those that don't agree with you have opinions - while your utterances are either "policy", "the (one part of secondary) sources (you agree with)". Why not just state that you are the defender of truth we all are little ugly miserable heretics to your orthodoxy. Str1977 (smile back) 17:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I quote policy precisely because you don't know it. You are still claiming we should "show" things to be true instead of just reporting them. --Michael C. Price talk 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I found a great review of Eisenman's "James the Brother of Jesus" in John Painter's book, "Just James - The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition". Eisenman's book came out shortly before Painter's, and he felt obligated to include a review in an Excursus. This is an excerpt of the review: "Eisenman's book on James is both erudite and eccentric. Not only are the conclusions at variance with mainstream scholarship, but his methods of handling evidence and developing arguments are also different from those employed by mainstream scholars. Perhaps this is why there has been little dialogue between Eisenman and other critical treatments of the subject." A long and detailed point-by-point review follows. Ovadyah 02:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Good. --Loremaster 07:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Michael raises a good point that should be considered when evaluating the merits of authors and sources. Even though most of Eisenman's theories have been rejected by the majority of scholars, that doesn't automatically mean that everything he says is junk. We should be careful to evaluate individual works on their merits through the reviews of other scholars. Ovadyah 02:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. However, my comments were not focusing on Eisenman's specific theories but on Essene-Christians theories in general regardless of the author or the number of authors. --Loremaster 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Loremaster. Str1977 (smile back) 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Vermes can not be cited against the Essene origin theories. He actually supports the idea; his criticism is much more specifically against claims that Jesus, James and Paul are portrayed in the scrolls. He says: More precisely, in some organizational, administrative and cultic respects it is probable that the nascent Jewish-Christian Church modelled itself on Essenism (or whatever name is to be used for the Dead Sea sect). Such views represent common knowledge among scholars investigating the relationship between the Qumran community and Christianity, --Michael C. Price talk 22:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take care not to overinterpret Vermes comments. Saying that "in some ... respects it is probable that the nascent Jewish-Christian Church modelled itself on Essenism" is not saying Essenes = Ebionites. That they were influenced by them in some way does not prove a direct relationship, ie. despite Eisenman's claims, it is not a "fact" that the Ebionites are equivalent to or derive from the Essenes. Therefore, a question mark is justified. The Essenism section, as it reads presently, contains statements that are patently false. Ovadyah 12:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Ovadyah, the Vermes cite did not imply that Essenes = Ebionites -- it was left to the other sources to highlight the specific influence of the Essenes on the Ebionites. What sentences did you regard as patently false? --Michael C. Price talk 13:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Michael, the first two sentences strongly imply a direct causal link. If you can reword them in line with Vermes, I'm fine with it. I would prefer that you handle it. Ovadyah 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I can see that instead of "link" I should say something more like "influenced by". Is that what you have in mind? --Michael C. Price talk 17:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "influenced by" would be much better. Ovadyah 19:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"the Vermes cite did not implies (sic) that Essenes = Ebionites -- it was left to the other sources to highlight the specific influence of the Essenes on the Ebionites."
Then why did you cite it under that header? We quote scholars where they have something to say, not where they don't (or rather say the contrary). Str1977 (smile back) 14:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
As I have explained below, it was provide background about Essene influences in general. Why are you so obsessed with not providing context for the general reader? --Michael C. Price talk 15:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I could ask why are you so obsessed with providing off-topic stuff. And note: you do more as you try to use Vermes to support what he doesn't. Str1977 (smile back) 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I could ask why are you so obsessed with claiming stuff to be off-topic when the sources don't agree. --Michael C. Price talk 17:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ovadyah. Michael you are overinterpreting him. He says the Christians modelled some elements after the Essene/Qumranite example. He doesn't say that they sprang from the Essenes/Qumranites.
He is not saying Essenes are Christians, let alone Essenes are Ebionites.
Also remember, we are not to restrospectively transport the name "Ebionite" or "Nazarene" into earlier times. They are attested in the 2nd century, not before.
Also, I wondered what purpose the following passage served: "Theories linking the Essenes, Qumran and the Dead Sea scrolls to the early Christians are mainstream within the biblical scholarship community"
- this is true but what has it got to do with the Ebionites/Nazarenes/Christians? It simply says that scholarly consensus identifies the sect present at Qumran and present in the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Essenes known from various ancient writers. There are some problems with that identification but it is the best option around, presenting much fewer problems than the alternatives. But again, what has this to do with Ebionites? Str1977 (smile back) 12:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The sentence serves as an introduction for the general reader before getting into the details of what Ebionite scholars cited believe. --Michael C. Price talk 13:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Still not needed. At best a "Eisenman identifies the Essenes/Qumran sect (footnote: for the identifcition see ...) with early Christians is warranted. Str1977 (smile back) 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the lead in is needed. Many readers will not be aware that Vermes' position is mainstream. --Michael C. Price talk 14:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't require a lead. If you think an addition that Vermes is mainstream, I do not object. I object to silly inclusions of off-topic issues that serve no reason in this article. Str1977 (smile back) 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not silly and off-topic to mention the mainstream view of the Essene influences on early Christianity before moving on discuss the Ebionites specifically. --Michael C. Price talk 14:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
But you don't do that. Your version talked about the relation (i.e. identity) of Essenes and the Qumran sect, which is totally off-topic here. Str1977 (smile back) 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Off topic to your POV, not as far as the other sources cited are concerned. Ergo it gets reported. --Michael C. Price talk 17:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
PS. "However, many theories linking the Essenes, Qumran and the Dead Sea scrolls to the early Christians have been discredited while others remain controversial within the biblical scholarship community." - this wording does not require an addition that Vermes is mainstream and in fact only makes sense since he is mainstream, as he is the reference for the mainstream view that the POVs you want to push are rubbish. You OTOH, I suspect, want to quote him in a way that wants hide this fact (since you also constantly remove it) or even wants Vermes to in a way endorse the rubbish claims to some extent. But this will not do. Str1977 (smile back) 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Again: No, if you read Vermes you will see that the view that he is rubbishing the one that Paul, Jesus et al are represented in the DS scrolls. I have no interest in these views. Okay? --Michael C. Price talk 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not say that you were pushing the Eisenman POV. You however do apparently want to use Vermes to push something that he doesn't say either, namely the Christians are Essenes view (a phantasy from the dark 18th century). And no neither he does say that the Christians developed from the Essenes nor does he vouch for any mainstream view that espousest that. Str1977 (smile back) 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course he doesn't. And how does using him to provide context support that?? Show where the sentence it was embedded in supports anything that Vermes does not say. --Michael C. Price talk 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, did you not put Vermes to introduce a section about Essene-Christian link? Did you not make him state that some links are mainstream (an overstatement of what he is saying but basically not inaccurate) - and then proceeded to more extreme theories (without indicating that move) and without reporting Vermes judgement on these? As you put it, Vermes indirectly endorsed the these theories. Well, not any more. If that was all unintentional you will be accepting my rewording of it. If so, at least that issue is closed. Str1977 (smile back) 17:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
(without indicating that move) - I cited Vermes and then cited the others sources for the more specific views. --Michael C. Price talk 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
But your cherished Eisenman and Tabor are not "specific" views to Vermes. Vermes opposes Eiseman, thus you cannot use him to fill out the details of Vermes, then turn around attribute it (via Vermes) as a scholarly consensus. The mainstream and your favourites just don't mix. Str1977 (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More external sources

[edit] Ebionites

The first is in English and can be found here: http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/ebionites.php

EBIONITES. This designation was at first, like "Nazarenes," a common name for all Christians, as Epiphanius (d. 403) testifies (Adv. Haer., xxix. 1). It is derived from the Hebrew [Hebrew text omitted] "poor," and was not given, as Origen supposes, in reference to their low views of Christ, but to their own poverty. This poverty, especially characteristic of the Christians of Jerusalem, evoked from the Pagan and Jewish world the contemptuous appellation of "the poor." Minutius Felix says, "That we are called the poor is not our disgrace, but our glory" (Octav., 36). Subsequently its application was limited to Jewish Christians. "The Jews who accept Christ are called Ebionites," writes Origen (c. Cels., II. 1). Then, when a portion of the Jewish Church became separate and heretical, the designation was used exclusively of it. Later in the fourth century Epiphanius, Jerome, and others use it of a separate party within the Jewish Church distinct from the Nazarenes. This outline of history proves that Tertullian was wrong when he derived the term from a pretended founder of the sect called Ebion.
The notices in the early fathers are fragmentary, and at times seem to be contradictory on account of the double application of the term, now to Jewish Christianity as a whole, now only to a party within it. The New Testament knows of no sects in the Jewish Church, but indicates the existence of different tendencies. At the Council of Jerusalem a legalistic and Judaizing spirit manifested itself, which was in antagonism to the spirit of Paul, and was shown in the Judaiziug teachings which did so much mischief in the Galatian churches. But it was not until after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the founding of Aelia Capitolina by Hadrian, in 134, that Jewish Christianity became a distinct school, gradually becoming more and more heretical till it separated into the two sects of Ebionites proper and Nazarenes. The latter still held to Paul as an apostle, and, while they kept the law themselves, did not demand its observance of the Gentile Christians. The former held the observance of the law to be obligatory upon all Christians alike, and rejected Paul as an apostate. This was the state of affairs at the time of Justin Martyr (Dial. c. Tryph., 47). Irenaeus, who does not mention this party division, describes the Ebionites as stubbornly clinging to the law, as rejecting the apostle Paul as an apostate, and all the Gospels except Matthew. He further notices a christological heresy. Denying Christ's birth from the Virgin, they regarded him as a mere man. Origen (c. Cels., V. 61) distinguishes between two branches of Ebionites, - those who denied and those who accepted the miraculous birth. Here he distinction between Nazarenes and the Ebionites proper becomes apparent. In the later fathers, as Jerome, Epiphanius, etc., the notices are more frequent; but nothing is added to our knowledge except that the [p.685] Ebionites were chiliasts (Jerome ad. Esdr., 35, 1). In Epiphanius' day (d. 403) they dwelt principally in the regions along the Dead Sea, but also in Rome and Cyprus. The disintegration of Jewish Christianity was consummated by the introduction of Gnostic philosophy, of Greek culture, as also, perhaps, of Oriental theosophy. See the art. ELKESAITES.
G. Uhlhorn, "EBIONITES," Philip Schaff, ed., A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 3rd edn., Vol. 2. Toronto, New York & London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1894. pp.684-685.

The second is in German and can unfortunately not be linked through the worldwideweb, but I have copied it unto my talk page and will give a (rough) translation here:

Ebionites, a term used in Christian heresiologies since Irenause (adv. haer. 1, 26, 2) denoting the Jewish Christianity grown from the Jerusalem Urgemeinde, which after the exodus of 66/67 AD degenerated (the German term "Rückbildung" is less derogatory) into a sect. The derivation of the name from a heresiarch Ebion (Tertullian, Epiphanius) is based on fiction; it propably goes back to a honarary title of the Jerusalem congregation (the poor = ptôchoi, 'æbjônîm; see Rom 15, 26; Gal 2, 10), who then could draw links to the self-given term of pious Jewish circles (aside from Ps 25, 9; 68, 11 especially PsSal 10, 6; 15, 1; 1 QpHab XII, 3.6.10) and the Macarisms of Jesus (Mt 5, 3; Lk 6, 20) (see poverty: I,2).
The actual scope of the term E. of course remains unclear, since the contradictory accounts of the Church Fathers (primarily Epihanius, Panarion 30) allow no clear distinction to other heresy-names (e.g. Nazorenas, Elchesaites). Also in other respects does the history of the E. remain obscure in many regards. Their theology had no more influence on the development of Christianity, but very well on Islam. Ebionitic literature encompasses apart from fragments of the Gospel of the Ebionits primarily certain passages of the Pseudo-Clementines (Kerygma of Peter), as well as the work of Symmachus (Schoeps). The Church Fathers accuse the E. of christological heresy (rejection of the virgin birht; Christology II, 1b) and heretical legalism. Other attributes are: rejection of the whole sacricifical and sacerdotial institutions, polemics against the Samaritans, against John the Baptist and especially against Paul, furthermore a tendentious textual criticism: the E. used a Pentateuch cleansed from "false pericopes" as well as a reworked Gospel of Matthew (Gospel of the Ebionites). They knoew ritual bathings (baptism: II), communual meals (with bread and salt - maybe a old custom of the Urgemeinde) and a strict arcane disciple. The process of degeneration (the German term "Rückbildung" is less derogatory) into a heretical sect is linked with the fact, that the transjordan Jewish Christianity opened itself to all kinds of gnostic-syncretist and Jewish influences. One will have to link the E. with widespread gnostic baptism movement in Syria and Palestine; the strong connections of their thoughts with those of the Essene sect of Qumran is obvious. Possibly remnants of the sect of Qumran have merged into ebionitic groups east of the Jordan after the desaster of 70 AD.
H. J. SCHOEPS, Theol. u. Gesch. des Judenchristentums, 1949 (Lit.) – S. G. F. BRANDON, The [Ebioniten. Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, S. 7435 (vgl. RGG Bd. 2, S. 297-298) (c) J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/band12.htm ]
Thank you for the translation. The German encyclopedic source raises the issue of the role of the Ebionites in the origin of Islam. This should be expanded in the Legacy section. I think we had a brief sentence that was removed with the Schoeps reference. Ovadyah 02:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --Michael C. Price talk 05:42, 25 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 21:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is another article on the Gospel of the Ebionites but I think this is enough for now. Str1977 (smile back) 13:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further bibliography link

http://iac.cgu.edu/jcpc.html

[edit] The off-topic issue of Simeon of Jerusalem

For a secondary source on Simone, see http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/simeon_v_j.shtml (German)

[edit] Religious vegetarianism redux

Loremaster or Michael, what is the evidence that the Qumran community practiced strict vegetarianism? The Temple Scroll clearly anticipates a future temple with animal sacrifices. Are we confounding JTB with the Essenes? Ovadyah 14:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Archeology - the absence of animal bones from the Qumran site. --Michael C. Price talk 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Although there might be some, I am not aware of any evidence beyond the speculation found in some questionable secondary sources. --Loremaster 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of JTB, "locusts" are obviously not vegetables either. Although the Gospel of the Ebionites says JTB ate "cakes" with wild honey, Epiphanius denounces this small change in wording (akris to egkris) as a corruption of scripture.

It so happened that John was baptizing, and Pharisees and all Jerusalem went out to him and got baptized. And John wore clothes made of camel hair and had a leather belt around his waist. His food, it says, consisted of raw honey that tasted like manna, like a pancake cooked with oil. Thus they change the word of truth into a lie and instead of ‘locusts’ they put ‘pancake cooked with honey.’

Who is left then among the Essenes that is a strict vegetarian? Ovadyah 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the Ebionites portrayed JTB as a vegie. That Epiphanius should denounce this is hardly surprising, but does nothing to tell us who was telling the truth, Ebionites or the others. Although the archeology supports the Ebionite gospel -- unless we doubt JTB's Essene origins. --Michael C. Price talk 18:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Putting aside the fact that John the Baptist's Essene origins are very much in doubt in mainstream biblical scholarship, what archaeologic evidence supports 1) the notion that Qumran Essenes were vegetarians; and 2) any claims made in the Gospel of the Ebionites? --Loremaster 21:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1) as I said - the absence of animal bones from the Qumran site, post BCE 31.
2) ?? do we need archeology to report text?
--Michael C. Price talk 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1) Is there is a consensus that such an absence is sufficient to definitely declare that the Quramn community were vegetarians?
2) You said: Although the archeology supports the Ebionite gospel. What did you mean exactly?
--Loremaster 22:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1) Not sure - I must check.
2) dependent on 1) --Michael C. Price talk 22:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1) OK.
2) Non-sequitur.
--Loremaster 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Archaeological evidence of animal bones at Qumaran (with pictures to prove it). [1] [2] Darn those pesky animal bones. Ovadyah 22:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the files -- pre BCE 31, I note.--Michael C. Price talk 00:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. This supports my point that we have to be careful not to report some claims as facts when they may not be. --Loremaster 22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that if the Ebionites were veggie and portrayed John as veggie (as Epiphanius remark confirms this) it should be included notwithstanding that Epiphanius' take on this (textual corruption) is likely right.
It is common thought that the Essenes had some influence on John, who suddenly emerged from the desert. However,
a) this doesn't mean that John was an Essene all the time (and hence we wouldn't have to agree with a supposed Essene vegetarianism),
b) the nature of the Qumran evidence (lack of animal bones, and that only after the year 31 BC) is not entirely conclusive: problem of e silentio (especially if we have bones from some time spans; lack of bones doesn't require a conscious decision to eat veggie; the several community rules found do not talk about abstaining from meat,
c) the Qumran community does not equal the Essenes - they are most probably related and likely the former is part of the latter but they are not the same,
d) the Essenes are not the Ebionites - and it is the latter that are the topic of this article. Any link is the conclusion, not the factual basis of the conclusions - Str1977 (smile back) 13:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
While the artifacts may be dated to pre-31 BCE, it is also certain that the Qumran community was there prior to 31 BCE. However, what you may not know is that the Qumran settlement was abandoned during the reign of Herod the Great, from about 37 BCE to 4 BCE when, according to Josephus, the Essenes were in favor with Herod. After Herod's death in 4 BCE, the Essenes were crushed by Varus during the civil war that followed and retreated back to Qumran (or someone else did) and reoccupied the settlement. So #1, the bones are there when we can be most certain that the Essenes were there from the paleographic and C14 dating of the sectarian scrolls and #2, there is a lack of evidence for animal bones after 31 BCE because there is no settlement activity at Qumran either. You seem to be clinging to a hypothesis based entirely on an absence of evidence, while at the same time ignoring the evidence in front of you. Ovadyah 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I am trying to dig up the source I recall where an archeologist at Qumran made the statement about no bones implying that the occupants were veggies. Unfortunately I didn't make a note of it at the time, since it seemed so definitive. One possibly is that the later occupants differed in practice from the earlier occupants (was it the same sect that moved back to Qumran?) -- beliefs and practices do evolve. The other possibility is that the report I'm trying to recall was actually about the Essenes who lived in the cliffs above En Gedi (who are a better geographical match for Pliny the Elder's vegetarian Essenes). See, for instance, [3] Ten years ago, I believed that the Essenes had lived at Qumran; but so did all the other scholars of the era, being dependent on what little info we could get from the Vatican team that held the scrolls. In fact, as Hirshfeld has demonstrated, Qumran was a Rabinical school associated with mainstream Judaism, not with the Essenes. He also points out that the Essenes who lived in the cliffs above En Gedi were historically described as being vegetarians, and that his excavations of that location confirm that the residents were, indeed, vegetarian, as not a single bone was found. In contrast, Qumran excavations turned up tens of thousands of animal bones, and evidence of animal sacrifice, which the Essenes were known to abhor. --Michael C. Price talk 08:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
And how does quoting a letter by someone with obviously little factual knowledge but filled with a lot of Baigent/Leigh nonsense contribute to any serious discussion. Str1977 (smile back) 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting. We need to get a copy of Hirshfeld. Ovadyah 11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for being open-minded about it. --Michael C. Price talk 12:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what I have been able to find so far:

"Dr. Hirschfeld, of the Hebrew University, recently invited reporters to see 25 spartan stone cubicles above Ein Gedi [35 kilometers south of Qumran], which he suggested had been the Essene settlement rather than the Qumran location hitherto regarded as such....What Hirshfeld found in the past month's dig was a cluster of 22 detached cells measuring 2 x 3 meters. Each cell, he believes, constituted a habitat for one person. The cells were built of rough assemblages of stones, including large boulders. Roofless now, they would have been covered in antiquity with palm fronds. Beaten earth served as flooring. In addition, there were three cells, twice the size of the others, which Hirschfeld suggests served communal purposes such as cooking." - Abraham Rabinovich, "A new 'address' for the Essenes ", Jerusalem Post, February 4, 1998

Dr. Hirschfeld bases his opinion that Ein Gedi was the original site of the Essenes on a passage from Pliny. "On the west side of the Dead Sea, but out of range of the noxious exhalations of the coast, is the solitary tribe of the Essenes , which is remarkable beyond all the other tribes in the whole word, as it has no women and has renounced all sexual desire, has no money , and has only palm-trees for company." - Pliny the Elder (23 C.E?-79 C.E.)

"Tiny cells only large enough to house one man each point to an abstinent and austere existence. What seems to be a mikveh, or Jewish ritual bath, lends credence to his theory as well, according to Hirschfeld...Moreover, the excavation turned up no evidence of animal bones -- suggesting vegetarianism, which would have been highly unusual at the time." - Ilene Prusher, "Archaeologist says new site casts doubt on Essenes' role", newsday.com

I find two small problems with this information. #1, Ein Gedi is 35 km from Qumaran, ie. not in proximity to the caves. #2, not finding animal bones in the cluster of cells does not "prove" the occupants were vegetarian. That is an argument from silence. However, Hirschfeld did make that suggestion. Ovadyah 13:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if Hirschfeld makes such an argument it has to be included (unless discredited by scholarly consensus) as an opinion. But remember, if he talks about Essenes he talks about Essenes and not about Ebionites, even if in case of a link between the two. Str1977 (smile back) 13:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. The distance would weaken the Qumran-Essene link (which is disputed), but not the Essene-Ebionite link.
  2. The archaeological argument for vegetarianism is always going to be an argument from absence. Also I think we can assume that Hirschfeld is not an idiot and has examined midden piles in addition to their cells.
  3. I am more disturbed by the absence of explicit vegetarianism in the Pliny quote -- was it perhaps Philo who says the Essenes are veggies? --Michael C. Price talk 14:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1. "the Essene-Ebionite link" would first have to be established.
2. No, an argument for vegetarian Essenes need not be e silentio. If, for instance, a Essene/Qumranite document argued for vegetarianism that would be positive evidence. Or if some other sources described them as veggies. But simply a lack of bones doesn't make the case: there are many possible reasons for this. Str1977 (smile back) 13:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's more info on what Hirshfeld did find:

"The spartan cluster evokes comparison to the lauras, or clusters of Christian hermits, that dotted other parts of the Judean Desert in the Byzantine period a few centuries later. The month-long excavation produced no finds, except for a few pottery shards and part of a tiny glass bottle..." "Hirschfeld says that the spartan facilities contrast starkly with the settlement at Qumran. The more luxurious living there does not square with the austere existence of the Essenes. 'Qumran doesn't fit the character of the Essenes -- it seems like a fortified manor house,' says Hirschfeld, who readily concedes that his theory runs counter to most scholars' positions on the issue." - Abraham Rabinovich, "A new 'address' for the Essenes ", Jerusalem Post, February 4, 1998

"Pottery found in the cells is of a type that existed in the A.D. 70-100 period, a period when Roman historians such as Josephus Flavius and Pliny the Elder wrote about the Essenes. A glass perfume bottle found in one of the cells supports the idea that the Essenes made perfume. So do the remnants of a perfume factory in the valley below." - Associated Press, January 26, 1998

Note that Hirschfeld found only pottery shards and part of a tiny perfume bottle at the site, and that the pottery dates to 70 - 100 CE. That's hardly convincing archaeological evidence of Essene habitation in the first century BCE or concurrent with JTB. Ovadyah 14:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I gather from the quotes that Hirschfeld disputed the Essene hypothesis (that the Qumranites were Essenes) - in doing so he definitely holds a minority opinion. Str1977 (smile back) 13:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What else would you expect to find from an ascetic community?
Not sure what you mean by JTB. According to Josephus there were Essene communities scattered up and down Palestine/Judea -- finding archaeological evidence that places JTB at one and not the others is not very likely. --Michael C. Price talk 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Essenes existed all over Judaea, not just at the tiny settlement of Qumran. But that doesn't help us in regard to their vegetarianism (which however is not actually the topic of an article on another group). Str1977 (smile back) 13:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
So, after everything I have shown you about what Hirschfeld said, your'e down to the argument of finding nothing as a proof of an ascetic community of vegetarian Essenes. By my reference to JTB, I mean there has to be some kind of concurrence of time and place between JTB and the Essenes that matter for our purposes. People living in a settlement in 70 - 100 CE can't have an influence on pre-70 CE Nazarenes/Ebionites living in Jerusalem. In summary, the archaeological evidence supporting your claims is non-existent, and Hirshfeld's speculation about vegetarianism was a passing remark. Feel free to cite that he mentioned it, but beyond that, you need to provide convincing evidence, aside from nothingness, that is proof of existence. Ovadyah 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You may deride my position as arguing from absence, I don't care -- just look at what Hirschfeld said -- although quite what positive archaeological evidence vegetarianism would leave behind, and that you're demanding, is not clear to me. Think about it terms of Popperian falsifiability-- the vegetarian hypothesis is falsifiable (by the discovery of bones) whilst the meat-eating hypothesis is not falsifiable (without relying on the absence of evidence argument that you denigrate) -- therefore it is your position that is unscientific, not mine.
As for the concurrence issue, I thought I had already made it clear that the JTB-as-Essene is not contingent on JTB actually being at or influenced by Ein Gedi specifically. Palestine was littered with Essene communities, according to Josephus. The point about Ein Gedi being a vegetarian community is that it suggests that other Essene communities were as well; hence JTB's reported vegetarianism may have an Essene origin. --Michael C. Price talk 19:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
PS as for the "passing remark", Hirschfeld was making it back in 1998 [4] and repeats it here. --Michael C. Price talk 19:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's obvious to me you don't care. Evidence (or a lack of it) and rational arguments have no impact whatever. I feel like I'm arguing with NazareneMystic. There should be evidence of "middens" as you call them whether they were vegetarians or not. Every settlement leaves it's garbage somewhere. So, the meat eating hypothesis is falsifiable. Hirschfeld didn't report finding any. That means there is no data one way or the other, ie. nothing on which to draw a conclusion about the diet of the people at the settlement. You are interpreting an absence of evidence as evidence of absence, which is about as unscientific as it gets. By your reasoning, Essene communities must have existed, not only all over Palestine, but all over the earth. We could travel almost anywhere, dig down to the appropriate strata, and find - nothing, thus proving their existence. Ovadyah 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are Hirschfeld's remarks from 1999:

While the site yielded a fairly rich collection of pottery vessels, glass sherds, and seven coins from the early Roman and Byzantine eras, it is most remarkable for its lack of animal bones. "Although we worked carefully, sifting everything, we didn't find any," says Hirschfeld, adding that the settlers might have been vegetarian. Although Josephus noted that the dietary restrictions of the Essenes were stringent, the nearby village appears not to have been bound by vegetarianism. "We've found 4,000 animal bones in the village of Ein Gedi," he notes. Judaism has historically advocated vegetarianism only occasionally for ascetic reasons or during periods of mourning. Excavations will continue in the winter of 2000.

As I said before, feel free to report Hirschfeld's remarks, without overstating their implications, which you have a chronic habit of doing. Ovadyah 20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wading through all your bluster: So, the meat eating hypothesis is falsifiable. So what evidence in a midden falsifies meat eating?--Michael C. Price talk 21:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
4,000 bones in the village, none at the presumed Essene site. So who's over-interpreting the evidence and who's rationalising? --Michael C. Price talk 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Seeds and seed pods, Michael. The presence of seeds and pods along with the absence of bones makes for a compelling argument. Seeds were discovered at Masada this year which were radiocarbon dated to the mid-first century. They were able to get one to germinate, and they are growing the plant. I recently saw evidence of carbonized seeds from cooking fires in the area of Sodom that date to pre-1000 BCE. I respect arguments based on evidence. Ovadyah 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. As I suspected you have completely failed to grasp the entire argument.
  • Seeds and seed pods do not falsify the meat eating hypothesis. Meat eaters usually eat vegetables as well.
  • the absence of bones --- exactly what I was saying...... so your point is?
--Michael C. Price talk 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
My point is that the combination of the presence of seeds and pods along with the absence of bones in cooking fires or middens is much more convincing than finding nothing. Obviously, the joint presence of seeds and bones just proves they had a varied diet. I think you're just baiting me now. Ovadyah 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not trying to bait you. Your argument, as expressed, has changed a lot and is now more comprehensible, although of course everybody always thinks they were perfectly clear all along. I suspect that the combination of evidence you seek is exactly what Hirschfeld has found -- after all he didn't say that he found no evidence of excreta or food waste at all -- just no animal bones; had he found no food waste/midden piles etc then I think that is how he would have reported it, since that would surely have been more remarkable, but we will need to see a more complete report to ascertain that for sure.--Michael C. Price talk 23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I'm looking forward to reading it. Ovadyah 00:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another little datum on the Essene / vegetarian issue to further cloud the issue. According to Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at Qumran, whilst reviewing Yizhar Hirschfeld's book "Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological evidence"[5], states that Qumran is unique in that it is the only Dead Sea site to have animal bone deposits. The bone-free Dead Sea sites she lists as Masada, Herodium Jericho, Ein Gedi, Ein Boqeq, Ein Feshkha, Kallirrhoe, Machaerus. She denies that the ancient writers describe the Essenes as vegetarians, saying that this is based on an over-literal description of the Essenes, by Josephus, as leading a "Pythagorean way of life" -- thus, she claims, Qumran was Essene precisely because its inhabitants were not vegetarians, whilst Hirschfeld claims the cave dwelling En Gedians were Essenes precisely because they were vegetarians.--Michael C. Price talk 00:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the critical passage from Magness' review:

To interpret Qumran as anything but a sectarian settlement, Hirschfeld, Zangenberg, and others must explain away each one of the anomalous features, often with interpretations that are far-fetched and unsubstantiated. For example, according to Hirschfeld, the animal-bone deposits prove that the inhabitants could not have been Essenes because the Essenes were vegetarians. Hirschfeld bases this on Josephus's statement that the Essenes lived a 'Pythagorean way of life'; since the Pythagoreans were vegetarians, the Essenes must also have been vegetarians! Hirschfeld is undeterred by the fact that none of our ancient sources describe the Essenes as vegetarians, although they go to great lengths to point out the peculiarities of the Essenes' lifestyle (including their toilet habits!). Hirschfeld's curiously literal and unsupported interpretation of this passage reflects a basic misunderstanding and misuse of Josephus. Josephus (and Philo) described Jewish sects in Greek philosophical terms to make them understandable to Roman readers and to demonstrate the superiority of Judaism over Greco-Roman religions (similar agendas and biases account for the emphasis these authors place on male celibacy among the Essenes).

She essentially portrays Hirschfeld as a revisionist crank. Ovadyah 14:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So do the question becomes whether or not we should give his views undue weight? --Loremaster 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The more research I do into this, the more tenuous I find Hirschfeld's remarks. I regard his views as a fringe position, unless there is better evidence forthcoming. We need to stop throwing assertions into the article as "facts" without doing any investigation first. Ovadyah 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. --Loremaster 16:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever we think of Hirschfeld, I note that Magness seems to agree that all but Qumran were vegetarian -- it's the interpretation of that result that they disagree over. --Michael C. Price talk 18:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I read through Magness' review, and I can't find any statements where she explicitly concludes that the inhabitants of all these other settlements were vegetarian Essenes. Please reproduce those statements as direct quotations here. Ovadyah 18:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. On what could such a conclusion (that all Essenes but Qumran were veggie) be based: the lack of bones all over Judaea (which would not be conclusive even if we could distinguish between Essenes and non-Essene remains in other places)? All this is in the light of the fact that no source describes the Essenes as veggie. Str1977 (smile back) 13:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Michael, I can't help but notice you're constantly shifting positions like a chameleon. First, you made the absolute statement that archaeology supports a settlement of vegetarian Essenes at Qumran. Then you changed your story to Qumran after 31 BCE, then it was not Qumran but Ein Gedi. Now you're saying a whole group of settlements but not Qumran (Masada, Herodium Jericho, Ein Gedi, Ein Boqeq, Ein Feshkha, Kallirrhoe, Machaerus). I think you have no idea, and you are just grasping at any headlines you happen find on the web. From now on, please bring your evidence here in the form of direct quotations that we can read for ourselves. Ovadyah 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. I have no problem with changing my mind about things. Glad you noticed.
  2. I explained that I might be confusing Qumran with Ein Gedi.
  3. Now you're saying a whole group of settlements but not Qumran (Masada, Herodium Jericho, Ein Gedi, Ein Boqeq, Ein Feshkha, Kallirrhoe, Machaerus) This in no way contradicts my statement about Ein Gedi. And I'm just reporting what Magness said - no animals bones from any Dead Sea site except Qumran.
  4. No, I will not always provide quotes -- I gave you the PDF link.--Michael C. Price talk 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. But as I said, I read through the PDF file and didn't see what you claim is there. Please provide more clarifcation. Ovadyah 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Since you have declared the conversation over I guess there's no point providing any more evidence. Although how anyone can read Magness' review and not come to the same conclusions about their respective positions is beyond me.--Michael C. Price talk 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I don't know that Hirschfeld even discussed the other sites you mentioned, let alone both Hirschfeld and Magness agreeing on them. If you have evidence of this mutual agreement, I would like to read it. BTW, I thought that bones were found in the village of Ein Gedi, just not in proximity to Hirschfeld's excavation of the group of small cells. Ovadyah 21:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. I never said Hirschfeld discussed the other sites I mentioned.
  2. I said seems to agree.
  3. I said Hirschfeld claims the cave dwelling En Gedians were Essenes precisely because they were vegetarians. Not the villagers - the cave dwellers. When reporting what Magness I said just "Ein Gedi" (as she said), but I assumed (as perhaps Magness did) that this would be understood as a reference to the cave dwellers, not the villagers.--Michael C. Price talk 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ein Gedi is an oasis. There are no caves, certainly none with evidence of sectarian habitation. Ovadyah 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
True, "cells" would have been better than "caves". Thanks for the clarification. --Michael C. Price talk 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion. It's pointless to attempt to reason with someone with this much attitude and bias. Your entire argument is based on the logical fallacy that nothingness is positive proof of existence. You are determined to push a fringe POV position at all costs, against all evidence to the contrary, without even acknowledging the mainstream scholarly position on the Essenes. Feel free to edit as you like, and I will feel equally free to remove your unsupportable crap from the article. Ovadyah 15:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, go off in a self-righteous huff, despite the fact that I've answered every one of your points. The last time you behaved like this was over the dual role of James the Just as leader of both the Jerusalem church and the Ebionites and their identification by most authorities. Then you promised to go away and come back with evidence that definitively refuted this "rubbish". Still waiting. Evidently you have equally strong and dogmatic feelings about Essene vegetarianism -- whether these views of your are as equally baseless we shall see. --Michael C. Price talk 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken if you think I have a bias against vegetarianism. Rather, I have equally strong feelings against lying and obfuscation. I produced a quotation of exactly what Pliny said about the Essenes, and pointed out to you that Pliny made no remarks about the Essene's vegetarianism. You made no attempt to correct this mistake in the article, even after several days, so I can only conclude that the statement you inserted into the article was knowingly false. Ovadyah 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
As always you are quick to attribute base motives to others. I would ask you to assume good faith, although I am sure you would see this as another example of my base and mendacious nature. I left the quote in because, for the moment, I am undecided. Pliny says they lived alone with their palm trees -- which some (quite a few actually) authorities (not just Hirschfld, despite what Magness says) interpret as implying vegetarianism. --Michael C. Price talk 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I point out the following example of the type of bad faith editing that you consistently engage in: Refusal to 'get the point'

Shortcut:
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

In some cases, bad-faith editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement in order to make a point.

Wikipedia is based upon collaborative, good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a wilful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point.

As for my assuming good faith regarding your editing, there is abundant evidence throughout the talk pages of this article that you are not deserving of that consideration. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Ovadyah 17:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So be it. If you are so determined to assume bad faith, rather than examine your own objectivity, I leave you to stew in your own bile. I note that you made no substantive response to my palm trees point.--Michael C. Price talk 17:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes of course, Pliny must mean that they ate the palm trees. That's the only way you could possibly twist his remarks to conclude he was speaking about vegetarianism. :^D Ovadyah 17:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Palm trees yield dates, which have been found at some of the sites. --Michael C. Price talk 17:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the palm trees yield nothing, which you previously cited as proof of their vegetarian existence. Ovadyah 17:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
And maybe you didn't read which have been found at some of the sites. Well, why let evidence get in the way of bigotry. --Michael C. Price talk 17:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Call me a bigot ever again and I will take you to AN/I and have you blocked. Ovadyah 17:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I see, so you feel free to fling around accusations of bad faith, but if someone questions your motives, you can't hack it. Hypocrite. And do raise an AN/I, I'd enjoy seeing you hang yourself. --Michael C. Price talk 18:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Rather than continue this pointless name-calling, I have taken this content dispute to RFC. I have asked RFC to explain the principle of undue weight and the proper application of it to the opinions of fringe scholars in the context of the Ebionites article. Ovadyah 20:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course that rather begs the question of who is a fringe scholar. --Michael C. Price talk 20:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully, some guidelines will emerge from the recommendation of the RFC and the ensuing discussion. Of course, I'm not assuming you will abide by the guidelines of the RFC, or any other Wiki-guidelines. That would be consistent with a refusal to get the point. Ovadyah 20:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Amusing that you continue to accuse me of "sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited" and at the same claim "I can't help but notice you're constantly shifting positions like a chameleon." See the contradiction?--Michael C. Price talk 20:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
No, you are adhering to an unsupportable hypothesis even while you jump from argument to argument and source to source, as I refute your positions one by one with hard evidence. That, and a refusal to even consider or discuss the mainstream views the majority of scholars have about the Essenes, is a refusal to get the point. Ovadyah 20:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Where have I refused to discuss the mainstream position? --Michael C. Price talk 21:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha, ha. Of course you would say that next. Try reading the Essenes and some other encycopedic articles on the subject first, before you waste even more of my time, and we'll see what the RFC has to say. Ovadyah 21:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As usual, when caught in error, you resort to ad hominems. --Michael C. Price talk 21:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that Epiphanius describes the "Osseaens" (Essenes?) and the "Nazarean" as vegetarians:

"The Nazarean - they were Jews by nationality - originally from Gileaditis, Bashanitis and the Transjordon . . .They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws - not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the Nazarean and the others. . ." (Panarion 1:18)
"After this [Nazarean] sect in turn comes another closely connected with them, called the Ossaeanes. These are Jews like the former ... originally came from Nabataea, Ituraea, Moabitis and Arielis, the lands beyond the basin of what sacred scripture called the Salt Sea. . . Though it is different from the other six of these seven sects, it causes schism only by forbidding the books of Moses like the Nazarean." (Panarion 1:19)

--Michael C. Price talk 22:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of them. While these 4th century groups have no bearing on the Ebionites, this would be interesting material to add to the Nazaraean article. Are you pulling this material from Keith Akers' website? Ovadyah 00:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
4th century practices are indicative of earlier practices -- and you're making the assumption that Epiphanius isn't drawing on older oral and written sources. And no, I'm not pulling this material from Keith Akers' website. And I think the text does have relevance to the Ebionites, since they are also described as rejecting parts of the Law and following their own books. --Michael C. Price talk 09:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not a "fact" that the Osseaens = the Essenes. Epiphanius never mentions the Essenes. There are many scholarly publications discussing this. To assert that they are, as if this were the mainstream view, is a false statement. Also, no other Church Father but Epiphanius mentions "rejecting parts of the Law and following their own books". If he is drawing on older oral and written sources, other than the Clementine Homilies, we don't know about them. It would be misleading to state otherwise. Ovadyah 14:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I never said it was a "fact" -- that's why I put a "?" there. Lots of reliable secondary sources make the identification.--Michael C. Price talk 14:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
And lot's of them don't. It could be no more than a coincidence of two independent groups with similar-sounding names. You will find the entire spectrum of opinions in the literature. It's misleading to drop in a reference supporting only one of them. Ovadyah 16:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Name a source that doesn't accept this identification. --Michael C. Price talk 18:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm on the road. I'll check in a few days. This is an interesting subject in itself. Ovadyah 01:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this discussion on Orion, the Qumran newsgroup. [6] Apparently, Epiphanius does mention the Essenes, so I was mistaken about this. Here's what they say about the relation of the Essenes to the Ossaeans: And finally we have the Ossenes, referred to at A18, Prl 3.6, Prl 5.3, sections 19 (all), 20.3.2, 20.3.4, 30.1.3, 30.3.2, 30.17.8, 53.1.3. The name Ossene allegedly either means a "sturdy people" or "those most reckless." They lived in Transjordan in Nabatea, Moab, Perea and Iturea. They rejected the books of Moses (19.2.1) and were devoted to the writings of Elxai, founder of the Elcesaeans (Elkasites). They are closely related to the Elkasites and the Sampsaeans. At 20.4 we learn that while the Essenes were completely extinct, the Ossenes still existed. The Ossenes clearly do not resemble the Essenes, and are in fact distinguished from the Essenes by Epiphanius. On what basis, then, do you identify the Ossenes as Essenes other than sheer conjecture? So, the Ossaeans were Gnostic Christians closely related to the Elkasites. Take a look at the entire thread, which runs several pages. Ovadyah 02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Summing up my take on the veggie situation:

  • I see no evidence that the Essenes were veggie. I see that Hirschfeld argued this and that makes it includable as an opnion, minding of course "no undue weight"
  • However, I don't see how the vegetarianism of the Essenes is on topic in an article on another group. Please, leave Essene topics to Essenes.
  • I see evidence for the Ebionites being veggie and for their classification of John as a veggie. And that is certainly on topic.
  • As for the link between Essenes and Ebionites, if that is a position that is argued and should be, in NPOV fashion, be included as a view - and not assumed as a fact on which to build other claims. Str1977 (smile back) 13:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The Gospel of the Ebionites also presents Jesus as a veggie, and James the Just is reported as a veggie by the Church Fathers.--Michael C. Price talk 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The Gospel of the Ebionites sure should be included for the views of that group.
The Church Fathers however, when merely speaking about James' diet (and vegetarianism may not be the best way to describe it), are not giving information about the the Ebionites.
However, if Ebionite writing are quoted with making James a veggie we may mention that the Church Fathers had a similar view.
Also, maybe we should be clear what vegetarianism we are talking about: voluntary giving up of meat not just for a short period (i.e. not just fasting or penance) - should there any distinction regardin the motivation (one can do penance throughout one's life)? I don't have an answer, I am just asking. Str1977 (smile back)
The Gospel of the Ebionites sure should be included for the views of that group. -- sure, no problem.
The Church Fathers however, when merely speaking about James' diet (and vegetarianism may not be the best way to describe it), are not giving information about the the Ebionites.
Ah, but now you are aguing from the primary sources. Do the secondary source agree? No they do not. They consider that James the Just reported as a veggie to be significant to the Ebionite issue (it has bearing on Paul's denunciation of veggies, for example).
However, if Ebionite writing are quoted with making James a veggie we may mention that the Church Fathers had a similar view.
See above.
As for the type of vegetarinisn, I agree. No clear answers here either.--Michael C. Price talk 12:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essenism section

Vermes wrote:

An identification of Judaeo-Christianity with the community of Qumran must strike any objective student of both literatures as preposterous. This does not, of course, mean that no correspondence between the two exists. It does. But it appears on a superficial level, in the employment of religious language, ideas and biblical proof-texts shared among them and all the other branches of first-century Judaism. More precisely, in some organizational, administrative and cultic respects it is probable that the nascent Jewish-Christian Church modelled itself on Essenism (or whatever name is to be used for the Dead Sea sect). Such views represent common knowledge among scholars investigating the relationship between the Qumran community and Christianity, but are a far cry from the brain-child of Eisenman and Wise.

I paraphrased:

Although theories identifying Jewish Christianity with the Essenism of the Qumran community depicted in the Dead Sea scrolls have been discredited, most biblical scholars accept some superficial Essene influence on the nascent Jerusalem church in some organizational, administrative and cultic respects.[1]

--Loremaster 10:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the whole identification issue is a red herring, as I said in my edit comment summary. I reworded the text which stated that [7] since it isn't what most (perhaps all) the cited sources were saying. --Michael C. Price talk 10:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The identification issue is not a red herring because Eisenman does identify Jewish Christianity with the Qumran community. Even if he no longer does, my text simply informs the reader that none of the cited scholars are making that mistake. --Loremaster 10:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Since the article no longer reports that mistake then the matter is settled? --Michael C. Price talk 10:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No because, even if we don't include the disclamatory sentence you keep deleting, there is still the matter that 1) reporting as fact that John the Baptist was an Essene is problematic since this theory is highly disputed; and 2) some scholars only believe that Ebionites merged with Essenes only after the Siege of Jerusalem in 70. --Loremaster 11:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to add other theories about JTB to the article then I suggest you make it explicit, and not try to suggest it implicitly. As for the late merger theory, again make it explicit by creating a POV section for it. --Michael C. Price talk 12:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding JTB, I am working on it.
Regarding late merger theory, I'm assuming you mean seperate paragraph rather that section. --Loremaster 12:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I've started with a new paragraph, but I think a new section is more appropriate since it a completely different theory with a different set of secondary sources.--Michael C. Price talk 12:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Non-sense. All these theories can and should be in the same section. --Loremaster 12:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for you carefully reasoned response. --Michael C. Price talk 12:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. --Loremaster 13:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is a quote from Jean Danielou, cited for the late Essene merger theory, "who spearheaded the Catholic ressourcement movement of patristic scholarship in the mid to late twentieth century"

There is an evil power, a Satanic power, which holds souls in error, and which persists. It is interesting to note that in the first centuries of the Christian era many demoniacal phenomena appeared in countries in the course of being converted from idolatry to Christianity. The same is true of pagan civilisation today. In my research into the fourth century, I was surprised to find a great recrudescence of magical practices at the very moment when Roman civilization under Constantine was about to be snatched away bodily from paganism and enter... into the kingdom of the Son; at that time, all the rites of sorcery took on an incredible virulence.

Does that sound like a reliable, scholarly source for Ebionites? :-) Please, let the article have some standards. Sounds like the sort of quackery that would be at home in the Catholic POV section -- if there was one. --Michael C. Price talk 22:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Quack, quack. Ovadyah 01:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing the dubious POV of Danielou, which I had only started familiarizing myself with. I agree that he should be removed as source for the late Essene merger theory. However, Schoeps (whom we all highly regard as a scholar) was my primary source for the theory before someone mentioned Danielou to me. That being said, the Views and practices section is about presenting what the actual Ebionite views and practices were rather than explaining how Ebionites views and practices are perceived by other religions. Therefore, a "Mainstream Chalcedonian view" subsection is not appropriate. By the way, this view is already covered in the primary sources section. --Loremaster 16:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I fundamentally disagree. The article is not about the presentation of "actual" facts -- since no one agrees on them -- but about the reporting of opinions, from secondary sources -- and that includes religious authorities (their views are notable as well) as well as secular historians and academics. By rejecting the views of some religious authorities you are judging content, which is not permitted. And, to repeat, for the nth time, this is wikipolicy. And frankly, Loremaster, I am sick and tried of making the same point to you over and over again. You repeatedly show a complete inability to take on board Wikipolicy.
Again, you are misinterpreting my argument and suggestion. My point is that the Views and practices section are about the views of practices of the Ebionites. How Christians, Jews and/or Muslims interpret Ebionite views and practices is a differnt topic which should be in entirely seperate section much as it is in the Jesus article. --Loremaster 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I am misunderstanding nothing. You are assuming, because of your humanist viewpoint, that the views of Christian, Jewish and Muslim historians are incorrect. Once again you repeat your basic error when you say: My point is that the Views and practices section are about the views of practices of the Ebionites. When are you going to understanding that this is NOT the function of Wikipedia? We are not concerned with reporting what YOU JUDGE TO BE FACTS. We report what others report. Period. Now if you know of some Wiki-criterion by which the views of religious people are excluded then pray tell us. --Michael C. Price talk 21:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? I have no problem with including the viewpoint of any historian, regardless of his religious convictions. My problem is only giving undue weight to the opinions of marginal scholars and fringe researchers. That being said, I am interested in reporting any fact and speculation that is relevant to a specific section of the article. Reporting what historians know of Ebionite theology is obviously not the same thing as reporting the Christian view of Ebionite theology. Hence the need for seperate sections. Get it?--Loremaster 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Reporting what historians know of Ebionite theology is not the same as reporting the Christian view of Ebionite theology. It is when the historian is a committed Christian. Look at str. He knows that Jesus had no brothers, that the Ebionites were confused heretics etc etc. Yet he is an historian and his historical viewpoint is coloured by his religious viewpoint. Just as yours is and just as mine is etc etc. When are you going to get it? --Michael C. Price talk 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for using me as an example but that's too much honour for the little of me. True, my historical opinions are coloured by my religious and philosophical beliefs but the same goes vice versa. I wouldn't be the Catholic I am today if it weren't for the intellectual discoveries I made for myself while still based on other foundations. But this process of influence goes on and on in both direction. I do not KNOW that Jesus didn't have any uterine brothers - I believe it and I think the evidence speaks against uterine brothers. Other might disagree. That doesn't mean that I am unable to take different views seriously or to edit in an NPOV way. (If I remember correctly, it was I that tried to ensure NPOV in the Simeon situation - which was never summed up as the issue whether there were full uterine brothers or not - while someone else was pushing the POV he knew to be right).
However, this influence is nothing to be ashamed of. It was in the dark 18th century that historians claimed to be impartial (presuming the office of jugding the past) - not so anymore today. Everyone has views and convictions and one should be open about them all t he while trying to safeguard oneself againt views instead of sources dictating the analysis. That is why it is good to have different thoughts by different scholars from different backgrounds.
And there is no problem with including even fringe views. HOWEVER: the article should not consist out of fringe views taken as fact (just because fringies like Eisenman do jump much too quickly all the way) or even consist of a NPOV covering of fringe theories side by side. There is more to a subject than the fringe. We first have to have a proper foundation for our house before we can decorate some rooms in a fringy manner. Str1977 (smile back) 13:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* I get that. My point is that a section of the article which focuses on Ebionite views and practices will cite a Humanist/Christian/Jewish/Muslim historian's opinion that, for example, Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus and were therefore treated as heretics by Christians (a historical fact or factoid that another historian will agree with regardless of his religious POV) while a section that focuses on religious perspectives on Ebionites, may cite the same Humanist/Christian/Jewish/Muslim historian's opinion, for example, to support the Christian view that Ebionites were heretics for denying the divinity of Jesus. See the difference. --Loremaster 21:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Finally. The history section should be merely the set of opinions shared by all the POV sections -- which may be very little. --Michael C. Price talk 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly the point I've always tried to make. However, unlike the the Views and practices section, the current version of the History section of the article is not a mere set of opinions shared by all POVs. As it stands, it's mostly a summary of Tabor's book which is sad. --Loremaster 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case you will agree with me to remove all statements from the History and Lead not shared by all POV sections. Good. --Michael C. Price talk 23:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No. The Lead is fine since it is supposed to be a concise overview of the entire content of the article. It's only the second and third paragraphs of the History section that need work. --Loremaster 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
And just how reliable is Dr. Hans-Joachim Schoeps, who "even tried to form a movement of Jews for Hitler"?[8]. Even worse than Danielou, IMO -- his views definitely belong in a labelled POV section instead of masquerading as an even remotely mainstream historian. --Michael C. Price talk 17:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Schoeps's political activism has no bearing on the quality of his scholarship on Ebionites. --Loremaster 19:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
While many of Schoep's views are controversial, his works have been in the literature for some time, and they are frequently cited. Eg. He was the first historian to comment on the possible influence of the Ebionites on the origins of Islam, which is regarded today as a mainstream view. Ovadyah 18:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that makes him notable. There remains a big question mark in my mind about Schoeps' reliability, but his views are worth reporting, I agree. I just don't agree with Loremaster that we should judge content and try to only report "facts" -- which is why the article is pretty much one long forbidden synthesis. Instead we should be reporting all notable views and clearly labelling them as such. And since there is no consensus about the Ebionites on anything (beyond a very narrow core) -- such as when they flourished, who they followed, what they believed, what they ate -- all this is disputed, we have to report the views of them in separate sections.--Michael C. Price talk 18:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Schoeps is repeatedly cited as an authority by other encyclopediae should say something to us. Str1977 (smile back) 13:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
See my comments above, which have prompted me to create a new section to present religious perspectives on the Ebionites which have no place in the Views and practices section. --Loremaster 20:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to the arrival of the RFC. Her/his comments should have a direct bearing on this dispute. Unfortunately, it looks like they are really backlogged. Let's wait a few more days, and then contact Alec if no one shows up. Ovadyah 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "superfical", Vermes explains what he means "precisely" by that, and that's what the article reports -- his precise meaning.--Michael C. Price talk 10:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. --Loremaster 10:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed James H. Charlesworth is mentioned in the Essenism section as supporting a relationship between the Essenes and Ebionites without a reference. This needs a fact check. Here's what Charlesworth has to say about the relationship between Jesus and the Essenes in "Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls", Chp.1 The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus, p.37-38. "Jesus was certainly not an Essene, as some authors have claimed. He was also not taught by or significantly influenced by the Essenes, despite the attempts of many scholars from Bahrdt in the eighteenth century until today at the close of the twentieth century." Charlesworth further states on p.39, "The attempts to revive E. Renan's claim that Christianity is Essenism that has survived have failed. Christianity is not a form of Essenism." Ovadyah 02:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

James Charlesworth speaks on this Dead Sea Scrolls programe; he says John the Baptist was strongly influenced by the Essenes and cites their common interpretation of Isaiah 40:3 (unique within Judaism, he claims). He is ambivalent about whether JTB could be classified as an Essene, but believes he may have been one and then left.
Another contributor to the programme, Magen Broshi (former curator of the Shrine of the Book), cites as evidence of Essene influences on Jesus (and by impliation JTB) and the DSS their common attitudes (again, unique within Judaism, Magen claims) towards the virtues of poverty, the corruption of wealth and the rejection of divorce. --Michael C. Price talk 06:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that "The history section should be merely the set of opinions shared by all the POV sections". The history section would be a section describing the history of the subject, in this case the Ebionites, based on scholarly analysis of the sources. In this field, different opinions between scholars may/did arise and they should be properly treated, attributed and put in their perspective as consensus, mainstream, fringe. I agree, with regret, that Loremaster is right about the role of Tabor in the current text.
The history section (or whatever it will become) has nothing to do with section about "religious perspectives on Ebionites" - sections I think utterly pointless.
What do they currently say: Christians consider Ebionites heretics (they reasoning here is faulty, they take information from the Fathers - as everyone does - and judge that info according to what they know by faith -- and of course "guitly" is totally inappropriate), Jews consider Ebionites heretics because the latter accept Jesus as the Messiah (again, big deal). The Islamic section is inaccurate, as there is no Islamic view on the Ebionites, as the two do not share any history together (if we leave out the contentious claim that the Ebionties influenced Islam) - but certainly there is not "the Islamic view on the Ebionites". Whether we like it or not (and apologies if this sounds rude) the Ebionites were in the long run a footnote in history and not of such great an importance that anyone would have to have an opinion on them.
Str1977 (smile back) 13:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the first chapter of Charlesworth's book, where he states explicitly that he doesn't think Jesus was an Essene. Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls Charlesworth gives detailed arguments for how Jesus ministry was similar to and unlike the Essenes. Ovadyah 03:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what does he say about John the Baptist?
Also note: "I am convinced that Jesus was closer to the non-Qumran Essenes than to the strict and withdrawn Essenes living in the desert of Judea." Where Charlesworth says "Jesus and the Essenes were on opposite ends of the spectrum with regard to women. Jesus included women in his group," he seems to be ignoring the Essenes that Josephus says included women and allowed marriage.--Michael C. Price talk 11:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Charlesworth is silent on JTB in the article, presumably because the article is about Jesus.
The strongest piece of evidence against JTB being an Essene is that Josephus talks extensively about the Essenes and mentions JTB prominently, but never links them together. Also in Slavonic Josephus, JTB is questioned by Simon the Essene, who is a scribe, but Simon doesn't recognize JTB as an Essene. My own pet hypothesis is that the Qumran sectarians are not the Essenes. The sectarians usually refer to themselves as a group as the Yahad, but never refer to themselves as Essenes. JTB may have been a member of or influenced by the Yahad, but if he was an Essene, Josephus would probably have known about it.--Ovadyah 14:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a terrific link to excerpts from Slavonic Josephus with material on John the Baptist I have never seen before. THE SLAVONIC JOSEPHUS' ACCOUNT OF THE BAPTIST AND JESUS JTB is brought before Herod Archaelus and questioned by Simon the Essene. Archaelus ruled from 4 BCE until 6 CE, when he was deposed. That would put the beginning of JTB's ministry considerably earlier than can be inferred from Gospel accounts and Greek Josephus. Ovadyah 03:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Many of the dates implied by Josephus are inconsistent with other sources. For instance I think he implies that Jesus is crucified before John is executed.--Michael C. Price talk 11:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Josephus is an important sources but in the end just one source. His writings have to be compared with other sources too. However, Josephus will always have to be taken seriously when he says something or gives a date. "Implied dates" are something else, as he never actually says when Jesus was crucified, when John lived and hence does not put the two into a chronological sequence. He had his reasons for placing the two passages the way he did and he might not have known the exact chronology or he knew and didn't care. But I am sure you know this already.
However, I want to ask again how this is relevant to the Ebionites? Str1977 (smile back) 12:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Michael, you have raised an issue that is well known to Christians but largely ignored because it contradicts the Gospels. Josephus' account of JTB's imprisonment and death and Agrippa's subsequent military defeat puts his death in the late 40's. This is supported by the "source" in the article on Slavonic Josephus. Taken together, JTBs career could have easily spanned 50 years. Imho, I think the "source" in Slavonic Josephus was one of several that Josephus used to write his Antiquities. It was embedded into the larger text to preserve it in the same way that fragments of Hippolytus and the Didache were appended into other texts. That said, Str raises a fair point. How is any of this relevant to the Ebionites? Ovadyah 15:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Josephus does not give a date for John period. One may supposed when reading solely his work that John came after Jesus BUT that is ignoring four sources that say different things. And this sequence issue is irrelevant to the Ebionites. Str1977 (smile back) 16:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
JTB is relevant to the Ebionites since he features prominently in their gospel, as far as we can tell. Hence JTB's origins /sources are relevant.--Michael C. Price talk 16:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is irrelevant. John was not an Ebionite, he wasn't even a Christian. He was Christ's forerunner (in the view of the Christians and of the Ebionites).
If someone argues that the Ebionites/Christians have some Essene origin than we should quote him directly and not take detours across John the Baptist (unless that scholar takes them too, and then we should quote him in context of the overall thesis).
Note also that John as an Essene is not a fact. It is a widespread view that he had something to do with the Essenes - not that he simply was an Essene.
This is not the place for a comprehensive biography of John. Str1977 (smile back) 16:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Your view that JTB was just a forerunner of JC is not Tabor's, Eisenman's nor Rabinowitz's view. Tabor in particular describes the Nazrene/Ebionites as the religion/movement of the "Two Messiahs" -- JTB and JC.--Michael C. Price talk 16:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not MY view that John was JUST a forerunner - I said that he was the forerunner (which is quite a lot and does not preclude more) in the view of Christians and Ebionites.
If some fringy writers claims otherwise, bring them one and if notable we'll include those fringe views. But do not constantly assume that we know all the nonsensical stuff these people have put forth. If you want to argue a point, please do so. Don't complain about others.
And, needless to say, your last posting did not say anything about the issues present before. It just opened up a new one ... again. Str1977 (smile back) 17:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You said that it was the view of the Ebionites, as well as your own, that JTB was not an Ebionite. This is your opinion and not one shared by Tabor, Eisenman and Rabinowitz. You can call them fringy if you like, I don't care -- they are cited all over the article and if you want to remove them it won't just be me complaining. --Michael C. Price talk 17:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should change WP assume "literacy policy" to one of "require literacy".
I said that Christians and Ebionites believe/d that John was the forerunner to Jesus.
I did not say that Ebionites believed John not to be a Ebionite. I stated as fact that John was not an Ebionite because no Ebionites existed in his time. They appear for the first time clearly in the 2nd century and any talk of them before is just a retrospection.
Actually, I am quite glad that I disgree with cranks like Eisenman. Still, we (should) quote them properly BUT in NPOV fashion without (!!!) giving undue weight to them. For you, it appears, there is no world outside the fringe. That they are cited all over the article is true and the article (and other articles too) suffer from them being cited too often for really basic things.
So what shall we do:
  • Include what the Ebionites thought about John - and scholarly views about that.
  • Include scholarly views about links to the Essenes.
  • Include scholarly views about Ebionitic vegetarianism.
  • We should keep all these separate, not jumping back and forth and mingling all the time (putting in everything Tabor writes just because someone dropped his name).
  • We should not include the Essenes apart from their being directly relevant to the article's topic, nor John apart from his being directly relevant to the article's topic.
The article's topic is EBIONITES.
Str1977 (smile back) 18:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Sigh Still presenting your opinions as facts. John was not an Ebionite because no Ebionites existed in his time. This is not the view of many scholars, all of whom I have no doubt you will dismiss as cranks. --Michael C. Price talk 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. Everyone, even the fringies have to agree with this - they just use the term retrospectively. Str1977 (smile back) 20:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You presume they use the term retrospectively. --Michael C. Price talk 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You presume I presume. Stop that nonsense. As far as facts go, Ebionites are attested in the 2nd century and not earlier. Transporting the term into earlier times is reconstruction. Of course, they are free to do that. Historiography is reconstruction. But we cannot endorse them. As always, you want to do just that. Str1977 (smile back) 23:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No I am not presuming -- I am just pointing out that your statements presented as historical truths are presumptions; and not in accordance with all secondary sources.--Michael C. Price talk 00:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes you are. The problem with that is not that you are doing it, or that your favoured writers are doing it but that you using the claim that I presume in order to somehow turn the burden of proof on its head when it is in fact you who wants to include questionable or controversial items.
The facts are that the Ebionites first appear in the sources in the 2nd century - that doesn't mean that they didn't exist before (as you think) but at the same time it is NOT a fact that they did. We have to base our article first on the solid facts before moving to reconstructions - the latter are controversial and therefore must be treated in an NPOV manner.
Transporting the term back to the year 30 AD pushes a POV and therfore must be avoided. Str1977 (smile back) 07:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The facts are that the Ebionites first appear in the sources in the 2nd century - that doesn't mean that they didn't exist before (as you think) Eh? Exactly my point. I have no idea why you think I am denying this.--Michael C. Price talk 08:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If you think so, great. I didn't get that impression from the above, though I admit that gathering a point was not always easy. I take it that we agree that we should be calling the Christians of the year 30 AD Ebionites. Str1977 (smile back) 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, Str1977, that that is one POV, based, I believe on what Epiphanius says. And presumably the source of the statement in the lead: "The term was at first, like "Nazarenes", a common name for all early Christians,"--Michael C. Price talk 21:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No, we don't agree. That is a hypothesis, one of many, and should be carefully stated as such. To do otherwise is, yet again, a synthesis. Other possible self-referential names pre-70 CE are the Nazarenes or simply the Way. It's clear that the name Ebionites took on polemical overtones after the flight to Pella. Ovadyah 13:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Do we really not agree that we shouldn't be using the term "Ebionites" prior to the term being attested, at least not in a pseudo-factual manner? Or do you say, Ovadyah, that you suppose that Michael doesn't agrees? I'd prefer to let him speak for himself. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 15:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Speaking for myself only, I can't support using the term Ebionites pre-Pella. We have a historical tradition passed along by Eusebius (probably via Aristo of Pella) that the Ebionites first appear as a distict group at this time. There's no problem with finding secondary sources that discuss it. There is some dispute in the literature about whether the Pella tradition is real, and we reported that. This much is solid by Wiki policy standards. Anything earlier gets into the realm of unsupportable speculation. I would like to hear what you and Loremaster have to say, and achieve a consensus among independent editors if possible. We do not need unanimity to enforce a consensus as long as plenty of time has been allowed for discussion. This topic has already been discussed to death here and in the Archives. Ovadyah 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Great, exactly my point. Str1977 (smile back) 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have contacted Alecmconroy and asked him to act as an RFC to guide us in the proper application of the criterion of undue weight to fringe sources in the Ebionites article. Meanwhile, please read Refusal to get the point and see also Disruptive editing and editors. Ovadyah 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Most of the time, Ovadyah, you are quite rational. You let yourself down with your refusal to attribute good faith to other editors. Correct that and there would be less disruptive editting here as well.
For the record, I consider everybody here to be acting in good faith.--Michael C. Price talk 00:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
My concerns are over tendiciousness and mendacity, specifically, placing editorial opinions in the mouths of sources to make it seem as though an editor is merely reporting the views of a source, when in reality the source is reporting the biases of an editor. This disruptive practice needs to stop, and when it does, so will my issues regarding editing in bad faith. Ovadyah 00:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Examples please. --Michael C. Price talk 01:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to single anyone out for now. However, if I think an editor is misrepresenting the views of a source in the future, I will ask for specific evidence of that view. Ovadyah 02:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
And I was asking for specific evidence now. No matter.--Michael C. Price talk 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it didn't take long for an example of mendacity to arise. Michael, you referenced a radio interview of Charlesworth, where he mentions a possible influence of the Essenes on John the Baptist, then you synthesized it into a statement linking the Essenes to the Ebionites. "... Charlesworth .... argue that the Ebionites drew much of their original inspiration from rules, customs, theology, beliefs, and even their name from the Essenes through the founding influence of John the Baptist". I removed this unsupportable citation, and you restored it. Prove that Charlesworth mentions the Ebionites and directly connects them to the Essenes. Ovadyah 15:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The text in the section could be worded more explicitly -- but my labelling of the reference was quite explicit: it read "Unique features shared by Essenes and John the Baptist in interpretation of Isaiah". It does not say that Charlesworth made the link to the Ebionites -- it is merely linking JTB with the Essenes in their interpretation of Isaiah 40:3 -- the other authors link JTB with the Essenes. Michael C. Price talk 17:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The topic of the article is Ebionites, not John. If there is an influence of the Essenes on John, why is it included in an article on the Ebionites ... unless it wants to say or suggest something about the Ebionites. Furthermore, the statement that the Ebionites took their name (Ebionites = the Poor) from the Essenes (unclear etymology but definitely not the Poor) is unsupportable, at least when worded that way. More closer to the facts would be that the Ebionites took their name from a term present in the prophets (but in their case via the Sermon on the Mount) - prophets also quoted and referred to by the Essenes. Str1977 (smile back) 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Str1977, I don't think you appreciate that one POV represented by secondary sources is that JTB was the Ebionites' founder. Therefore a lot of statements about JTB are relevant in an article about the movement he founded -- according to that POV.--Michael C. Price talk 22:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No, that is an editorial synthesis. Produce a direct quote that says JTB was the Ebionites' founder. Ovadyah 01:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
From Tabor's Jesus Dynasty: "Jesus joined the movement of John the Baptizer and was baptized by John..." (page 134) "They were subsequently known by the term "Ebionites", which meant in Hebrew "poor ones."" (page 275) --Michael C. Price talk 02:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a closer look at this "direct quote" and the surrounding context. The context of the first passage cited by Michael is the baptism of Jesus by John as it appears in the Gospel of John Chp. 4. Tabor states,

The historical facts are plain: Jesus joined the movement of John the Baptizer and was baptized by John with a 'baptism of repentance for the remission of sins'.

In the previous sentence, Tabor states,

...the text plainly says that Jesus was baptizing and making disciples!

To reach this conclusion, Tabor dismisses John 4.2, "although it was not Jesus himself who baptized but his disciples", as a later Christian interpolation. So, the only thing controversial here is his assertion that Jesus was also baptizing. However, there is no mention in this passage or anywhere in the surrounding context of Ebionites.


Now let's look at the second passage cited by Michael. The context of the passage is the defeat of Bar Kochba in the Second Jewish War and the establishment of Jerusalem as the gentile city Aelia Capitolina. Tabor states,

We do know that these original Christians survived, mostly in the areas east of Palestine, well into the 4th century AD, but they were scattered and without power or influence and they had little or no part in influencing what went into the New Testament, which became the official story of early Christianity. They were known subsequently by the term "Ebionites", which meant in Hebrew "poor ones".

Well, there's nothing controversial here. This is the only page in the book where the Ebionites are mentioned. However, there is no mention in this passage or anywhere in the surrounding context of John the Baptist.

So, it seems that a direct quote that says JTB was the Ebionites' founder means to Michael that if John the Baptist is mentioned somewhere in the book and the Ebionites are mentioned somewhere else in the book in a completely different context and time period, that must "prove" that John the Baptist was the Ebionites' founder. Oh gosh, what was I thinking when I said this was an editorial synthesis? Ovadyah 04:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What utter rubbish.
  1. Ovadyah's selective analysis of Tabor's is entirely OR and defective. Yes, Tabor says Jesus was baptising as well, but the whole point was that JTB was baptising first and Jesus was baptised into John's movement -- a point repeatedly made throughout the book. So Ovadyah's pathetic attempt at providing context is shown to be blatantly biased. If I had provided such a transparently biased and POV argument I have no doubt that Ovadyah would be accusing me of mendacity etc etc.
  2. Tabor does not build his case exclusively from the Gosepel of John, neither does he "dismiss" it, as Ovadyah would have us believe. His synthesis -- the context -- is much broader, as it would be for any credible academic and reliable source.
  3. Ovadyah's claim the "Ebionite" mention is restricted to The context of the passage is the defeat of Bar Kochba is equally flawed; Tabor is talking about how the movement of the "original Christians" -- which the rest of book has been describing -- become known after Bar Kochba.
Thank you Ovadyah for showing us how completely incapable you are of any objectivity.
--Michael C. Price talk 06:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You can run but you can't hide. Where is the direct statement showing that JTB is the founder of the Ebionites? Still waiting. And thank you in return for showing us that you are a mendacious troll whose only purpose for being here is to provoke dissention with fringe arguments which you then try to win at any cost. It's time to bring back the null hypothesis that your only purpose for being here is to disrupt the efforts of other editors. Ovadyah 13:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Absence of any substantive response noted. BTW another Tabor source The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of mostly Jewish/Israelite followers of John the Baptizer and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions and led by "James the Just" (the oldest brother of Jesus), and flourished between the years 30-80 C.E. reiterates the same points. --Michael C. Price talk 14:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting. Ovadyah 14:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Continuing absence of any substantive response noted. --Michael C. Price talk 15:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Tabor also mentions that they accepted non-Jews into their fellowship on the basis of some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15 and 21). We know from the testimony of multiple Church Fathers, discussed in multiple secondary sources, that one of the characteristics of the Ebionites was that they did not accept the table fellowship of gentiles. This was one of the characteristics that the Fathers used to distinguish between the Ebionites and Nazarenes. Tabor is talking about a period of early Christianity when these groups were not clearly differentiated. That's why he uses terms like early Christians and Ebionite/Nazarene movement. But then this doesn't fit into your fringie POV now does it? Ovadyah 16:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I shan't ask why you think this contradicts my "fringie POV", although it might be amusing to see your answer.On second thoughts, we could all do with a good belly laugh. Please do explain. --Michael C. Price talk 17:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather hear you explain why you add material into the article that is knowingly false with the intent to deceive. However, unlike you, I don't consider fraud a laughing matter. Ovadyah 17:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Nor accusations of fraud. So let's be explicit: what material are you objecting to and on what basis? --Michael C. Price talk 03:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It is an unsupportable synthesis and needs to be cleaned up. CS and I argued about this one quite awhile ago. It is clearly a self-referential term used by the Righteous Teacher (in the singular) in the Thanksgiving Hymns, and it is also used in the singular in the Barki Nafshi. We couldn't find a case where it was unambiguously used in the plural in Hebrew. If you know of an example, please share it. Until then, there is credible evidence that Evyoni was used in a different way by the Qumran sectarians. Ovadyah 13:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
A marvelous synthesis Ovadyah -- and possibly correct, who knows? But the fact remains that secondary sources exist that note the similarity of self-designation in the DSS and of the Ebionites. And that is all that matters for Wikipedia -- not the results of your or CS's trawling through the primary literature. --Michael C. Price talk 22:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This material was taken from "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" by Eisenman and Wise, so you can credit Eisenman for a marvelous synthesis. It's one of the few texts out there with a facsimile of the original Hebrew text along with an English translation. Ovadyah 14:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Odd then, isn't it, that Eisenman also notes the coincidence of their names? --Michael C. Price talk 15:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Noting a coindicence of their names doesn't mean that they were used in the same way. Jeremiah uses the expression "the poor one". Does that mean he was an Essene too? Ovadyah 16:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
What do the secondsary sources say? --Michael C. Price talk 16:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
And note that there is no "similiarities in names"!
The Ebionoites are called Ebionites which means "the poor ones"
The Essenes are called Essenes which DOES NOT mean "the poor ones". Even if the Essenes occasionally referred to themselves as the poor (as I take it mostly in reference to biblical text, along the lines of "we are these poor ones") does not mean that there name was "the poor".
Hence the item must be thoroughly reworded. Str1977 (smile back) 08:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
As I earlier said "But the fact remains that secondary sources exist that note the similarity of self-designation in the DSS and of the Ebionites."; I shall reword it to reflect what the sources say more accurately.
BTW no one is claiming that "Essene" and "Ebionite" are the same words -- I don't know where you got that from. --Michael C. Price talk 10:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I got that from the fact that you are talking about a similarity in names. The Essenes' name is Essenes, the Ebionites' name is Ebionites, hence ...
But we are not talking about the Essenes name, hence it must be reworded. That's all I am saying. Str1977 (smile back) 12:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. I always doubted the truthfullness of the "the poor" claim, beyond the fact that the wording clearly is misleading. Str1977 (smile back) 15:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I would like to hear what Loremaster has to say, and let's move toward a consensus of independent editors if possible. My position is that attempts to link the Essenes (or Qumran sectarians) to the Ebionites by this "poor" terminology is nothing but an editorial synthesis. Careful research into what little evidence there is cannot support claims of a linkage. As I said previously, this has already been discussed to death here and in the Archives. Ovadyah 15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It was inserted in a misleading way, and you are synthesizing yet again. Ovadyah 17:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
So is everybody else here, but I've given up telling you all about OR. --Michael C. Price talk 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh and BTW that wasn't synthesis, that was straight from Charlesworth. If you were really interested in knowing whether it was synthesis or not, instead of just blowing off hot air, you would have asked for more details about the interpretation of Isaiah 40:3 -- instead you (again) make a bold assertion from complete ignorance, whilst accusing everybody else of mendacity. Double standards or what? --Michael C. Price talk 18:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
As for mendacity, your behaviour condemns yourself. Clearly you didn't attempt to access the link or you would know that it was not a "radio interview", but a TV programme about the Dead Sea Scrolls, which interviews a range of scholars and academics -- so quite how you can so authoritively declare what Charlesworth says on the programme is beyond me.--Michael C. Price talk 17:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried to access your link but couldn't. Links need to be accessible to general readers, not just those with the right software package. However, a keyword search of the program turned up no links to Ebionites. Ovadyah 17:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, so the statement "Charlesworth doesn't mention the Ebionites" was just a barefaced lie. Don't ever lecture anyone about mendacity again. --Michael C. Price talk 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a strong accusation. Let's see if you have the balls to back it up. I'm sure you would like nothing better than to show everyone here I'm a liar. Prove that Charlesworth mentions the Ebionites in your source or retract your accusation. Ovadyah 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think you'd get this -- how predictable you are. No, it doesn't matter whether the Ebionites are mentioned on the DSS programme or not. Your mendacity is that you asserted that they weren't without actually checking in detail. So stop the preaching and drop the goody-two-shoes act.--Michael C. Price talk 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If the Ebionites are not mentioned, it doesn't belong here. Unless you can provide a clear, faultless reasoning why such excursions are on topic and needed in this article. Str1977 (smile back) 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ebionites are not mentioned ...still waiting... and it doesn't belong here. I removed it once already. Feel free to do so again. Ovadyah 13:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh and BTW your crack in the edit summary "rv, Charlesworth doesn't mention the Ebionites; stop weaving syntheses based on gossamer threads of transitive logic" is quite funny, considering that practically the entire article is one long synthesis of transitive logic.--Michael C. Price talk 17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No matter who is right on the facts of the case, an existing problem is not solved by adding more of the same material. Str1977 (smile back) 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That would be good advice if a real desire was shown all editors to remove synthesis on all topics/POVs -- but that's not what I see. --Michael C. Price talk 21:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
So what is that other synthesis you are talking about? Str1977 (smile back) 07:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
As an example: or whether some Ebionites were projecting their vegetarianism unto [John the Baptist] as a pious fraud intented to legitimize their vow.
But almost everything here is synthesis, which is really up to everybody else to address - and I've tried to explain OR often enough -- but I will not be judged by double standards: synthesis is a matter of degree. When the planks are removed we can address the splinters if that's what we wish.
But I do not object the presence of synthesis here per se (it is a matter of degree, as I've said) -- what I object to is when a POV is deleted by the operation of a selective application of double standards. --Michael C. Price talk 10:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a rather bad example as you removed it. You did right in doing so, not because it was synthesis, but because it is badly worded. One can speak only of a pious fraud if someone knows that something is wrong and propagates it anyway for pious motives. The Ebionites however, as I take it, truly believed that John was veggie. If they insisted that eating meat is evil then of course John must have been veggie. We should report that view of the Ebionites pure and simple.
Double standards of course are always a danger but the solution is to cry foul when you think the standards applicable for us all are violated. In every individual case. You cannot however simply say: it already has synthesis, so let's add some more. Str1977 (smile back) 11:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad example as you removed it since it has been reinserted (albeit with a fact tag).
I have been crying foul here for a very long time without much success. Until I see standards applied equally then I shall object to their over-zealous selective application by POV pushingdeleting editors. --Michael C. Price talk 12:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The only thing foul here is your ethics. You endlessly criticize other editors for applying judgement, which is permitted under the constraints of undue weight, while you insert your editorial judgements into the mouths of secondary sources through synthesis. I'll take judgement over fraud any day. Ovadyah 14:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least you admit doing what you criticize me for doing. I won't call you a hypocrite, although others might. --Michael C. Price talk 15:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that Ovadyah admits to anything like that. But that is anyway beside the point: NO ONE is allowed to violate Wiki rules. Turn around (if it is turn around) is not fair play. Str1977 (smile back) 08:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
By that selective logic then neither have I admitted to anything either, so why do you call it "turn around" :-) --Michael C. Price talk 10:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Only the parts you have contributed. Once there is more oversight of the article, either through RFC or AN/I, this business of synthesizing original research based on chain-linking marginal sources will be brought to a head. Ovadyah 17:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well let's make a start and remove all references to the Bible (old and new testaments) since they nowhere mention the Ebionites either. Oh, let me guess, you want to keep synthesis that supports your POV, yes? --Michael C. Price talk 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this goes without saying but I will say it anywy: Things depend on what bible quotes are used for. If they are used for referencing Ebionites did that, were called that, they are certainly out of line. That was what my comment above (Ebionites in 30 AD) was about. But if they refer to the actual verses that were used by the Ebionites, they should stay. Str1977 (smile back) 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No, we should start by reaching a consensus among independent editors, preferably under the guidance of an RFC, to remove the unsupportable crap you have introduced into the article. Ovadyah 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course you said the same thing about James the Just as Ebionite leader. Still sticking with that line as well, are we?--Michael C. Price talk 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I promise you that after Loremaster is back from his break, Loremaster, Str, and I will go through the article, section by section, sentence by sentence, and fix this problem. Ovadyah 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If you can find good sources I have no objection to that POV also being represented. --Michael C. Price talk 23:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian views

A major Christian view is missing from this section - supersession. There is no mention whatever of substitutionary covenant theology. That's why Christians call the Tanakh the "Old" Testament. Instead we have, yet again, mention of the Essenes being pushed by Esseneophilic editors. Str, can you help expand this section? Ovadyah 14:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ovadyah, feel free to expand this section. Str could then edit and expand on the content you have added. --Loremaster 15:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the mention of Essenes in the Christian views section is awkward. --Loremaster 21:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the Religious Perspectives section to the Requests for Expansion list. Please remember to do this with Expansion and Cleanup tags. Ovadyah 15:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time contributing to section whose validity I dispute.
The Christian take on the E. is quite simple: they are heretics of the judaizing kind. They do not represent the gospel Jesus preached as they twist, omit or add certain things. But that is actually a truism. The Jewish section is even more so. The Islamic section is utterly incorrect presenting a lone voice as a mainstream view on something Islam has no view of.
If he have a section like this it should very briefly state the views properly attributed (not with longish, pseudo-topical explanations) and include more than the three major monotheistic religions.
I think, most probably, the few modern Ebionites have more to say about ancient Ebionites than one billion Muslims. All in NPOV fashion, of course. Str1977 (smile back) 13:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course, and we have you here to help keep it that way. :0) Ovadyah 15:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Str1977, you are wrong about the Islamic section. Let's continue this debate in the Islamic views thread below. --Loremaster 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I see three influences of the Ebionites on orthodox Christianity: 1) Emphasis on the humanity of Jesus over the divinity of Christ. This has been a classic polemic of the orthodox Church, still used today against Jehovah's Witnesses. 2) Emphasis on works over grace. Another historical polemic, still used by Christians against Jews and by Protestants against the Catholic Church. 3) The Jewishness of Jesus. This influence is more recent. The recognition that Christians and Jews pray to the same God comes as a real shock to many Christians. Related to these is a 4th, supercession. The idea that the new covenant of Christianity replaced the old covenant of Judaism is a classic polemic as old as the Letter to the Hebrews. Now, it's turned on it's ear by Pope John Paul's recognition of Judaism as a separate covenant with the Jewish people. All of these influences are relevant to contemporary Christianity. Ovadyah 15:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Oyadyah,
First of all, I thought the sections were about Christian, Jewish, Islamic takes on the Ebionites, not about influences.
They are about views on the Ebionites, but I am basing my editorials in part on how the Ebionites are used polemically as a source for these views. Ovadyah 20:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Secondly, I can't see "influences" of the Ebionites on Christianity in three items you refer to at all:
1. "Emphasis on the humanity of Jesus over the divinity of Christ."
How is this an influence of the Ebionites on Christianity. Christianity does uphold both Jesus' humanity and divinity (even those who reject the Council of Chalcedon do) - and those Christians who do not have not been influenced by Ebionites.
Answer. Target groups are compared to Ebionites, and early church polemics against the Ebionites are then used against the target group. I see this a lot on religious websites. eg. Southern Baptists like to use this tactic against JWs to condemn them as heretics. Ovadyah 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Answer to answer: But this is still no influence of Ebionites. And groups like JWs are far more likely to be dubbed "Arians" (quite inaccurately). Only a few polemicists would use "Ebionites" and more likely say "Judaizers". Str1977 (smile back) 10:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
2. "Emphasis on works over grace."
True, used as a polemics as you described it but no Ebionite influence.
Answer. It doesn't have to be Ebionites, of course. But either Ebionites or "Judaizers" via Galatians are often used as polemical examples and applied to Jews and Catholics. I've looked at some pretty vicious Evangelical websites directed against Catholics, and they often try to use analogies to the Ebionites to "prove" Catholics are judaizers and heretics. Ovadyah 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Answer to answer: Again, there is no Ebionitic influence. You are of course correct that those polemics exist (as a Catholic I am not unaware of this). For the rest, what I wrote above applies. Str1977 (smile back) 10:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
3. "The Jewishness of Jesus. This influence is more recent." How can there be a recent influence of a group that has been non-existent for centuries (restoration movements notwithstanding). It was never completely lost that Jesus was a Jew (though not in the religious sense of the term denoting the rabbinical religion). Neither was it ever a shock to Christians that Jews and Christians worship the same God. Otherwise Christians would not have tolerated Judaism for centuries (and despite discrimination and occasional persecution, that is what they did) if they believed them to be worshipping another and hence false god.
Answer. The increased awareness of Jesus the Jew and attempts to understand Jesus' historical actions within the context of first-century Judaism has also increased the awareness of his Jewish followers, including Nazarenes and Ebionites. That's why we see so much recent literature on James the Just. It might shock you as a Catholic to know how many everyday Christians are closet Marcionites. Regarding tolerance of Judaism, Ambrose wanted to exterminate all Jews everywhere. Augustine decided against the recommendation of his mentor (paraphrasing slightly) "so that they could be forever in diaspora with their backs bent low to remind us of the superiority of Christianity". Ovadyah 18:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Answer to answer: I agree that there is so much literature on James for that reason (but would disagree with the identification of Ebionites and the Jewish followers of Jesus. No, it would not surprise me - I now that many heresies are still around. As for the tolerance: it is an undisputable fact that Christians did not exterminate Jews everywhere and no single example, however notable the name (and whether your rendition of Ambrose is accurate is another matter) cannot change that fact. And certainly Christians did not believe Jews worshipped another god, as some thought or think about Islam. It is more likely that Jews thought this about Christians. But I digress. Str1977 (smile back) 10:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
4. "supercession"
This is a very complex issue and the meaning of the term is ambiguous. There is no cancelling of the Old Covenant in the Letter to the Hebrews (if there were, all Christians would be bound by it, including John Paul). It was not any supposed Ebionitic influence that made Christians fine tune the belief from a blunt replacement to a transformation of the Old into the New covenant. John Paul doesn't (couldn't) talk about separate covenants, as there is only one covenant: that of God with his people Israel (and the Church through Christ being Israel by extension, by "grafting", as Paul writes in Romans.
Str1977 (smile back) 15:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Answer. Please, if there were no cancelling of the Old Covenant, all male Christians would be circumsized. I agree that the claims of supercession were and are applied to Judaism and Jews in general. The influence was in the imperial and papal decrees outlawing Jewish feast days, and practices shared jointly by some Christians and Jews, such as observing Passover on the 14th of Nissan. Read John Chrysostom's sermons if you don't think there was an influence. That's why Christians celebrate Ishtar today instead of Pesach. For once we agree, that "there is only one covenant: that of God with his people Israel". The "grafting" you refer to in Romans is conspicuously absent in Galatians. Guess which one is cited more frequently in Christian polemics. Ovadyah 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Answer to answer: Why are male Christians not circumcised: because the Apostles deemed that as gentiles they are not bound to physically become Jews and obey the Mosaic Law. They are however grafted into Israel by their faith in Christ who perfectly fullfilled the Mosaic Law. As for special decrees I would have to take a closer look but I can say one thing right now: the ban on joint celebrations (e.g. the Passover) does not imply a "cancellation of the Old Covenant" - it is based on the reasoning that those believing in Christ should not join in with those that reject him. And of course, may I ask you not to insult Christians by utterly false terms like "Ishtar" - Christians celebrate Easter which is the term in the English language for the feast of Passover, albeit a Christian passover as it not only commemorates the Exodus but also Christ's resurrection. The grafting is absent in Galatians as that letter is a polemic directing against Judaizers back then (and was not concerned with the issues present in Romans). Just because polemicists use only one letter you shouldn't follow them. One cannot pick and chose one letter and omit another. Christianity does not equal the Bible, the Bible doesn't equal Paul, Paul doesn't equal Galatians.
All in all, I don't see how these are influences of the Ebionites, nor do I see how such influences were "Christian perspectives" on them. What I can agree with is that the term "E." is sometimes used by Christian polemicists against what they perceive to be Judaizing. Str1977 (smile back) 10:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting and thoughtful answers. No insult intended. It's a fact that Easter sits on top of the Babylonian feast-day of Ishtar, just as it's a fact that celebrating the birth of Christ on Dec. 25th sits on top of the birthday of Mithras. These pagan feast-days were subsumed into the liturgical calendar, while Jewish feast-days were rejected. That was my point. It's ironic that Augustine saved the Jews from the same fate the pagans and gnostics suffered in the Roman Empire (annihilation) by arguing for their humiliation, just as it's ironic that there would be no state of Israel today if Christians hadn't made it possible. Ovadyah 14:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that you didn't intend it as an insult but I must say that your "it's a fact" is not a fact at all. There is no Ishtar basis to the Christian Easter - unless you want to go way back and thereby also implicate the passover. Passover (and Easter, since they are one) is celebrated on the first fullmoon in spring. Babylonian/Sumerians might have celebrated something there too as they invented the lunar calendar (but there is actually no such thing as a feast day of Ishtar - you are probably talking about the Hieros Gamos which involved her and Tammuz.) Also, the Exodus account implies that there was some feast already in existence before, as Moses uses it as a reason when he demands "let my people go".
As for Mithras, things are different there too. Christmas has been placed on the winter solistice - an astronomical date prone to become the date of feasts: the Roman Saturnalia, Mithras etc. The symbolism of the longest night and the subsequent lengthening of days is obvious. It fit for Christ's birth too - and another motive was to supplant a pagan feast.
So it is - to be blunt - nonsense that "pagan feast-days were subsumed into the liturgical calendar, while Jewish feast-days were rejected" - Easter, the highest feast, is a Jewish feast, so is Pentecost. Christmas is unique but was placed (in one version, consider the alternative January 6) on a pagan date. Sukkot didn't play a role in Christianity (but if I remember correctly is marked in the Eastern liturgical calendar)
Augustine didn't save the Jews (though he provided a legitimation for Jewish existence for the less noble-minded) as there was no persecution in the making. Theodosius spared the Jews before Augustine was of prominence. The issue was that (non-Christian) Jews do worship God (though, from a Christian perspective, incompletely) while pagans do not (and note that generally pagans were not persecuted as such either, though their religious practice was criminalised).
But all of this shouldn't actually fill up this talk page. Can we get back to article business. Str1977 (smile back) 16:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Ovadyah 18:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Views

Str, you are the one who is utterly incorrect in stating Islam has no view on the Ebionites. In fact, Islamic websites have quite a lot so say about them. The Ebionites are used polemically to argue that Christianity is a false religion created by Paul and enforced with Roman power by Constantine. While you may find these views to be despicable personally, they are representative of mainstream Islam. Ovadyah 15:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

From Christian Think Tank: Good Question:

Dear Glenn, I think I have seen that you have something about the early Christians and who they really were. The Muslims are pushing big time for Nazarenes and Ebionites as the only true Christians. Have you done any more detailed writing on this?

--Loremaster 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Some Muslims have a view and some Muslims are pushing hard for it. But that doesn't constitute a view of Islam. If that "some" is incorporated the statement will at least be accurate - though other issues remain. Str1977 (smile back) 10:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
"Some" Muslims is a fair statement. Ovadyah 14:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I've edited the Islamic views section accordingly. --Loremaster 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History & Legacy section

IMHO, the H & L sections should look this:

  • the Ebionites appear in sources from 2nd to the 4th century
  • rendering of the information from these sources with scholarly analysis
  • scholarly views on the link between Ebionite (graspable in the 2nd century) and predecessors, including
    • Ebionites developed out of the Jerusalem Church, breaking with Christianity after AD 70, sticking to the Law etc.
    • Ebionites being true successors (Tabor, etc.)+
  • Basically these two should as much as possible relate facts as one - the break between two branches is a fact - the issue of who was right is another issue
  • This should also include the issue of connection to other groups like the Essenes (which is not actually a Belief or Practice - this section should focus on what the title says)
  • Scholarly opinions on the further history of the Ebionites, something the article does not contain anything so far except a vague reference to "Jewish and Christian persecution"
  • scholarly opinion on the demise of the group, i.e. when did it end.
  • Linked with this, scholarly views about a possible link to other groups, currently especially the Islamic link supposed by (?) Schoeps.

Str1977 (smile back) 13:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I like your suggestions. Ovadyah 03:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Good, I will put forth more detailed suggestions in time. Str1977 (smile back) 12:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have done an overhaul of the section in line with my items above. I know that it is not perfect and am more than open to input.
I removed some things, which does not mean that I don't think these things (e.g. the Pixner link, the reference to the Jewish Christian synagogue, the reference to Simeon) useful but there was no way to include them into the section.
The more problematic bits are:
  • "Several established academics and fringe researchers, some of whom are engaged in the third quest for the historical Jesus, have sought to reconstruct the history of the Ebionites. They critically reexamine the few historical facts which exist, with an eye towards rewriting history with newly discovered information. Their assumption is that the history of Jewish Christian sects as it has been traditionally told by the Fathers of the Church is neither fair nor accurate. However, their methodologies and conclusions are often at variance with mainstream scholarship."
    It is unclear to me whether the latter half refers to the established academics or the fringies. Someone writing under such assumptions is indeed metholodologically flawed.
  • The Maccoby reference to persecution.
    Sure there was persecution but if so we should clearly state who persecuted whom and when. So far I only know of Bar Kochba persecuting Jewish Christians (in how far these were Ebionites is another issue). Pharisees excluded JCs from their synagogues (but that's not actually persecution). Whether the pagan Empire persecuted Ebionites I know not, nor in how the Christian Empire did. If so, we need proper examples and references.
  • I removed the Gibbon thing alltogether as he is not a reliable source on these topics and totally dated, writing before the advent of critical historiography. He certainly is completely wrong in his supposition that Jews could enter Aelia if they converted to Christianity. Aelia (not the whole of Judea) was off limits to all Jews, regardless of their convictions. Of course, if they dressed up as Greeks or Romans, they could enter illegaly but that's another matter.
Other changes I made were:
  • I moved the writings section up, as they are more on topic than the "religious persepectives".
  • The splitting the legacy into paragraphy I did for better readability while editing. In the end, it may once again be merged into one large chunk, if that is preferred.
  • I also wondered in how far there is overlap between the religious perspective and the legacy section. Especially Jews for Judaism and Messianic Jews are also religious perspectives.
Another issue that I haven't tackled yet is the problematic bit in the intro:
"Several modern scholars, however, contest the traditional portrayal of Ebionites asserting that they were not only the legitimate spiritual successors to the original disciples of John the Baptist, his cousin Jesus the Nazarene and Jesus' brother James the Just, but that they were more faithful than the followers of Paul to the original teachings of the historical Jesus."
IMHO, statements like "true followers of Christ" are not historical but religious in nature. It is (slightly) POV to present only one branch of scholarship in the intro. The above must certainly be reduced and balanced by mainstream scholarship. Or we move this alltogether into the history and beliefs sections. Either way is possible. (PS. has any one verified that Schoeps is indeed one of the "true followers of Christ" people?)
Str1977 (smile back) 12:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the "legitimate spiritual successors" since, I agree, it is ahistorical, plus a few other bits. --Michael C. Price talk 14:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. However, it is still out of balance as no one disputes that they developed out of the early Christians. However, summing up Eisenman etc. under that header (and omitting that orthodox Christianity also developed from that root) makes things uneven. Str1977 (smile back) 16:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
"no one disputes that they developed out of the early Christians" Really? I thought that was precisely the point that the "late Essene merger" was disputing. Although I too would like to see the direct quote from Schoeps that says that. --Michael C. Price talk 19:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to see the first voice to dispute the development of Ebionites from early Christians - note not the legitimate, nor the only development but merely the fact that the Ebionites grew from that branch. From what I gather, Church Fathers, the two encyclopedic sources above, Eisenman, Tabor etc. all agree on this. Tabor might add more (Essenes, John) but still. But I am open to learn about some one arguing that the Ebionites just popped out of thin air. Str1977 (smile back) 23:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Str, your changes generally look good -- the article seems to have a better feel for history which has been absent hitherto, for quite awhile. I have a few quibbles with some of the attributions and POVs which we can sort out later, but generally, it looks better. I'm glad to see the back of some of the obscuranist terminology that has bedeviled the article previously. More work to do of course, but so far so good.--Michael C. Price talk 22:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad about your positive approach. Thanks.
But I am not glad about
  • cluttering up the section again with unnecessary detail (and dubious stuff like James' death causing the Jewish war),
  • the turning around of the section to put the fringe hypotheses before the mainstream (and the fringe of the fringe before the moderate fringe) - or is there some justification for these reversals?
  • once again the non neutral usage of the term Ebionites ("There is a tradition that the Ebionites returned to Jerusalem in the 70s CE" ... actually no, tradition is that Christians returned from Pella under the leadership of Simeon)
  • and turning facts on its head: the Ebionites do not vanish after Simeon's death in 107 - the had yet to appear in any sources! Even if you incorrectly use the E word for all Jewish Christians prior to 70, to say that the Ebionites vanished is just wrong.
In contrast to that what is missing is what Tabor & co. have to say about the Apostles' council and James endorsement of a law-free gentile mission (which doesn't sit well with later Ebionite positions) and in general about the demise of the Ebionites from the 2nd to the 5th century.
Finally, regarding the intro, I would like to know to what "drawing on broader sources" refers to.
Str1977 (smile back) 23:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • cluttering up the section again with unnecessary detail (and dubious stuff like James' death causing the Jewish war) - everything here is dubious, so I don't buy that argument. I sourced the claim and said "may".
  • the turning around of the section to put the fringe hypotheses before the mainstream (and the fringe of the fringe before the moderate fringe) - or is there some justification for these reversals? -yes, as my edit summary comment said -- chronology, I thought it was clearer to progress from JTB -> Jesus -> James rather than put JTB after James.
  • once again the non neutral usage of the term Ebionites ("There is a tradition that the Ebionites returned to Jerusalem in the 70s CE" ... actually no, tradition is that Christians returned from Pella under the leadership of Simeon) I don't quite see how the term "Christian" is non neutral, especially since the Pauline and Ebionite branches have presumably separated by this point. A reader will wonder quite who it is who returned here. Perhaps we should say the "followers of Simon"?
  • and turning facts on its head: the Ebionites do not vanish after Simeon's death in 107 - the[y] had yet to appear in any sources! Even if you incorrectly use the E word for all Jewish Christians prior to 70, to say that the Ebionites vanished is just wrong. - just reporting what Tabor says. I think you confuse when they appear in the records with then are described to have existed. These are of course very different things. Rewording should clarify.
  • In contrast to that what is missing is what Tabor & co. have to say about the Apostles' council and James endorsement of a law-free gentile mission (which doesn't sit well with later Ebionite positions) and in general about the demise of the Ebionites from the 2nd to the 5th century. I am quite happy to add this - as I had awhile ago but it got deleted.
  • Finally, regarding the intro, I would like to know to what "drawing on broader sources" refers to. e.g. Didache, Gospel of Thomas
I am glad you've asked these questions, but sorry you didn't wait for a response before your latest rewrite. I suggest a more consensual approach will be more productive in the long term.--Michael C. Price talk 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1. No, not everything here is dubious. Regardless of whether the claim was source (I know Eisenman related to this and the view was actually attributed by a Church Father to Josephus - incorrectly however) or whether it is nonsense (on the purely historical level it is, not talking about divine retribution) - that factlet simply does not belong in here. It is an off topic side remark.Str1977 (smile back) 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I've broken up your answers to make it easier to respond: I don't accept that Eisenman's view about James' death being the trigger is historical nonsense. However perhaps it belongs elsewhere. --Michael C. Price talk 02:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
My point was a) it is historical nonsense (the Jewish war was triggered by disputes in Caesarea, the Roman governour using excessive force, the people of Jerusalem reacting by stopping sacrifices for the Emperor - which meant rebellion. Christians interpreted it in such a way that James' death removed a protection from the city, but the more prevalent view was the war was retribution for the killing of Jesus and the subsequent non-acceptance of him by the Jewish people) 2) that is belongs elsewhere. Str1977 (smile back) 09:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
And my point is that having read Eisenman I do not agree.--Michael C. Price talk 10:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't agree with what? Well, I have read Eisenman too. But as long as we agree that it doesn't belong in here, there's no need for further debate on this. Str1977 (smile back) 13:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2. To me, your edit summary was not clear on this. Chronology would come into play if we had an uncontroversial account of what happened but as of yet we do not (or if we have, it is not the one proposed by Tabor & co.) Therefore we present various views to avoid the false impression of a clear and easy chronological account. I have ordered the differing views in descending acceptance, which also happens to ascending originality (i.e. the first one contents more with the sources than the later ones). There is one way to include a chronological account: we could include before the theories a brief account of the history of the Jerusalem Church from Pentecost to Bar Kochba. But a) this cannot be a parroting of Tabor or Eisenman b) it cannot possibly extent to anything about John the Baptist. c) It would probaly create much redundancy. But then again, if the reader not so familiar with Early Christian history then understands better it would be worth it. Str1977 (smile back) 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Relative acceptance is of course a POV to some extent. Even leaving that aside, we have two paragraphs from the "Taborites" in reverse chronological order.
I'm not sure what it cannot possibly extent to anything about John the Baptist. means but I'm pretty sure I disagree. Please explain. --Michael C. Price talk 02:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Relative acceptance is not POV but just facts. You needn't agree with it. It is no guarantee for truth. But we have to follow it nonetheless. We do not have two Taborite paragraphs. We have one paragraph about the moderate fringe view (which is shared by Eisenman and to some extent by Tabor) and more extreme views (put forth by Tabor) - the inclusion of John adds another thing and therefore it treated separately. The division is not according to scholars but according to views.
It cannot extent to John because a chronological account extenting to John would immediately endorse the John-Ebionites thesis. Maybe someone other fringie comes along and include Ezra ... would we then have to include him as well in a chronological account. Str1977 (smile back) 09:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I assume you mean "extend" not "extent". Is this an American English thing?
"Relative acceptance is not POV but just facts." You seem blissfully unaware that perceptions of relative acceptance are subjective.
Once again you claim that reporting view is an endorsement -- it isn't, but if it were then we would have to remove everything, since Wikipedia isn't about endorsing anything, including the mainstream. --Michael C. Price talk 10:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the verb. Not American, just a typo.
I am not unaware of subjective perceptions. After all, I have you as an example ;-)
No, I did not say that reporting is endorsing, as I expressly said we should report but not endorse. But one can report in such a way that it is endorsing. using terminology in a way t hat is not accepted is such a way. Str1977 (smile back) 13:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Good, in that case your original statement "it cannot possibly exten[d] to anything about John the Baptist." is acknowledged to be incorrect. --Michael C. Price talk 14:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
3. The term Christian is more neutral since it a) is more widely used to refer to disciples of Jesus Christ, b) is more comprehensive: consider the term Jewish Christians - no one says Gentile Ebionites. You might think this common usage unfair but that's the way it is and we write an encyclopedia for those readers. If the break occured at this point, it was clearly the Christians that returned to Jerusalem and the Ebionites that stayed beyond the Jordan. However, I don't believe that the break occured then ... probably some stayed behind, while others returned. "Followers of Sim(e)on" is out of the question. Christians and Ebionites followed Jesus as the Messiah, not Simeon.Str1977 (smile back) 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree -- the language is confusing (as well as being unfair); I don't think the term Christian automatically covers the Ebionites, to either the general or the specialist reader, who denied Christ's divinity and virgin birth. Would you call Muslims Christian? (And they accept the virgin birth.) Do you object to "Christians/Ebionites"?--Michael C. Price talk 02:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do object to the artificial double naming. The commonly accepted term is Christians. We can avoid it here and there (but not when this means sacrificing readability). Muslims are out of the question as they are defined as a different religion and have no continuity with Jesus. Of course Christian covers Ebionites as the Ebionites in the sources only appear as a Christian heresy - one might disagree with the judgment but not with the fact that it is that as which they appear. Str1977 (smile back) 09:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree -- "Christian" is simply the wrong term, since they were not universally regarded as Christians (and I'll source that from the Church fathers if you like).
So you accept the Ebionites have continuity with Jesus?
Being labeled a heretic by Christian writers does make you a Christian. --Michael C. Price talk 10:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, source this to me from the Church Fathers. But don't miss the context. The Fathers are definitely saying that they stem from Christianity.
Of course, I accept that the Ebionites have continuity to Jesus. I just believe that they went off the rail after circumstances caused their being detached from the rest of Christianity. Heresies always have some continuity. Str1977 (smile back) 13:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
"Stem from Christianity" does not equate to "being Christian". Mormon, anyone? ::::::::Sounds like you're already backpedaling and I haven't even supplied the source yet. Let's be clear, if I produce the quote you will permit the change in terminology? Yes or no? --Michael C. Price talk 14:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Comparing oranges with apples. The Mormons do stem from Christianity but conciously cut the ties behind them.
Ebionites are a branch of Christianity and consider themselves the true branch and all others off the rail, while they are considered heretics by mainstream Christianity. Heretics are Christians, if you didn't know that. Str1977 (smile back) 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes or no? --Michael C. Price talk 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Kanitverstan! Str1977 (smile back) 16:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
So, wYes or no? --Michael C. Price talk 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Wes Craven? I honestly have no clue what you want so there is not point in repeating your incomprehensible question again! Str1977 (smile back) 09:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said: "Stem from Christianity" does not equate to "being Christian". Mormon, anyone? ::::::::Sounds like you're already backpedaling and I haven't even supplied the source yet. Let's be clear, if I produce the quote you will permit the change in terminology? Yes or no? --Michael C. Price talk 09:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand what you mean by backpedalling. I don't think I ever deemed the Ebionites non-Christian. Or why you care for my personal opinion. Still here it is: they certainly were one development from Christianity as taught by Jesus and the Apostles, though of course I believe them to have erred into a wrong direction. Do I consider them Christian: as long as anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (not necessarily God and God of course being the one eternal and supreme being) who was crucified and rose from the dead, is a Christian. Since I think that historical Ebionites believed all that, they are Christians. (Mormons for instance have a problem with the definition of God, while Muslims do not consider Jesus the Messiah (at least not anymore or in meaningful sense, nor do they believe in crucifixion and resurrection). Is that enough for you?Str1977 (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As usual wires are hopelessly crossed: I don't think I ever deemed the Ebionites non-Christian.. Anyway, moving forward. As for the "Son of God" stuff- that was done to death here a long time ago. Ebionites did not think Jesus was a messiah in the Christian sense -- the "Son of God" (more accurately "Son of Man") is simply a royal Davidic title - as both Tabor, Eisenman, Schonfield and others explain in great detail. That's why shouldn't describe Ebionites as "Christians" without very big qualifiers; even "Jewish Christian" is stretching it. --Michael C. Price talk 10:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Ready for some rewiring?
But again you are wrongly wired. I did not say "son of God in the (orthodox) Christian sense. The "mere davidic title" is IMHO, as far as the Ebionites, a modern invention. Did the Ebionites consider Jesus the Messiah - the sources say; yes! Hence, they are Christians. Str1977 (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you just cannot restrain yourself from arguing from the primaries, can you? The "mere davidic title" is IMHO, as far as the Ebionites, a modern invention. yes, of course it is a "modern invention" -- that's why it is in the secondary sources and hence admissible, whereas you own argument is tenuous primary based OR and not admissable (unless you can find a source). --Michael C. Price talk 11:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Michael, ************ (self-censored). You are obviously not open to sensible communication. You ask me about my personal view, I give it - now you complain that I gave it. You probably think that you can drive me away by such tactics. I am free to read primary sources and other books outside of your fringe canon and build an opinon on what I read. If you can only parrot Tabor - that's your problem not mine. Don't you ever ty to pretend that you want to cooperate. Str1977 (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again you are getting your wires hopelessly crossed. I DID NOT ASK FOR YOUR PERSONAL VIEW. So please spare all the self-righteous rubbish. You *keep* interpreting discussions about the article as reflecting my personal view (which I have never divulged). Why? Is it because *you* can't separate *your* views from the article? It sure looks like it. --Michael C. Price talk 13:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Was it not you that bothered me repeatedly with questions about "wes or no", bout back-pedalling and breaking rank and all that nonsense. And don't be surprise if I suspect your personal from the POV you so valiantly push for. if you don't want to know views ... fine. Don#t ask for it. If you don't want to cooperate ... fine. But don't bother me with that kind of stuff again. Str1977 (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Was it not you that bothered me repeatedly with questions about "wes or no", etc -- That was not a request for your personal religious views, it was about how if I found sources for an issue would you would accept some changes to the article. If you keep interpreting things personally you really need to examine why. And don't pretend that a refusal to share personal views is not cooperating. We are here to improve the article, not have a group feely share psychosession.--Michael C. Price talk 14:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh my, you obviously don't know how to read very well. You asked me whether I thought Ebionites Christians or not. That's not my personal "religious" views but my personal view about an issue.—Preceding unsigned comment added by str1977 (talk • contribs)
Actually if you bothered to check you would READ that I asked whether we should CALL Ebionites Christian or not. But no matter -- why let a little matter of accuracy penetrate your self-righteous hide, eh? --Michael C. Price talk 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I never asked for your personal views, religious or otherwise, as I don't give a damn what you belief. What I care about is your POV pushing and constant (willful I must now conclude) misunderstanding. Don't complain about psychosessions if you started to get personal in the first place. I know that I am here to improve the article, you however seem to aim at the opposite. And I am sick of it. Str1977 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
4. "just reporting what Tabor says." - again, the article is not supposed to simply parrot Tabor but to report all views and not to endorse one. Tabor certainly is not the default way to follow (though you seem to see it that way) - of course "appearing in the records" doesn't equal existence BUT when the Father wrote about the Ebionites they didn't indicate a group that was extinct. Str1977 (smile back) 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
In a paragraph that starts off saying that these are the views of Tabor et al, then "parroting" his views is exactly what I expect.--Michael C. Price talk 02:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No, we fairly and neutrally report his views. By parroting I meant basically copying Tabor's strong statements in all their breadth, including non-neutral wording. Tabor is free to write onesided books. We must not copy that. Str1977 (smile back) 09:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That's your judgement that his book is onesided -- irrelevant (and not my judgement). Simply include other sources to provide balance. --Michael C. Price talk 10:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, not again. You once again play the tedious "that's only your opinion" card. But that's not true - my opinion on Tabor is that is a heap of rubbish, an example of twisting some sources, ignoring others and inventing the rest out of thin air. That's my opinion. That he is one-sided (he has every right to be) is a fact. I do include other sources. That doesn't relieve us from reporting Tabor in an neutral manner. Str1977 (smile back) 13:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No, Tabor's onesided is not a "fact", it is your opinion. I could just as fairly say that the Catholic POV is onesided.--Michael C. Price talk 14:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
True, the Catholic POV is onesided. What follows? That we do not push the Catholic POV in the article? True - I agree. Str1977 (smile back) 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Then stop using the term "Catholic Church" to describe all non-Jewish Christians.--Michael C. Price talk 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the term is not POV pushing at all but accurate (please continue this issue in the other section). Just using the term is not writing the article in a Catholic POV. It is the latter that I referred to, if you would care to actually closely read what I read before jumping. Str1977 (smile back) 16:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Sorry but I didn't catch your addition back then. Please reinsert it and I will take care of any wording issues. During my overhaul I was on the brink of adding a note about James and the Apostle's council but didn't want to as it might look as detracting. Even fringe theories should be presented fairly.Str1977 (smile back) 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Might take me awhile to find it, but I will reinsert it.--Michael C. Price talk 02:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Str1977 (smile back) 09:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Allright. Funny, as neither book is Ebionitic in any way.Str1977 (smile back) 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Very funny - NOT. And irrelevant, since it is not a view that the secondary sources take. I hope I won't gave to repeat this ad nauseum.--Michael C. Price talk 02:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it is "not a view that the secondary source take" - again, you are assuming the truth of your favoured secondary sources. Other secondary sources, such as the two encyclopedic entries cited above do not concern themselves with these two books. Hence, it is POV to assume that these are proper sources for the Ebionites (though the Didache, besides being non-Ebionite in the strictest sense, can be useful). Str1977 (smile back) 09:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Saying it is "not a view that the secondary source take" - is NOT NOT NOT assuming the truth of your favoured secondary sources. Please do not keep repeating this nonsense. Frankly any fragile consensus will break down unless you take on board basic wikipolicy here. Once again you are engaging in primary source OR by trying to exclude or sneer at secondary sources you don't like (in this case that draw on the Didache etc), whereas I am engaging in reporting what the secondary sources say. --Michael C. Price talk 10:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not repeat this nonsense. I am not engaging in primary sources. The secondary sources that don't support your take are up there, for everyone to read. It is you who ignores them or tries to synthesize them with your preferred sources, the fringies. Str1977 (smile back) 13:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It was you who made the cheap jibe at primary sources you didn't approve not, not me.--Michael C. Price talk 14:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Whaaaat?! I do approve of the Didache, but I don't think it is a source especially about the E. or a source hitherto overlooked. I disapprove of the "Gospel of Thomas" in all regards BUT that is beside the point. Tabor & co. are free to use these sources anyway they can. I just don't want any endorsement of them in our text. Note, this only one small element in an unbalanced part of the intro. Str1977 (smile back) 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Did the Church Fathers have access to the Didache? No.--Michael C. Price talk 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
From Didache:
"The Didache is mentioned by Eusebius (c. 324) as the Teachings of the Apostles following the books recognized as canonical (Historia Ecclesiastica III, 25): "Let there be placed among the spurious works the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of the Apostles, and also the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought proper; for as I wrote before, some reject it, and others place it in the canon."
"Athanasius (367) and Rufinus (c. 380) list the Didache among Deuterocanonical books. (Rufinus gives the curious alternative title Judicium Petri, "Judgment of Peter".) It is rejected by Nicephorus (c. 810), Pseudo-Anastasius, and Pseudo-Athanasius in Synopsis and the 60 Books canon. It is accepted by the Apostolic Constitutions Canon 85, John of Damascus and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. The Adversus Aleatores by an imitator of Cyprian quotes it by name.
"Unacknowledged citations are very common, if less certain. The section Two Ways shares the same language with the Epistle of Barnabas, chapters 18-20, sometimes word for word, sometimes added to, dislocated, or abridged, and Barnabas iv, 9 either derives from Didache, 16, 2-3, or vice versa. The Shepherd of Hermas seems to reflect it, and Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen also seem to use the work, and so in the West do Optatus and the Gesta apud Zenophilum. The Didascalia Apostolorum are founded upon the Didache. The Apostolic Church-Ordinances has used a part, the Apostolic Constitutions have embodied the Didascalia. There are echoes in Justin Martyr, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Cyprian, and Lactantius."
I boldened the names of fathers occuring in our article.
But you are still missing the point. The intro currently pits church fathers against modern scholars using more sources and endorsing your POV. The modern scholars are identified with the fringies. That is POV! Str1977 (smile back) 17:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, they had heard of the Didache. But now that we have copy we can cross check it with the CFs. Hence scholarship moves on, thats why we rate the modern secondary sources more than the ancient primary sources, and why new ideas arise that the old guard find uncomfortable. --Michael C. Price talk 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not the case. WP prefers secondary sources because it precludes amateurs doing original research based on primary sources. The policy is called NOR not NPS (no primary sources). Actually, speaking as a historian, primary sources are valued way beyond the so-called "secondary sources" (sure we need both).
But of course it is good that we have the Didache now, and yes, scholarship moves on (but not merely in Taborite and Eisenmanistic steps).
This is this going nowhere I will probably make a few changes to the intro that stop the imbalance there. Str1977 (smile back) 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you have broken rank, so have I. Oh and BTW Actually, speaking as a historian, primary sources are valued way beyond the so-called "secondary sources" (sure we need both). - yes, but we are not here as historians doing OR. --Michael C. Price talk 20:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you are up about! "broken rank"?
BTW, I never said that I worked as a historian on this so you can spare your bad faith remarks. But as an editor I am entitled to correct your misconceptions about primary and secondary sources. And of course I think as a historian, which might explain some of our differences. But I edit not based on my original research.
PS. Could you be so kind and retain the blank line after each item. I left these to better navigate through this rather complex section. Oh, my what chaos when Oyadyah tries to read through this. Str1977 (smile back) 21:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally, I am all for an consensual approach, but I note that you didn't wait either. I treated your changes as fairly as I could (as my going back on my initial complete deletion of the "even now" paragraph in the names section shows).Str1977 (smile back) 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
But I waited this time.--Michael C. Price talk 02:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Str1977 (smile back) 09:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As for your last edit: my sentence was worded so that it could include E & T (or what I thought they wrote) - but I am content to leave them out in this context (as they actually are not part of the "many scholars" in other regards). Str1977 (smile back) 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What needs reinserting are E & T's views about the flight to Pella business. Do you have any objection to that? --Michael C. Price talk 02:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What do they say the flight to Pella's role in the development of the Ebionites was? Str1977 (smile back) 09:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
They do not "link the origin of the Ebionites with the First Jewish-Roman War," which the other paragraph does. --Michael C. Price talk 10:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand that by now. The question however was: how do they consider that event? That was my question - please answer! Str1977 (smile back) 13:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the text you deleted from the article :-). --Michael C. Price talk 14:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I did. It said nothing about the importance of the flight to Pella to the development of Ebionitism. Not surprisingly, if one identifies the Jerusalem Church with the Ebionites. Str1977 (smile back) 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said They do not "link the origin of the Ebionites with the First Jewish-Roman War," which the other paragraph does. --Michael C. Price talk 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said: that's not what I asked you. I asked you whether the place any significance in the event. I take it that they don't and hence a special mentioning seems superfluous. Str1977 (smile back) 16:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
50+ years of 1st century history has got to be important. Reinserted the flight to Pella under Simeon. Removed the more speculative bit. --Michael C. Price talk 20:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The point is that it is not undispute Ebionite history so we cannot present it as such. However, it is undisputed history so we cannot turn this into a POV presentation either. Which leads me to the conclusion that we should note the important events. You have explained that these events are not important. Nonetheless, since you insist on including them, I have included them as important events.
Oh, and I am still waiting for the "what makes Tabor out of the Apostle's council" answer. Str1977 (smile back) 21:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and Michael, please do not add items that could be attribute to the moderate fringe to the fringy fringe, such as "For these authors the Ebionites are defined by the schism that developed with Pauline Christianity.[2][3]" - unless you are saying that Eisenman suddenly agrees with the Ebionites began with John the Baptist view.

Also, I actually think that that statement is not true. If the Ebionites are defined by the schism with "Pauline Christianity" (still the wrong term) then John could not have possibly been a part of them, as he died way before Paul ever arrived on the scene. Str1977 (smile back) 09:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You are completely misunderstanding the Tabor/Eisenman usage, and this is what I tried to explain in the "name" section before you deleted it. The Ebionites/Nazerenes were only later called "Christians". In the Tabor (and Eisenman? I'll have to check) view they called themselves a variety of names, including the Poor, the Way etc right from the beginning with John. This has absolutely nothing to do with the later split with the Pauline chapter - which both Tabor and Eisenman describe. --Michael C. Price talk 09:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken.
That the "Ebionites/Nazerenes were only later called "Christians"." is your OR or at best the POV of your cherished authors.
The first Christians didn't care much for a name but one of the early ones was "the way", "Nazarenes" (as in followers of that guy from Nazareth) maybe early too but "Christians" was soon too after the faith came into a Hellenistic environment in Antioch (Christians equalling Messianics) - Ebionites however is not actually attested as an early name. It is a scholarly consideration that the word "the poor" in Paul's letters was an honorary name for the Jerusalem church (though I personally think it actually referred to the poor among the Jerusalemite Christians) - actually, nowhere in the sources does "Ebionite" (or the Hebrew equivalent) appear as a name for all Christians, which however might be because the sources are not in Hebrew/Aramaic but in Greek. Str1977 (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are right it is "the POV of your cherished authors". They got the name from the Essenes via JTB. I had heard the Antioch story before, thanks for retelling it.--Michael C. Price talk 21:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Church

I see Str wishes to say that the Ebionites separated from the Catholic Church, overwriting the more historically accurate reference to Pauline Christianity. Apart from the fact that the term as used today makes this historically nonsensical -- and one any Orthodox Christian would take strong exception to -- it also a fact that the Ebionites, by all the sources, separated from Paul, not the Catholics, not the Orthodox, not even the Chalcedonian (as Str has recently pointed out). It is also a simple matter of linguistics that if they separated from the "Universal" Church (or the Orthodox="True" church) they cannot be Christians since they are outside the Christian "Universe". --Michael C. Price talk 14:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You are completely mistaken.
I did not say that the Ebionites separated from the Catholic Church but that those Jewish Christians that were separated from the Catholic were labelled Ebionites.
No Orthodox (but which I guess you mean Eastern Orthodox) would object to the term as the Eastern Orthodox Church calls itself the "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church".
Maybe you should read the article Catholic Church (disambiguation).
It is a fact of history that the Ebionites did NOT separate from Paul. When did they separte, in the 40s, 50s, 60s? After that he was dead. "Pauline Christianity" is a contentious term and those that coined it at the time of the split already speak of "Early Catholicism", which integrated Pauline and other branches (if one buys into their system - if one doesn't the whole Pauline thing falls apart).
Your last conclusion is, to be blunt, nonsense. If they separated from the Universal Church that doesn't make them non-Christians any more than Donastists, Novatianists, Montanists were non-Christians. They were, from the Church's perspective, heretics or schismatics but not non-Christians. And note, there is only one Universe (that's the point of the term). Str1977 (smile back) 14:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations for calling them "Jewish Christians"; please update the return from Pella accordingly.
You are resolutely ignoring that fact that the term "Catholic Church", as used today in common parlance, does not mean all the non-Jewish Christians. It is obscuranist and hopelessly POV pushing.--Michael C. Price talk 15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
And you are ignoring the fact that per se it is perfectly accurate. Note, it does not mean all non-Jewish Christians. It means the large body of Christians (gentile or Jew) in communion with each other, distinguished from schismatic and heretical groups (note that most schismatics or heretics were not Jewish).
Ah, and educate yourself about the meaning of obscurantism.
Also note, that it was only you with your question "which Church" that brought about this situation. You called for an identifier.
However, I am willing to look for other solutions more agreeable to your sensitive eye. What about "universal Church" or "mainstream Christianity" or "orthodox Christianity"? Str1977 (smile back) 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Pauline Christianity is the most accurate, since it was Paul they split with.--Michael C. Price talk 17:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That's nonsense and you know it. I ask you again: when did they split with Paul? Who split with Paul? James didn't! Str1977 (smile back) 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not what Tabor says. And Eisenman. And others. They say Paul opposed James' Jerusalem church. They all say the Ebionites split from Pauline Christianity: this is what defines the Ebionites. --Michael C. Price talk 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
But that's not what others or the sources say. Hence it must be dePOVed. But I now see what you are getting at. Also, it is hardly relevant for the issue here. The Ebionites did not split from the friends of Paul (James actually one of them ;-)) during Paul's or James' lifetime but later. Or can you provide something else from Tabor or Eisenman? Still, no basis for your changes as we talked about the way the Fathers used the term in reference to all Jewish Christians not in communion with the Church. Str1977 (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
But that's not what others or the sources say. Hence it must be dePOVed. Still you don't get NPOV -- it is not about dePOVing, it is about representing all POVs accurately that meet WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS. Anyway I'm done with explaining this. There are ways of reporting such long-term consistent abuse of policy. Tabor and Eisenman do consider that James and Paul were friends, and that's how we should report T & E's views.
The Ebionites did not split from the friends of Paul (James actually one of them ;-)) during Paul's or James' lifetime but later. Quite possibly, which is why it is more accurate to say they split with Pauline Christianity.
Still, no basis for your changes as we talked about the way the Fathers used the term in reference to all Jewish Christians not in communion with the Church. - different sub thread. Raise it there. --Michael C. Price talk 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV reads "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views. It is the part in bold that you don't get.
It's not more accurate to say "Pauline Christianity" (for the reason educate yourself about the history of the term). And even if were quite possible in Paul's lifetime (which it is not) it's still no reason for your wording, as we are talking about the context of the Church Fathers using the E. term. And therefore it's not a different thread at all. Str1977 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Without bias means we report the views the sources hold *irrespective* of our judgement -- which means we present Tabor et al as saying that the Ebionites split from Pauline Christianity. If you disagree with the source's view you find another source that explicitly references the first and quote that as well. --Michael C. Price talk 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ovadyah's comments on STR1977's recent changes

Str1977, as you requested, I will give my comments using the version just before your recent changes as edited by MichaelCPrice (Talk | contribs) at 21:31, 11 August 2007 as a reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ebionites&oldid=150648801 Ovadyah 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

One comment I need to make on the version just prior to this in Islamic Views is that there are no recorded Ebionite views on the crucifixion, so I will remove this from the text. Ovadyah 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That is OR: what secondary sources say the Ebionites disbelieved in the crucifixion? Don't you think the Church Fathers would have mentioned it if they hadn't believed in it. --Michael C. Price talk 00:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, Ebionite belief in the crucifixion (or lack of it) is never mentioned in the primary sources, nor do I recall any secondary sources discussing it. Therefore, a comparison to Islam is meaningless because there is no information on which to make a comparison. Ovadyah 00:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually somewhat agree with Michael on this:
There is nothing that indicates that the Ebionites disbelieved the crucifixion. That nothing is said about this suggests that this was no point of contention with the Church Fathers.
However, I also think that this is overdone in the Islamic section, as those few Muslim who refer to the Ebionites can easily argue from silence. Hence, there is no explicit disagreement between Ebionites and Muslims. Str1977 (smile back) 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
But the implicit argument remains for the Muslims as well: the Church Fathers, keen to label the Ebionites as heretics, would have jumped on a disbelief in the crucifixion. The crucifixion is also pretty historical -- the presumption must be that the Ebionites believed in it, just as they would have believed that John had been executed. --Michael C. Price talk 09:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem, as you said, is that it's an argument from silence. Making comparisons based on an absence of evidence is OR. It would require us to assume that the Ebionites are just like orthodox Christians on any topic where the Church Fathers are silent. It's much more conservative to assume they are silent because they have no information. This is particularly true when almost none of their information is first-hand. The Church Fathers are relying on the testimony and traditions passed on by 2nd century Fathers like Hegesippus and Aristo of Pella, who provided scant information on the Ebionites.
Slightly off-topic, you might be interested to know that there is a gospel account that agrees with the Moslems. The Gospel of Mark in the Old Latin Codex "a" from North Africa, believed to be the oldest existing Old Latin text, has Jesus exalted to heaven like Elijah at the crucifixion scene at the last moments of his life. There is no empty tomb story in this version, and the text is far older than Islam. Ovadyah 09:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide evidence for this? Or do you talk about the fake Gospel of Barnabas. It certainly is not in line with the earliest version of Mark's Gospel who stops at the empty tomb and the women's fear. Finally, a North African manuscript (in latin!!) has hardly anything to do with Ebionites. Str1977 (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, slightly off-topic. I only mentioned it because I thought you might be interested. The manuscript is quite genuine. Also, GoM in Old Latin Codex b (Codex Palatinus) from Italy clearly had the last page of the codex cut out and replaced with the more traditional ending. Ovadyah 15:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
We cannot deduce anything from the Fathers' silence on the issue of crucifixion (for editing purposes that is - of course we can reflect on it otherwise).
However, we can refer to scholarly literature for conclusions from that silence (and note, it is not an argument from silence to conclude a non-disagreement between Fathers and Ebionites - the conclusion that they did not believe in it because we don't about their belief would be)
Still, the passage is not about the beliefs of the Ebionites but about the take of some Muslims on them. We should accurately report their take on the Ebionites. So the question is: do they raise the issue of crucifixion?
Str1977 (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. And I am not aware of any Muslim discussions on this comparing back to the Ebionites. However, if you can find something please add it to the section. Ovadyah 09:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Views and practices and text below

Easy stuff first. I'm fine with moving the Religious perspectives section to the end. I'm still not good with the Essenism section, but that's another topic for another day. All the other content is fine, after the fix I made above. Ovadyah 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy section

The statement "Their views had no influence the developing Christian theology" is inserted as a truism, but needs a verifiable secondary source. Everything else is ok. Ovadyah 23:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I took that from the RGG article. Maybe we should also downtone it. Str1977 (smile back) 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Either that or find an additional reference that explicitly argues why there is no influence. Ovadyah 09:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section - Pella and after

The last section "In 375, Epiphanius ...." to the end is ok for content, except this sentence is left dangling as it's own paragraph. Ovadyah 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wished there was more information avaiable about the history of the Ebionites past 135 (when the Taborite claims they vanish), except for the descriptions by the Church Fathers. Str1977 (smile back) 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Our first disagreement. The long run-on sentence

"Many scholars consider the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, which brought about the elimination of the Jerusalem Church, still headed by Jesus' relatives[4], and the refounding of Jerusalem as a Roman colony off limits to Jews, a major step in the detachment of the increasingly dispersed Jewish Christianity and the spreading Gentile Christianity."

is not an improvement over the previous version. I will retrieve the older text momentarily. Ovadyah 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"After the end of the First Jewish-Roman War, the importance of the Jerusalem church began to fade. Jewish Christianity became dispersed throughout the Jewish diaspora in Southwest Asia, where it was slowly eclipsed by Pauline Christianity. The orthodox Christian church, which had previously been struggling to survive against the disapproval of Jerusalem, now spread throughout the Roman Empire without impediment.[5]Once the Jewish leadership of the movement was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost the struggle for their claim to being the true followers of Jesus. This decline was due to marginalization and persecution by both Jews and Christians.[4] Following the defeat of the rebellion and the expulsion of all Jews from Judea, Jerusalem became the gentile city of Aelia Capitolina. Many of the Jewish Christians residing at Pella renounced their Jewish practices at this time and joined to the orthodox Christian church. Those who remained at Pella and continued in obedience to the Law were deemed heretics and their name was used mockingly to suggest that were "poor in doctrine".[6]"

Maybe we can meet in the middle. Ovadyah 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I favour the older text. --Michael C. Price talk 05:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't surprise me, Michael.
Ovadyah,
as far as the older text is concerned I have a few quibbles with it:
  • "After the end of the First Jewish-Roman War, the importance of the Jerusalem church began to fade. Jewish Christianity became dispersed throughout the Jewish diaspora in Southwest Asia, where it was slowly eclipsed by Pauline Christianity."
    is more or less fine, except for the terrible word "Southwest Asia".
  • "The orthodox Christian church, which had previously been struggling to survive against the disapproval of Jerusalem, now spread throughout the Roman Empire without impediment.[2]"
    more serious: this is opinion, not fact, as it assumes a disapproval by Jerusalem. Also, it contains the false statement that Christianity spread "without impediment" - remember the persecutions.
  • "Once the Jewish leadership of the movement was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost the struggle for their claim to being the true followers of Jesus."
    Again this is somewhat opinion-laden. But I am sure that it can be fixed. As far as the "Jewish leadership" is concerned I must however disagree: it was the entire Jerusalem Church that was removed.
  • "This decline was due to marginalization and persecution by both Jews and Christians.[1]
    I am still waiting for actual evidence for the persecution by Christians (and shouldn't it be "other Christians"?) This is also unclear in connection to the preceding and following sentence? It seems placed in the year 135. Please clarify.
  • "Following the defeat of the rebellion and the expulsion of all Jews from Judea, Jerusalem became the gentile city of Aelia Capitolina."
    no prob.
  • "Many of the Jewish Christians residing at Pella renounced their Jewish practices at this time and joined to the orthodox Christian church."
    that might be so but the source "Gibbon" is not reliable on this, as he suggests that Jewish Christians could drop their Jewishness and then return to Jerusalem, which is definitely not the case.
  • "Those who remained at Pella and continued in obedience to the Law were deemed heretics"
    fine, except for the term "obedience to the Law" should be worded more neutral.
  • "and their name was used mockingly to suggest that were "poor in doctrine".[3]"
    doesn't belong here. That explanation (by Origen) is already covered in the name section. In Gibbon's book it is a typical unqualified 18th century jibe - in his version it contradicts the actual origins of the name.
If we restore the edited old text, we must also reflect where to place it. The new text was placed in a "neutral sphere", apart from the mainstream, the fringe, and the fringy fringe.
But I think we can work something out. Str1977 (smile back) 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I mostly agree with str's comments. Southwest Asia is awful. I suggest
  • "Once the Jewish leadership of the movement was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost the struggle for their claim to being the true followers of Jesus."
be replaced by
  • "Once the Jewish leadership of the movement was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost influence and followers."
"true claim" and all that has no place here. I mean it is pretty implicit that all religious groups regard themselves as the "true" way.--Michael C. Price talk 09:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"the Jewish leadership of the movement" makes things worse as it openly takes the view that those eliminated by Bar Kochba were the leaders of the Ebionites. But that is POV. Others would say that they were the leaders of (largely Jewish Christian) Catholic Church of Jerusalem. (Personally, I'd say that the break had not been finalised as those beyond the Jordan looked towards Jesus' family for leadership - once these were gone, the would be Ebionites could freely float.) It is save to say that they were the leaders of the Christians (actually not just the leaders were eliminated in Jerusalem. "influence and followers" is a bit problematic too, as we don't know who influence whom. Str1977 (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
My responses to your quibbles:
Bullet #1: I agree it's more or less fine, except get rid of "Southwest Asia". Possibly replace it with "the Levant", which is what the region was known as in Roman times, or "Asia, Syria and the Levant". "After the end of the First Jewish-Roman War, the importance of the Jerusalem church began to fade. Jewish Christianity became dispersed throughout the Jewish diaspora in the Levant, where it was slowly eclipsed by Pauline Christianity."
I happen to dislike Levant too but it is certainly better and I can't think of any good alternative right now. So agreed. Str1977 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Bullet #2: The main point is "The orthodox Christian church now spread throughout the Roman Empire without competition from 'Judaizing' Christian groups". Is that better?
Yep. That makes it clear. Str1977 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Bullet #3: I agree. How about this? "Once the Jerusalem Church was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost influence and followers."
I must reflect a bit on this. Will get back to you. You can proceed meanwhile. Str1977 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Bullet #4: "This decline was due to marginalization and persecution by both Jews and Christians." I have to disagree with your comments. Persecution can be verbal too. The statement does mean post-135. Gibbon states that they were persecuted by Jews as apostates and by Christians as heretics. There was no reason to delete the reference. While Gibbon may not have been the best scholar, his statements about the Ebionites were based on Eusebius and were not inaccurate (except for Jews going back to Jerusalem). We have no way of knowing if the historical Ebionites self-identified as Christians.
Well, I disagree that persecution can be verbal - unless it is being shouted down by inimical masses. Certainly it is not the best word to chose when talking about verbal things. For me, persecution indicates violence and force (not necessarily by the government). Str1977 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Bullet #5: "Following the defeat of the rebellion and the expulsion of all Jews from Judea, Jerusalem became the gentile city of Aelia Capitolina." I agree, no problem.
Actually, I overlooked something there. The Jews were expulsed from jerusalem and the surroundings but not from the entirety of Judea. Otherwise good. Str1977 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Bullet #6: "Many of the Jewish Christians residing at Pella renounced their Jewish practices at this time and joined to the orthodox Christian church." Nothing wrong with this. It comes right from Eusebius. Just drop the part about some Jewish-Christians returning to Jerusalem.
I will check with old Euseb, but I think then the wording is okay. It then doesn't actuall denote what Gibbon says but as I said, Gibbon is wrong on this. Str1977 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Bullet #7: "Those who remained at Pella and continued in obedience to the Law were deemed heretics". I think it's fine, but I'm open to other wording. A strict "obedience to the Law" was one of Irenaeus' principle complaints.
Maybe something like "insisting" or "emphasizing" should be included, then it should be fine. Str1977 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Bullet #8: "and their name was used mockingly to suggest that were "poor in doctrine". Moved to the name section. I'm fine with that. I don't think removing Gibbon as a source was justified. "The Decline and Fall..." is a classic historical work. There are certainly plenty of off-the-cuff comments in Eisenman, Tabor et al.
I know it is a classic and worth reading (critically) but you will agree that it is dated. And it is not a historical work in the modern, critical sense of the term (post-Ranke). (Though I have to say that Gibbon recently positively surprise me, as I found out that some of his most often quoted blunders were actually misquoted into blunders - but I digress.) Str1977 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Placement should be the same as it was, with "By 375, Epiphanius ...." as the last sentence of the paragraph. It summarizes the whole period between Pella and the ~450 CE end in the Roman Empire. Virtually everything here is just restating the Fathers, mostly Eusebius' history based on Hegesippus and Aristo. There's nothing "fringie" in here at all. Just keep the style reasonably neutral. Ovadyah 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I don't want to repeat the fathers either. I cannot right now see what you referring to about "fringie". Please explain. Str1977 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
By fringie, I meant all the Eisenman & Tabor brushfires you are fighting elsewhere in the History section. Ovadyah 00:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take a crack at putting this back together before I take on anymore material. I'll copy this to the /wip page and do it there, so I don't my screen get caught in an edit conflict. Ovadyah 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm finished with the Pella and later section if you want to take a look at it. I will work on the first two paragraphs of the History section next, which you had labeled Church Fathers at one point. Ovadyah 00:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section - Patristic Fathers

The first two paragraphs are fine, except the last sentence from the original second paragraph was removed for some reason.

Eusebius, however, mentions that a minority of Ebionites came to embrace some of these views despite keeping their name.[7]

This needs a secondary source, but otherwise seems fine to me. I'm going to put it back and use Wace as a source. I must have missed whatever the thinking was for removing it. Ovadyah 02:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find this in Eusebius. Str1977 (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You are quite right. It was based on Epiphanius according to Wace. I have removed the Eusebius reference and fixed this mistake. Ovadyah 17:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section - Origins, Traditional View

As the Ebionites are first mentioned as such in the 2nd century, their earlier history and their relation to the first Jerusalem church remains obscure and a matter of contention.

Many scholars link the origin of the Ebionites with the First Jewish-Roman War, during which Christians left Jerusalem and fled to Pella beyond the Jordan River.[8][9] These scholars relate that transjordan Jewish Christians opened themselves to either Essene Jewish or Gnostic Jewish syncretic influences, resulting in a "degeneration" into an exclusively Jewish sect. The latter influence places some Ebionites in the context of the gnostic movements widespread in Syria and Egypt.[8] These scholars argue that with the death of James in 62 and the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 the importance of Jewish Christianity began to fade and was eclipsed by Pauline Christianity, which spread throughout the Roman Empire.

This is a very important addition to the article. It articulates the Mainstream or Traditional view that was missing before. Ovadyah 02:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I still need to read over the edit-wars to understand the background, but I have a few preliminary thoughts:

1. The Traditional view is being presented first, which is good. The introductory sentence is left dangling and needs to be worked into the body somehow.

2. The "degeneration" according to the sources is Essene or Gnostic. However, that contradicts the testimony of all the Fathers before Epiphanius. I would have expected to hear about a strict adherence to traditional Jewish practices and an adoptionist Christology. This needs to be investigated further.

3. Latter (or later?) influences is ok as far as Gnostic movements, but there is no Patristic evidence of Ebionites in Egypt. The source of that information also needs to be looked at carefully.

4. The last sentence was moved to the "Pella and later" section unless we want to add something more that is pre-Pella, like details about the death of James, the First Jewish War, and a transition to the Flight to Pella (there was an oracle). The testimony of Julianus Africanus could also be mentioned here (Desposyni in Nazara and Cochaba).

What seems to be missing is the assertion that orthodox Christianity is original. The Ebionites need to deviate from something. It's hard to argue syncretic influences when they were Jewish to begin with. Rigid traditionalists seems more likely. This is also an opportunity to tie back to judaizers in Galations and Phillipians if a secondary source can be found. Don't rule out church polemics. It doesn't have to be scholarly, just verifiable.

Not actually. The degeneration according to the sources is Jewish (more on that later) and Gnostic, with possibly an Essene input (which can be subsumed into Jewish).
The Jewish input here does not mean that before that they were not Jewish. The article is written from the perspective of two separate religions - Judaism and Christianity - and "Jewish" here mean Jewish in the sense of Judaism, of the Pharisees, of a rigtheousness of the law.
Therefore "What seems to be missing is the assertion that orthodox Christianity is original." is not actually missing at all. Also, I don't see that in the sources. Christianity started out as a Jewish sect which came to include gentiles as well. The deviation is not from something un-Jewish but from the core beliefs of Christianity, a movement back to pre-Christian ideas (hence "de-generation"/Rückbildung) Str1977 (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
If you can think of a way to further bring out the contrast between Ebionites and orthodox Christianity I would do it. Alecmconroy (our first RFC) made the point long ago that we should try to contrast the Ebionites to Christianity because that's what the average reader knows about. "a movement back to pre-Christian ideas (hence "de-generation"/Rückbildung) is good. By "Traditional" I didn't mean to imply that this thinking is no longer current. However, if there was a traditional view that is different than the current Mainstream view, we should try to incorporate it. Is there anything in Canon Law about Ebionites or judaizers more generally that can be included as a traditional view? Ovadyah 13:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to expand this section. Take a look at Wace (1911) for other traditional ideas. There were a lot of publications in the German literature in the 19th and early 20th century about the Historical Jesus. Maybe there is more about the Ebionites than Schoeps. Ovadyah 03:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"What seems to be missing is the assertion that orthodox Christianity is original. The Ebionites need to deviate from something." Absolutely not. This a "degeneration" POV (which means it must be limited to the scope of the supporting reference) which is explicitly rejected by some other sources.--Michael C. Price talk 03:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"Absolutely not" sounds awfully POV for a self-professed NPOV kind of guy. Like it or not, that is the traditional view. Refusing to state it has the odor of POV suppression. The other sections you added have their own POVs which counter it. Ovadyah 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Correct it is POV, as are all reported viewpoints, traditional or not; that does not make non-NPOV. --Michael C. Price talk 04:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Then you shouldn't have a problem with all POVs being represented. Or have you taken the hypocritic oath too? Ovadyah 04:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Stop sniping. --Michael C. Price talk 04:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I see. Tiring of your own game, so now we all should take a break. Ovadyah 13:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm quite prepared to fight fire with fire, if that's what it takes.--Michael C. Price talk 13:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
That sounds more like the Michael I am used to. Ovadyah 13:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to copy the Mainstream / Traditional view section to /wip and use the discussion page to post source material from primary and secondary sources, as I did for other sections. This discussion page seems to be reserved for edit-warring. :) Ovadyah 17:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have copied the Mainstream views of Wace & Piercy and Gibbon to the /wip talk page and bolded the more relevant sections. Str, can you do the same for Uhlhorn and WPP? Ovadyah 23:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I copied the English translation of Uhlhorn to /wip. Ovadyah 01:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added the Ebionites article from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and a superb appendix on Jewish Christianity from Adolf Harnack's "The History of Dogma" to /wip. Ovadyah 04:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I highlighted some of the passages I thought were most relevant to finishing the Mainstream / Traditional views part of the History section. There is now plenty of material to finish the sub-section with the addition of Harnack.

Harnack was a great scholar. He gives the most cogent explanation I have ever read for why the Ebionites had almost no influence on orthodox Christianity. He also argues persuasively that Jerome was right in not distinguishing between the Nazarenes and Ebionites as separate groups. He cites Jerome's first-hand knowledge as evidence that there were two factions within the same group. One was more accepting of fellowship with Gentiles than the other, but all of them were known by both names, Nazarenes and Ebionites. The two distinct groups are an artificial construction of scholars based on the confused accounts of Fathers with only hearsay testimony. eg. Harnack concludes the Nazarenes of Epiphanius are the traditional Ebionites and the "Ebionites" are the gnostic Elchasaites. Ovadyah 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I will look what Harnack has to say and also what the Britannica has to say BUT we shouldn't put too much weight on the Britannica (especially a dated one), as it is a general encyclopedia with a not-so-good record on history, theology and such issues (I don't say it is outright bad but in details it sometimes slips).
As for the distinction between Nazaranes and Ebionites - we should report all views accurately. That these were one is also a view and certainly not fact. Some sources contain such a distinction, others don't (Jerome). If some scholars make such a distinction. we report it - if some scholars (not just Jerome, who is a source) dispute it, we report it too. Str1977 (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
He places the greatest weight on the Fathers who actually spent time in Palestine (Hegesippus, Origen, and Jerome) and who were most likely to have interacted with the Nazarene/Ebionite groups. We do mention both views in the article. Ovadyah 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
On Harnack: his terminology poses a problem: he disputes the term "Jewish Christian" as he clearly distinguishes between the Christian religion (Christianity) and the Jewish religion (Judaism). But here he is transferring borders of his own time into the 1st century, nay, transforming them into to eternally existing types. The term Jewish Christian (in contrast to Judaistic Christian) is not an oxymoron, is not illegitimate. Str1977 (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
If I'm understanding him correctly, Harnack is saying that the distinction between a Jewish-Christian and other Christians is more political than religious and a product of Jewish nationalism. I agree with him that national identity played a role as far as observance of feasts and dietary practices, but I think he understated the importance of the differences in Christology. I agree with his arguments for why the Ebionites had such little influence, particularly in the West. Ovadyah 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat modified and expanded the section, bringing in additional sources. The contention that the Ebionites were influenced by a form of Syro-Egyptian gnosticism is incorrect. If you read that wiki section, it describes a variant of Christianity infused with Platonism that is more characteristic of Origen and his followers. The Elchasaites were influenced by Persian gnosticism and astrological speculation. BTW, as Peter Kirby makes clear, they refered to themselves as the Sobiai (Baptized). Elchasaites was a name given to them by the Church Fathers, based on the Book of Elchasai (Hidden Power). The Fathers claimed they were founded by an imaginary Elchasai, similar to the bogus claim that the Ebionites were founded by Ebion. Ovadyah 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am now satisfied with the History section. I have not audited all of Michael's references for accuracy, but the content is ok. Ovadyah 23:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

This section looks fine. Tertullian received the Ebion nonsense from Hippolytus, and it's likely that the "poor in doctrine" polemic mentioned by Origen came from him too. Ovadyah 23:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

The caption of the main picture is ok. Ovadyah 23:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The lead section is accurate as it stands, but it has become truncated to the point where it is far from adequate. The Lead should function as a stand-alone summary apart from the body of the article. It needs a major rewrite. Ovadyah 23:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for comment from Ft/N

I have posted a notice to Ft/N to review the Essene-JTB-Ebionites evidence and provide some much-needed advice on undue weight and original synthesis of source material to begin the review process. Ovadyah 21:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even the identification of Qumran with the Essenes is becoming increasingly dubious. An article in Biblical Archaeology Review in recent years (can't find a link right now) published a reasonable article which contended that Qumran may have been a summer home for a rich Jew, and not any sort of monastery/community, which seems to be the basis of a lot of the ideas about the Essenes. I've noticed other similar questioning about the nature of Qumran is also becoming more common. Personally, on that basis, I'd consider almost all content related to the Essenes questionable, at least if it refers to Qumran as Essene. On that basis, I think maybe the best thing to do would be to say that there have been scholars who have attempted to link the Ebionites and the Essenes, and give some detail about some of the most notable attempted links. But it is becoming increasingly problematic to say that anything can be known about the Essenes, and on that basis I would try to limit any content related to them, however well sourced, as the consensus about the nature of Qumran seems to be, at least to me, weakening. One opinion, anyway. John Carter 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John, for this reason I have been trying to distinguish between the Essenes as we know them from the classical sources and the occupants of Qumran as we know via the Dead Sea Scrolls.--Michael C. Price talk 23:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks? You were the one pushing big-time for archaeological evidence at Qumaran linking to Essene vegetarianism, then it was Ein Gedi, and now who knows what next. Ovadyah 23:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Wherever the evidence and sources take us. --Michael C. Price talk 23:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
And whatever is on topic, please. Str1977 (smile back) 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I can't see any substantive move towards a rejection of the Essene-Qumran theory. (EQT) Even though, it is the consensus opinion, even if only for lack of anything better (note the statement by one Qumran scholar that distinguishing the Qumranites and Essenes presumes the existence of two very similar but not complelely so sects existing at the same time and place of which one left no archeological trace while the other was ignored by authors at the time). Of course, we can and actually should word in such a way that it doesn't assume the truth of the theory. Finally, Essenes should be treated in their article, not here. here Essenes (or is it Qumranites now?) should only be covered as far as a link to the Ebionites is argued by scholars. And if those scholars are based on the EQT we can give a short (!!) acknowledgment of that, if they dispute it too (though since this is going against consensus it can be longer). Str1977 (smile back) 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the Ft/N commentary to it's own section to make it easier to find and encourage more comments from outside editors. Please let them make their comments without jumping all over them. Ovadyah 19:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would only add that, if the theory of Qumran being a "summer home" or whatever is considered viable, that all we would necessarily know is that the guy who owned the building owned the books. If I remember right, it was thought that maybe, like at the Nag Hammadit library, they were, well, just books that were owned and kept there, not necessarily ones the owner, who might invite all sorts of Jewish friends over, necessarily believed himself, but maybe just kept around for the convenience of friends who might believe them. I'm going to look for the article itself tomorrow. John Carter 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a case of WP:FRINGE. There is constructive progress, but this article may suffer from WP:OWN. Some of Ovadyah's citation requests for every subclause border on WP:POINT.[9] If a source is given at the end of a sentence or paragraph describing a view, you do not need to give a source for every phrase of that sentence. The question will be whether the cited authors' position is or is not fairly summarized, but it is not constructive to litter a short paragraph with a whole bunch of citation requests (come on, WP:UCS?). dab (⁳) 10:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dab, for your time. I'm glad that you don't see any evidence of WP:FRINGE; perhaps with that accusation removed the air will clear somewhat. --Michael C. Price talk 11:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't try to use dab for your purposes (as you tried in that edit summary). Your fringe aspirations, Michael, are checked by other editors. Otherwise the article would read like a sophomoric synthesis of Tabor, Eisenman and Rabinowitz. Str1977 (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Haha. How convenient your memory is -- you have evidently forgotten that I was in favour of having separate POV sections, where each POV could be clearly explained, and we could avoid the misguided attempt of synthesis we have here. You and Loremaster were opposed to extensive POV sections (Ovadyah was neutral). The resultant mishmash of synthesis the history section is a result of your approach, not mine.
As for "using dab" I shall continue to remind you whenever you try playing the fringe card -- as you just did again with Your fringe aspirations, Michael. What else do you expect? Do you really expect us to believe that if the ruling had gone the other way you would have not used it as an excuse to marginalize such views?? --Michael C. Price talk 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that you were in favour of POV sections. And they would make everything much easier for all of us, as you would have your little space were you can indulge in your POV pushing, synthesis and fantasies. But that's not what an article here works like.
You (mis)use dab as he never said what you make him out to say (reminds me of your treatment of books) - he said the article is not WP:FRINGE. But that's not your contribution. Str1977 (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In others words DAB's no fringe assessment will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on your claiming that Tabor et al are fringie. --Michael C. Price talk 16:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually I agree with that Ovadyah sometimes overdoes it with the reference demands (e.g. the latest with RGG) but I believe that he does so in good faith (i.e. unaware that that was taken from RGG too) and don't see it as a reason to make a big fuzz over it. The downside of his demands is mere cosmetics. Str1977 (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually I agree with Ovadyah's point about placing citations against the relevant phrase. I found it extremely annoying that Loremaster had a consistent habit of always moving citations to the end of a sentence, or often paragraph. This led to endless looping: claims that statements weren't sourced, deletion, reinsertion, resourcing, "citation drift" and the loop begins again. But then you could never tell Loremaster anything....
Is this something we all agree on? No more citation drift? --Michael C. Price talk 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I assume by the title that this RGG article is written in German, so even if I had access to it I couldn't read it. So, yes I was unaware it was in RGG. Ovadyah 13:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. When several subordinate clauses are strung together, and we suspect that deliberate synthesis is going on (as was the case here), there is no other way to get at the truth than to ask for specific evidence. There are several places in the article where multiple assertions are linked together and referenced with multiple sources, but only some of the assertions are actually supported. The others are editorial syntheses. This issue is before the admins for further review. Ovadyah 13:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a matter of balancing between two dangers. In the case of doubt it is of course better to actually source more. If there is a flood of footnote-links, we can later still organize them better for beauty's sake. Str1977 (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's also ironic that I'm being accused of WP:OWN when I'm only still here because you asked me to be. :) Ovadyah 13:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I am glad that you are here, Ovadyah. Str1977 (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, no, brother Simon again

Michael, will you please stop to insert your POV pushing by calling Simon - actually called Simeon in the sources - a brother of Jesus. Or will you stop attributing this your belief to the Ebionites? Which Ebionite did tell you that they regarded Simeon as a brother??? Str1977 (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Or that they fled to Pella under the leadership of Simeon ... sources say that he was elected after that! In any case, it is unnecessary detail. Str1977 (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I am reporting this as the interpretation THAT TABOR AND EISENMAN HOLD. Ok??????? --Michael C. Price talk 10:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tabor, page 271

Eusebius and Epiphanius preserved a tradition that the Jerusalem followers of Jesus, now lead by Simeon son of Clophas, fled the city of Jerusalem.....

--Michael C. Price talk 10:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

When I make a mistake I freely admit it. I mistook a "they considered" as a reference to the Ebionites instad of a reference to Tabor and Eisenman. That's cleared up now. As long as the brotherly status is attributed to T & E, I am fine with it. Str1977 (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a shame you can't admit a mistake in your interpretation of policy, particularly WP:NPOV, which you consistently misinterpret. Re-read the warning at the top of the talk page, which, remember, had Ovadyah's seal of approval as well. --Michael C. Price talk 14:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It's indeed a shame that I make mistakes and cannot be as perfect, wonderful, cooperative and omniscient as the great Michael C Price, a shining example for each an every Wikipedian. He is great that he even has the right and authority to order others around and therefore I will instantly go and read the readings as he has commanded (which however will not change anything about the issue at hand). Str1977 (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Everyone has the right to expect others to follow policy. Unfortunately I believe your final comment: prejudiced or what? --Michael C. Price talk 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This time, I will reply only once. I will not further react towards your provocations, insinuations, accusations, self-righteousness and other rubbish, except by a shrug.
a) to protect my nerves
b) to save Wiki space
c) to avoid boring others to death
If you do not have anything substantial, article-oriented to say, so be it.
Good day, Str1977 (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That is an excellent idea -- and if you can refrain from assuming bad faith then we will get along just fine. --Michael C. Price talk 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rabinowitz and Eisenman in accord

Rabinowitz and Eisenman are substantially in accord over the essential core of Tabor's views; namely over John the Baptist's independent messianic nature and of the role of James the Just. I've have switched the paragraphs around to naturally follow the chronological sequence, and referenced it much more densely, so that we can see where they differ: mostly Rabinowitz is silent about Simeon and does not explicitly claim that JTB is the Aaronic messiah (although this may be implied).--Michael C. Price talk 19:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been meaning to bring up Rabinowitz for some time now. Imho, he is being used improperly as a source. Rabinowitz is a commentator, not a scholar. His online "book" is self-published. Even the archaeology section, his core expertise, is a summary of the published work of others. I let it stand initially because he brought some interesting and unique material to the article (and I mean "he brought" literally). However, his name is now being thrown all over the article in support of Eisenman. This is the equivalent of going to somebody's blog that speaks favorably of Eisenman and using that person's opinions as though they were an independent scholar that came up with similar findings. In other words, it's yet another example of T & M. Ovadyah 20:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The question of his scholarship came up before. He is an academic, although he is self-published. If he is to be removed then the entire archeology section must go.--Michael C. Price talk 03:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
That's an acceptable proposition. Let's poll the editors (including Loremaster) and see if there is a consensus. Ovadyah 04:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's also examine whether Jean "Satanic influences" Daniélou and Hans-Joachim "Jews for Hilter" Schoeps belong here as well. --Michael C. Price talk 13:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No, those scholars were established academics from a different era. You are retrojecting your personal values back into the past and (mis)judging them as people rather than their work as scholars. Nice try, Hippicrates. Ovadyah 13:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"Satanic influences" ceased being historically mainstream quite awhile ago. --Michael C. Price talk 14:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"Satanic influence" is quite a legitimate concept in theology and related subjects. It is not in purely historical things, as history concerns itself with innerwordly cause and effect (but it come back when one of the actors was somehow related to the concept). Schoeps' poltical associations (and I am not sure you are accurate on this - and actually I don't care because they) are completely irrelevant on his scholarship. Maybe we could dig something up about Tabor or Eisenman. Str1977 (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree about the ahistoricity of "Satanic influence". If anyone does wish to check Schoeps "poltical associations" you could try here and search for "Jews for Hitler". --Michael C. Price talk 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"Rabinowitz .... does not explicitly claim that JTB is the Aaronic messiah (although this may be implied)." In other words, you want it to be true --> so that is what Rabinowitz must be secretly thinking --> so that is what Rabinowitz is saying. Yet again, weaving syntheses from gossamer threads of transitive logic. Ovadyah 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"(although this may be implied)" -- That was a talk page comment, and all it meant was that it needed more checking. Explicitly not in the article. --Michael C. Price talk 03:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
To be sure, Eisenman is not in accord with the claim that the Ebionites started with John, even his he considers John an independent Messianic claimant (but that's no new idea - it is even present in the gospels). Therefore this last act this once again a synthesis of wishful thinking.
Re the Aaronic bit, I agree with Ovadyah. Str1977 (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
See above --Michael C. Price talk 03:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
PS. And the mainstream view is not anymore Christian than the Tabor/Eisenman/Rabinwitz view is Jewish. Please stop such underhand attribution.
"underhand" -- stop assuming bad faith. Remember, I thought we were going to be nice to each other? --Michael C. Price talk 03:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why did you label the mainstream view as Christian? Str1977 (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Because the "traditional" view is also the Christian view.--Michael C. Price talk 08:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The mainstream (not traditional view) is a scholarly view which happens to agree with the substance of the what Christian authors wrote about what the Ebionites believed, how they developed etc. The "Christian view" is not that but that the Ebionites are a heresy, an aberration from the truth. The mainstream view doesn't comment on this. Str1977 (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Was that before or after the 3RR trap? Didn't work, BTW. :^D Ovadyah 04:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Also don't misrepresent sources like you did to what the RGG said: Jewish and Gnostic and possibly Essene - not Essene and Jewish-Gnostic. *shakes his head* Str1977 (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Eh? And please stop the bad faith assumption. --Michael C. Price talk 03:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Assume? I don't assume anything. I see what you wrote and I see what the source says. And you also saw what the source said since it is right there up on this talk page. And there's a discrepancy. Str1977 (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The smell of Red Herring is permeating the talk page. I called your bluff on Rabinowitz, and you immediately throw up peripheral issues in a desperate attempt to create a diversion. It won't work. Ovadyah 00:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No bluff to call, actually. I'm just pointing out that there are other candidates for exclusion if we're back to fighting dirty. --Michael C. Price talk 00:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you undertake a careful self-examination before you cast aspersions on other editors, and refrain from making accusations you wouldn't want to repeat in front of Arbcom. Ovadyah 00:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ditto --Michael C. Price talk 22:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Rabinowitz' scholarly credentials have been questioned.
No one has seriously questioned the credentials of Schoeps or any other mainstream scholar. Political considerations are irrelevant, as are theological musings. Str1977 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on keeping or deleting Rabinowitz

I reject your artificial linkage of the Archaeology section with references to Rabinowitz elsewhere in the article. I'm calling for a vote in two parts among the editors over whether to retain or remove the Rabinowitz material and references. Ovadyah 00:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I should explain a bit more why I suggested this vote. Although Rabinowitz is supposedly an academic, I don't see any evidence of publications other than his self-published material. Imho, that makes him more of a commentator on the work of others than a scholar. Even the archaeology section of his online "book", which is his core expertise, is a summary of the published work of others. I object to his name being thrown around the article like a cheerleader for Eisenman and Tabor. It doesn't add to the weight of an argument to reference him because he is not doing independent research. Rather, he is acting as a tertiary source, even in the archaeology section, although it could be argued that his summary of the archaeology work is valuable because it would not otherwise be available in English. Ovadyah 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please vote to *KEEP or *DELETE or make a *COMMENT.

Proposal I - Should all the references to the Rabinowitz article be kept or deleted from the Ebionites article apart from the Archaeology section?


Proposal II - Should the Archaeology section be kept or deleted in addition to all other references to Rabinowitz in the Ebionites article?

To keep things as neutral as possible, I will try to vote last. We will tally up the votes on Saturday (in three days) and see where we stand. Ovadyah 01:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. Says it all. --Michael C. Price talk 21:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But polls do have their justification, to pave the way for a consensus. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship either.
However, I am not clear about what the issue of the poll is. Is it
  • should Rabinowitz be removed alltogether?
  • should his part to the history section be removed?
  • should his part to history be clearly separated from the archelogy?
If all these options are avaiable, we should also provide them in the poll.
To find a proper solution, we also need to clearly know what credentials the man actually has.
Good night, Str1977 (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The issue is whether to remove Rabinowitz alltogether or remove him everywhere but the Archaeology section (which he personally wrote). Removing the Archaeology section but keeping everything else doesn't make sense to me, since archaeology is his area of expertise and that was a unique contribution to the article. I'm contending that he is a tertiary source for everything else, and referencing him is superfluous because we already have multiple secondary sources. I agree that we should take another look at his credentials before we do anything. Ovadyah 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm contending that he is a tertiary source for everything else, -- not so, since he cites primary sources as well. --Michael C. Price talk 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I never heard of the term "tertiary source" (it is probably even more absurd than secondary "source") - my view is: if he is an authority on a certain subject, then include him (on that subject) - if not, remove him. As an archeologist (if I now get this right - the text here said "bible scholar") he is certainly includable in general, but the question remains rather the historical observations. If there is nothing original to it, we may as well remove him if he only reports the view of others (there is no need to quote him as agreeing with Tabor, if that is based only on his favourable quoting Tabor). Str1977 (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The wikipedia guidelines talk about tertiary sources. Rabinowitz nowhere quotes or cites Tabor.--Michael C. Price talk 11:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
A good example of a tertiary source is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias summarize the work of reliable seconday sources (published papers, newspaper reports, etc.) rather than doing the investigative work themselves. While encyclopedias may also cite primary sources, they usually rely on their secondary sources to provide them. Ovadyah 16:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The question about Rabinowitz simply comes down to this, is he bringing anything unique to the article, new information or a different perspective, or is he just another voice in the chorus echoing more established scholars. I also want to clear up any misconceptions about him being an archaeologist. He is not doing field work like Tabor; he is as you say more of a "biblical scholar" reporting on the archaeological research of others. Ovadyah 17:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
"is he bringing anything unique to the article, new information or a different perspective, or is he just another voice in the chorus echoing more established scholars." It doesn't matter -- the placement of accurate cites will show which views he supports, and which he doesn't.--Michael C. Price talk 23:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
And I think it does matter. That's why we are taking a poll. Ovadyah 23:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Lack of substantive reply noted, which nicely illustrates why polls are a waste of time.--Michael C. Price talk 23:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
What is lacking here is your objectivity. Ovadyah 00:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Snipe, snipe. Why don't you address the point I made (about citation placement) instead of just complaining non-productively? --Michael C. Price talk 00:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
eg. You sighted Rabinowitz as saying that John the Baptist was seen as the Aaronic Messiah. I have combed through his article twice, and that is a complete fabrication. I want you to stop making improper citations throughout the article. The burden should not be on the other editors to prove that your citations are inaccurate or false. Ovadyah 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
eg? That has nothing to do with the point I made about citation placement. But thanks for the correction about JTB / Rabinowitz -- checking made me notice what he says about vegetarianism. --Michael C. Price talk 01:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Rabinowitz talks specifically about the community at Qumran being vegetarian. That speculation has been overturned by archaeological evidence which is cited in the article. You are continuing to load the article with assertions that are knowingly false. But thanks for furnishing me with lot's of examples to bring before Arbcom. Ovadyah 01:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Go right ahead with your Arbcom threat, which we've been hearing for many moons. Your argument is OR -- and also false, as a cursory examination of the sources reveals. There are no bones from Qumran for c.60 years before the public ministry of JTB and afterwards. --Michael C. Price talk 07:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Since polling can sometimes be a contentious process, here are the Straw poll guidelines. The purpose should be to encourage discussion and help to form a consensus. Polls are never binding. However, consensus doesn't have to be unanimous either. Persistently editing against consensus is considered to be WP:Point and disruptive editing. Therefore, it's a good idea once in awhile to ask questions and find out the consensus opinion. Ovadyah 02:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I vote to "KEEP" on Proposal I - Should all the references to the Rabinowitz article be kept or deleted from the Ebionites article apart from the Archaeology section?


I vote to "KEEP" on Proposal II - Should the Archaeology section be kept or deleted in addition to all other references to Rabinowitz in the Ebionites article?

NazireneMystic 02:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also state the reasons for why you voted the way you did. Ovadyah 02:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
So it's not enough to vote, eh? Strange since you asked for a Keep, Delete OR Comment. Ah well. --Michael C. Price talk 07:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
NM, we have been waiting for you to show up. Please list any further comments or criticisms you have about the article under NazireneMystic's criticisms. Ovadyah 02:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cite verification - ground rules

Ovadyah has questioned my placement of an Eisenman cite to support John the Baptist's messianic role. Before proceeding further we need to establish the ground rules here, so as to avoid the whiff of hypocrisy and double standards. Are we saying that if any citation is challenged -- and no explicit quote is subsequently provided -- then that cite may be deleted? --Michael C. Price talk 08:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On the face of it, yes. If I have understood this altercation correctly (?).
1.You placed an Eisenman quote to support John's messianic role.
2.Ovadyah challenged this.
3.You failed to provide the explicit quote confirming your illation from Eisenman's text, which Ovadyah asked for (to verify the assertion)
?
4.The original citation thus was erased by Ovadyah.
That seems to me reasonable, but I haven't followed the intricacies of this thread. Since Eisenman's work is notoriously difficult, compact of an immensely tangled set of hypotheses based on elucidations of obscure textual traditions, using it requires due caution. It is an admirable labour of high philological intensity, but demands considerable hermeneutic tact if its varied claims are not to be distorted.
Perhaps, we can iron this out, with Eisenman at our respective elbows, by going through the process here, on the talk page. If you Michael C. Price, could be so kind as to cite here the original Eisenman reference you added, and to which Ovadyah objected, we can check it immediately, and see how Ovadyah's subsequent objections stand up against the rules? Regards to you both Nishidani 10:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I will supply the water-tight quote after we have Ovadyah's explicit agreement that these rules (which seem reasonable to me) are applicable to all sources. This section is about the generic issue, not Eisenman in particular.
I disagree that step 4 was reasonable. Ovadyah should've tagged the disputed citation, then asked and waited for feedback here; instead he just deleted the citation. --Michael C. Price talk 11:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you would like nothing better than to argue endlessly over the proper procedure for weeks, as you have done numerous times in the past. However, the wiki rules are already well established: If you added the material, then the burden is on you to prove it should remain. Your straw man about adding a disputed citation is laughable, considering I was the one that informed you that adding disputed tags to featured articles will get you blocked. If I had added such a tag, I'm sure you would have moved swiftly to do just that.
Why don't you just acknowlege the obvious. You refuse to provide specific evidence from your sources to support your edits because you can't. You are lying through your teeth, synthesizing your own editorials to push an extreme POV. We have already caught you doing it so many times, I can't believe you have the chutzpah to still deny it. Ovadyah 14:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed how slyly you misrepresented the reference from Eisenman on Nishidani's talk page by manipulating the context. Let's look at the full quote in context compared to what you said:

For his part, Josephus is anxious to portray the Jews as burning down their own Temple and Titus as doing everything he can to quench the flames. In this manner he rescues Titus from the charge of impiety or Temple desecration, so important to a people as superstitious as the Romans. It is easy to recognize in Josephus' presentation of Titus the presentation of the behavior of Pontius Pilate and Herod towards Messianic leaders such as Jesus and John the Baptist in the Gospels - not surprisingly, since all these documents were produced by similar mindsets under similar constraints.

– Eisenman, James the brother of Jesus, p.69

Now, Michael's selectively stripped-down version:

top of p69:

... Messianic leaders such as Jesus and John the Baptist ..

From the context, it's clear that Eisenman is describing John the Baptist and Jesus as leaders of a messianist movement as portrayed in the Gospels. You twisted this statement around completely in the article to say that they regarded John the Baptist as the Messiah, to force-fit it into your extreme theory based on Tabor that John was seen by the Ebionites as the Priestly Messiah. Ovadyah 15:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ovadyah. I am intruding somewhat, perhaps unjustly, because I am not familiar with the whole thread's history. But on the point he raises, the two passages in Eisenman do appear to equivocate in a way that gives some substance to Michael C. Price's inference. Eisenman asserts many things he can't prove, though his hypotheses are acutely reasoned and textually grounded. The only problem, as I think you hint, is that Eisenman's reference to his own belief is fleeting and extremely tenuous, almost a passing remark dropped as a provocation, and does not appear to belong to the essential thrust of his central arguments. But, in raising the point, I don't think Price is abusively niggling an adventitious point.Regards. The page is an excellent one, by the way and I commend those who have constructed it, for what my small opinion is worth Nishidani 15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Nishidani, Eisenman's remarks in that quote clearly refer to what is portrayed in the Gospels. Referring to JTB as a messianist leader is not the same thing as saying JTB is the Messiah, which Eisenman clearly did not do. I should also mention that Michael Price is being investigated by two admins for previous "inaccurate" statements here. Ovadyah 15:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia, in controversial areas, religion and Middle Eastern politics especially, is brimful with innumerable inaccuracies sustained and reverted constantly by otherwise important and esteemed editors. Eisenman's remark on p.69 is, as I independently argued, ambiguous, and could give rise to the impression Price received. His earlier remark on p.62:-
'Josephus . .clarifies the rerason for John's execution, as opposed to the more mythologized one encountered in the Gospels. . . .Herod, consequently, feared that John would lead an uperising and decided to have him executed . . .This execution, as in the case of Jesus, James and quite a few of these Messianic or 'opposition' leaders . . .was a preventative one.'
Here Eisenman uses 'Messianic' loosely, and his usage implies that he regards John in that light. The whole quibble is on whether Eisenman regards John the Baptist as the Messiah - he doesn't, or as merely one of many 'Messianic' (in the loose sense of a charismatic holy man within the heated nationalist hopes of that age and place) figures in Judea. I think there can be little doubt that in the second sense, Eisenman classifies John as one of these numerous 'Messianic' types. If the disagreement is simply this, then it is simply resolved. I will agree with you however that it is a nugatory point, and perhaps not worth worrying to death for inclusion into the article.Nishidani 16:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Eisenman is using the term loosely in the second sense, as you say, "Eisenman classifies John as one of these numerous 'Messianic' types". However, look at how he is being referenced in the article:

In contrast to the re-judaizing "degeneration" view, other scholars, including James Tabor, Robert Eisenman and Jacob Rabinowitz[10] argue that the Ebionites developed from non-gnostic messianic Essenism[2][10][3], being initially the Jewish followers of John the Baptist[3][2], whom they regarded as a priestly Aaronic [2] Messiah.[3][2]

It's clear that Eisenman is being used in the article as a reference to support the statement that JTB was regarded as the Priestly Messiah in the DSS. And there was only one Priestly Messiah identified in their writings. However, the Gospels in no way do this, and that is the context about which Eisenman was speaking. Ovadyah 16:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Completely wrong. The Eisenman cite does not support the word Aaronic (only the Tabor cite does that). Ovadyah was the one who called for more precise citation placement -- now he complains about it? And the context that Eisenman is talking about is not just the Gospel view of JTB (which is rejected as overly "mythologized" on p62) but draws heavily upon Slavonic Josephus. --Michael C. Price talk 17:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at this point. Loremaster has recused himself from voting, since he is no longer working on the article. I am recusing myself as well, as this is my last day working on the article. I said I would stay to go thru Str1977's changes, and I have finished those edits. I had hoped to leave the article under the watchful eye of the RFC or an admin, but no one seems to be interested. So once again, the pugnacious troll has driven all the editors that respect consensus from the article, and he is the last man standing. Congratulations, the bad guys have won, again. Ovadyah 18:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC or an admin, but no one seems to be interested because they see that you are unbalanced. If you could stop assuming bad faith for a moment you might realise that but, of course, you don't see it that way, hence Congratulations, the bad guys have won, again.--Michael C. Price talk 19:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
--Michael C. Price. I hesitate to use strong language at this point, but I think you should hold off. I see no evidence, especially from our exchanges on my talk page, that you are aware of how scholarly methods are constituted. Your use of Eisenman, in retrospect, is specious, since you are making extremely heavy weather of what is a carelessly phrased remark about a personal hunch by Eisenman that has no value in terms of scholarship, at least on the snippets you adduce from him. You do not appear to know how to read Josephus as a source either. I'm sorry to be rude. But you seem to have a tremendous axe to grind, on that famous Horatian mountain which, to mix metaphors, laboured at producing miniscule mice. Lay off the point for a while and read more deeply, and perhaps learn a few of the appropriate languages, classical Greek and Biblical Hebrew, if you do not know them but want to be informed about these issues. You need them, actually, just to know what these scholars are doing. Using translations is a very dicey business, as one can see from the translation you provide of one key section from the Slavonic Josephus (In any of these issues one does well, if one doesn't know the primary sources, to look at at least two and preferably three translations). With apologies for the rawness of my language, but one should not be extenuating over trivia, and the point here is trivial.Nishidani 21:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
See the rest of the dialogue here --Michael C. Price talk 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguished from productive editing

Editors often post minority views to articles. This fits within Wikipedia's mission so long as the contributions are attributable. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who wishes the information to remain.

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

Taken from the Wiki page on destructive editing. Ovadyah 14:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)