Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ebionites: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:57, 9 January 2011 editNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,544 edits →Weasel wording← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:49, 28 June 2024 edit undoLoremaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers55,222 editsm →Robert Eisenman 
(545 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}}
{{afd-merged-from|Ebionite Jewish Community|Ebionite Jewish Community (2nd nomination)|18 May 2009}}
{{Article history
{{talk header |noarchive=yes}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=PR |action1=PR
|action1date=01:42, 13 September 2006 |action1date=01:42, 13 September 2006
Line 34: Line 33:
|currentstatus=FFA |currentstatus=FFA
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=C|importance=mid|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=}} {{WikiProject Religion|importance=Mid|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=C|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Judaism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Jewish history|class=C|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Mid}}
{{ChristianityWikiProject |class=C |importance=mid |messianic-judaism=yes|messianic-judaism-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=Low}}
}} }}
{{archive box |auto=yes |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=month |index=/Archive index | {{Archive box|auto=yes |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=2 |units=months |index=/Archive index |
</br><center>'''Topic specific archives''' </br><center>'''Topic specific archives'''
]</br> ]</br>
Line 50: Line 50:
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 10 |counter = 11
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Ebionites/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Ebionites/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Ebionites/Archive index |target=Talk:Ebionites/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Ebionites/Archive <#> |mask1=Talk:Ebionites/Archive <#>
|mask=Talk:Ebionites/Peer Review Archive |mask2=Talk:Ebionites/Peer Review Archive
|mask=Talk:Ebionites/Spiritual Ebionite Archive |mask3=Talk:Ebionites/Spiritual Ebionite Archive
|mask=Talk:Ebionites/Dispute Archive |mask4=Talk:Ebionites/Dispute Archive
|mask=Talk:Ebionites/Sources |mask5=Talk:Ebionites/Sources
|leading_zeros=0 |leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}} |indexhere=yes}}


== This article has an unclear citation style ==
== JTB section ==


I will have to look in the archives to find the disputed material I copied to the talk page. We should also look at the FA version as of the day it appeared on the Main Page. Cheers. ] (]) 21:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC) I suggest that all contributors to the ] article follow the example of the ] article when it comes to notes, citations and sources from now on. So we have a lot of work to do. —-] (]) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


== No primary sources ==
{{quotation|According to ], ], and other scholars, the Ebionites originated with, and drew much of their original inspiration, ] and even their name from either the alleged Essene roots of ] and ] or other Essene sects. The authors of the ], for example, referred to themselves by many epithets, including "the poor". <ref name="Eisenman 1997 Qumran the poor">Eisenman (1997), pp. 853, 941-2.</ref><ref name="Tabor the Poor / Essenes /Dead seascrolls"></ref>}}


Here we have an article about a "group of Christians" that are devoid of any primary sources. I notice one contributor is obsessed with the "bloodline theory of Jesus Christ" as found in the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" even though it had nothing to do with Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion, and Plantard distanced himself from the nonsense in late 1982 on a French radio programme. Also Plantard actively criticised the book from 1989 onwards. The subject matter has been dead in France for ages. Plantard was a spent force in 1989 when his latest manifestation of the Priory of Sion was responsible for the final demise of Pierre Plantard, who died in 2000. It's only the British people that ever became obsessed with "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". Plantard himself had no interest in the "Jesus Bloodline" from the get-go because he was an old-fashioned French Roman Catholic, as can be gleaned from his works and writings. ] (]) 07:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
{{quotation|In one excerpt from the '']'' quoted by ], ] is portrayed as a ] ] ] of ].<ref name="Eisenman 1997 JohnTB as veggie">Eisenman (1997), pp. 240 "''John (unlike Jesus) was both a ‘Rechabite’ or ‘Nazarite’ and vegetarian''", 264 "''John would have been one of those wilderness-dwelling, vegetable-eating persons''", 326 "''They ate nothing but wild fruit milk and honey - probably the same food that John the Baptist also ate.''", 367 "''We have already seen how in some traditions "carobs" were said to have been the true composition of John's food.''", 403 "''his diet was stems, roots and fruits. Like James and the other Nazirites/Rechabites, he is presented as a vegetarian ..''", cf 295, 300, 331-2,.</ref><ref name="Tabor 2006 references to JohnTB in Gospel of the Ebionites and Slavonic Josephus">Tabor (2006) p.134 and footnotes p.335 </ref><ref name="Ehrman 2003 on Gospel of the Ebionites">{{cite book|author=Bart D. Ehrman|title=Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew|pages=102,103|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2003|isbn=0-19-514183-0}} referring to Epiphanius quotation from the ''Gospel of the Ebionites'' in ''Panarion'' 30.13, "And his food, it says, was wild honey whose taste was of ''manna'', as cake in oil".</ref> It is a matter of debate whether John was in fact a vegetarian (a notion reinforced by the "Slavonic version" of ]<ref></ref><ref name="Tabor 2006"/>) or whether some Ebionites (or the related ] sect which Epiphanius took for Ebionites) were projecting their vegetarianism onto him.<ref name="Pines 1966">{{cite book| author = Pines, Shlomo| title = The Jewish Christians Of The Early Centuries Of Christianity According To A New Source | publisher = Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities II, No. 13| year = 1966 | id = ISBN 102-255-998}}</ref>}}


:As the Misplaced Pages article on the ] clearly states in the introduction section: "Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about them derives from the polemics of their Gentile Christian opponents, specifically the Church Fathers." This fact has never prevented numerous respected secular and religious encyclopedias of having entries on the subject of Ebionites.
These are the two disputed sections I moved to the talk page that relate to JTB. The first is about the relation of JTB to the Essenes. The second is mostly about the Gospel of the Ebionites. I noted at the time that there were conflation problems, but I don't remember the specifics after almost three years. The part about Slavonic Josephus is really interesting, but it might be OR. We have to carefully go through all of this. ] (]) 21:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


:As I suggested 4 years ago, the Ebionites article has an unclear citation style. We should all focus on improving it, which means, among other things, making proper use of primary sources (the Church Fathers and the Jewish-Christian gospels) when and where needed.
{{quotation|In one excerpt from the so-called '']'' collected by ], ] is portrayed as a ] ] ] and a forerunner to Jesus. Scholars argue that ] viewed the ministry of John as an alternative to what they perceived to be the culture of corruption surrounding the ].<ref name="Eisenman 1997"/><ref name="Tabor 2006"/><ref name="Larson 1989"/>}}


:That being said, you are the one who is obsessed with ] since no one here currently believes in the Priory of Sion myth of Pierre Plantard nor the conspiracy theories of the authors of <i>The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail</i>. I've been watching over the ] article for years to ensure, among other things, that readers know that the Priory of Sion has been thoroughly debunked as a hoax.
This is the version from the JTB section of the featured article. I think we can live without Larson as a reference. There has been a lot of research done on JTB since 2007 which we can use to update this section. ] (]) 22:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


:However, what you seem to fail to understand is that the uncontroversial notion that James the Just is the biological brother (or half-brother) of Jesus is NOT related to unfounded speculation of a Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene. (For the record, I personally think that Jesus didn't father any biological children due to a vow of celibacy because of his belief that marriage would cease to exist in the Kingdom of God on Earth, and his alleged promotion of ]s as role models.)
:The Slavonic Josephus was not OR, IIRC. Easy enough to check, anyway. I'll add a reflist to the talk page to make this easier. Why exclude Larson as a source? --] <sup>]</sup> 23:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
::As long as the secondary source for Slavonic Josephus is reliable and not a vanity publication, I'm fine with the content. Nishidani made a good case for Larson being an amateur as I recall. Again, I'm fine with the content. I just don't want to include vanity publications when there are plenty of reliable sources like Ehrman that say the same thing. It invites having the whole section picked apart later as being unreliable. Why don't we table a decision about Larson until we update the list of sources? ] (]) 23:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


I don't see anything about JTB in Jesus Dynasty on pp. 118-119. Maybe I have a different edition. Would you mind adding a quotation from Tabor below similar to what you did for Eisenman? Thanks. ] (]) 15:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC) :Bottom line: Please avoid engaging in unprovoked and absurd personal attacks against contributors to the Ebionites article. --] (]) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
:Unfortunately there are different editions. But rather than quote out of context, you'll find the discussion of JTB and vegetarianism (with ref to Slavonic Josephus and the GotE) in the last paragraph of ''The "Lost Years" of John'' in the ''A Great Revival..'' chapter.
:As an aside, do you mind if we standardise on "John the Baptist" not "John the Baptizer"? 99.9% of the world knows him as "the Baptist" and it looks strange and quirky for us to call him otherwise. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
::I'm fine with John the Baptist. ] (]) 15:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
::I found it on p.134 in my edition. Tabor quotes from parallel passages in Matthew and Luke (referenced in the footnotes) about John coming "neither eating nor drinking" or "neither eating bread nor drinking wine" and states that these phrases mean that John was a strict vegetarian. The meaning is arguable of course - ascetic doesn't <I>have</I> to mean vegetarian - but that's what Tabor says it means. He also gives a reference to the <I>Gospel of the Ebionites</I> in the footnotes, about which he says "The <I>Gospel of the Ebionites</I> as quoted by the 4th-century Christian writer Epiphanius. The Greek word for locusts (<I>akris</I>) is very similar to the Greek word for "honey cake" (<I>egkris</I>) that is used for the "manna" that the Israelites ate in the desert in the days of Moses (Exodus 16:31)". None of this is particularly controversial and many secondary sources have written about this. <S>However, I don't see anything about Josephus, Slavonic or otherwise, proximal to this discussion, so we don't want to imply a linkage where there isn't one. If Tabor talks about Slavonic Josephus elsewhere we should reference that separately.</S>] (]) 15:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
::I take it back. Slavonic Josephus is also referenced in the footnotes as follows: "There is an Old Russian (Slavic) version of Josephus's <I>Antiquities</I> that describes John the Baptizer as living on "roots and fruits of the tree" and insists that he never touches bread, even at Passover". Very good. ] (]) 15:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


The second reference is to Tabor's website, and it is more like a vanity publication. I realize this has been in the article for years (since before I started working on it), but I think we can do better. ] (]) 15:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC) ::FYI: You'll be happy to know that the mention of ″relatives of Jesus″ (which could be misinterpreted as promoting the hypothesis of Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene) has now been deleted from the Ebionites article. --] (]) 09:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
:Then let's do better, of course (such as by adding Ehrman, as you mention below), but that doesn't mean removing the Tabor link; I don't accept it as a vanity publication. If Tabor had no academic credentials then yes, but he has many, therefore his blogs are not worthless. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
::I agree his blogs are not worthless, but I'm reasonably sure Wiki doesn't except blogs as reliable sources. We can table this for now, but it will come back again at some point. Please understand that I'm only trying to upgrade the reliable sources so that they can withstand what I expect will be a ferocious assault by the dogma police. ] (]) 00:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Wiki accepts blogs from people who have already established their reliability from other sources. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Can you indicate specifically where Wiki says this is the policy? The inclusion of blogs is an important precedent to establish as far as reliable sources. Thanks. ] (]) 18:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


== Robert Eisenman ==
I see two problems with the GotE section that can be fixed pretty easily. #1 the section is not balanced. If we add a reliable secondary source that restates what Epiphanius said - that the Ebionites corrupted their text by changing locusts to "honey cake" - that will make the section more NPOV, and #2 the section is light on references, again being overly reliant on Eisenman and Tabor. We can add Ehrman as a reference to fix this as well as look for publications that have come out since 2007. Cheers. ] (]) 17:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
:I have serious concerns that, depending on the way this section is made, it may well violate ] and very possibly ]. According to so far as I can tell the majority of current scholarship, at least some of which (I have a lot yet to go) can be found at ], there is no consensus who "the Ebionites" were, and, in fact, a substantial agreement that they were not a single group. As such, it would be a very possible violation of policy to declare that they were in a main section of the article. Now, there is of course a possibility of having a separate main section of the article dealing with those scholars and others who have decided, in their own works, to content that some of these groups dissociated by others were the same, and subsections on the basis and conclusions of those works. That is another matter. However, even there, I think it would make sense to have the sections titles reflect what references to the Ebionites are being "merged" by the scholars in question. ] (]) 18:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
::It's a fact that Epiphanius had personal knowledge of a specific group that lived on Cyprus, which he refers to as Ebionites. He mentions speaking with a man from this group. Epiphanius also relied on historical sources, among them the Clementine <I>Homilies</I>, to supplement his polemic in the <I>Panarion</I>, and that may have resulted in some inconsistencies in his account. However, it's not our job to determine if there was one or several groups known by the pejorative "Ebionites" in the 4th century. We report what the secondary sources have to say on the subject. We would benefit greatly from more contributions of specific content and sources and less Wiki-lawyering. ] (]) 20:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
:::We could also do without people making conclusions. No one said the term was "perjorative" in the fourth century other than you. And, while I agree it is "not our job to determine" if there were one or more groups, it very much is our job to reflect the existing majority academic opinion, which, in this case, seems to be that the term was applied to more than one group. In fact, it would probably be a fairly clear violation if we were to be seen as almost ignoring differences which academics indicate they believe exist. While I can rather pointedly say we would also benefit from ''direct responses to comments'', which the above clearly is not, I do believe that we are bound by policy and guidelines to reflect the existing academic consensus. If the consensus is that there is no clear relationship between groups, that is something we are honor bound to reflect. When I finish going through the sources including in the encyclopedia bibliographies and other more recent sources, if the current objection to reflecting majority acadmic views remains, I am more than willing to file an RfC to determine what the broader wikipedia community thinks. By the way, according to Skarsaune's book, although I can't find the citation right now, three out of four of the last academic studies of the Gospel of the Ebionites, one of which is included by another author in that book, say that the Ebionite gospel is not Ebionite. Like I said, I have lots of notes still on paper, not including the quotations already added, and that makes it a bit harder to find page numbers quickly. ] (]) 23:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Correcting own earlier mistake: I had previously said that three out of four sources have rejected the "Ebionite" status of the Gospel of the Ebionites, and was mistaken in that. The book cited indicates that three out of four sources, specifically on pages 318 and 324, reject the Pseudo-Clementines as being of Ebionite origin. On page 461, it is said "Epiphanius may have obtained his "Ebionite" gospel from someone on the island of Cyprus, and may have concluded from this it should be reckoned as one of the sources of Ebionite doctrine. It seems clear, however, that he was quite mistaken identifying the group authoring or using this Gospel with the Irenaean Ebionites. The prophet-Christology of the Gospel would rather point to the group behind the Pseudo-Clementine Grundschrift as their nearest theological relatives." So, while it does state that the Gospel of the Ebionites is not "Ebionite", or at least related to Irenaeus's Ebionites, the three out of four sources indicate rather that the group it is most closely linked to, the original writers of the Pseudo-Clementines, should not be counted as Ebionite. ] (]) 18:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


Fringe. His works on The Dead Sea Scrolls are rightfully rejected. He is a Muslim by faith. ] (]) 07:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Michael, I think this sub-section on the ''Gospel of the Ebionites'' and the vegetarianism of JTB is ready to go back into the Ebionites article. There is nothing conflated here and it is properly sourced. This begs the larger question of whether the article should have a separate JTB section again or if this content fits better in the GoE or JTB articles with a link to this article. ] (]) 16:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


:I hope you are not suggesting that someone's Muslim faith (or Jewish faith or liberal Christian faith or lack of faith) automatically prevents him or her from doing good scholarship on Christianity... That being said, although I'm not a fan of Robert Eisenman's works, we cannot deny or suppress the fact that he is among the few modern scholars who have written on the subject of Ebionites. Furthemore, although one of Eisenman's book is used as a source, the article does not discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls nor link them to the Ebionites. --] (]) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
:Sure, go ahead and (re)insert the material; I'm not entirely sure which version you're referring to, but insertion should clear that up. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A few observations about this section before I move on to other things. 1. It should be made clear somewhere that the ''Gospel of the Ebionites'' is a modern name. Epiphanius talks about the gospel the Ebionites used; he doesn't say that is its name. In fact, Peter Kirby speculates on the GoE page of Early Christian Writings that Epiphanius may be referring the lost ''Gospel according to The Twelve''. 2. Ehrman reports that the GoE says that JTB had a diet consisting of pancakes and wild honey on p.103. But the GoE says no such thing (my OR). Rather, it says his diet consisted of wild honey that tasted like manna, like a cake in oil. It doesn't say he ate wild honey ''and'' a cake in oil. The double phrase "like manna, like a cake in oil" is a Semitism (again my OR). We should find an additional source that has this translated correctly. ] (]) 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

:1. Zahn is a source of the identification of the GoE with the ''Gospel of The Twelve'' and this is mentioned in ''Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition'' by Klijn in a reference to Zahn on p.14. Klijn has it as follows: "At the beginning of this quotation there is a mention of ''us'', viz. the twelve apostles, who also seem to be responsible for the contents of this Gospel. This would mean that the Gospel could be called 'Gospel of the Twelve', which is the name of a Gospel in a passage in Origen (ref See p.6). Full reference: ''Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition'' by A.F.J. Klijn, 1992 ISBN 90-04-09453-9. ] (]) 18:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

:2. Ironically, Ehrman has it translated correctly in his companion book ''Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament'' on p.13 where he writes "and his food was wild honey that tasted like manna, like a cake ''cooked'' in oil." Italics are mine as this word is often added to the translation based on the context. ] (]) 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the material back to the article under a separate John The Baptist section. We had it this way in the FA version. The larger question is still whether it belongs in this article, the GoE article, or the JTB article. It seems like an isolated fragment at the moment (though well-sourced). Is there a better place to put this? Opinions please. ] (]) 23:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:It should be in this article, since there will be other material which will need adding eventually, which is not based primarily on the GoE. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
::Fine with me. I can see three ways to expand this section. 1. A short paragraph on the GoE that explains how it is identified with the Ebionites (current scholarship and historical account) and a link to the GoE article. 2. An expanded section on JTB that identifies possible pre-Christian connections to JTB, perhaps as an inspirational founder figure that influenced their beliefs and practices. 3. A sub-section of this larger section on vegetarianism. All of this should be backed up by secondary sources with page numbers and quotations. I would avoid the Keith Akers material, which has a modern Christian overlay mixed in with vegetarianism, or else put it in the modern practices section. ] (]) 00:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed the tag to the Tabor reference for John The Baptist to make it more explicit that it refers to the Gospel of the Ebionites and Slavonic Josephus. I changed the page numbers to the hard cover version and included the page for the relevant footnotes. ] (]) 02:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the Tabor reference back to the article with corrected page numbers for this section only. It should be obvious to a rational person that a reference to the Gospel of the Ebionites is about Ebionites, but the tag now indicates this more clearly in the article. ] (]) 02:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
:And yet, that assumption of yours is explicitly indicated to be wrong according to reliable sources indicated on this page itself, on 18:36 on July 17 above. Your apparent inability to even bother to check to see if the very section of the talk page you seek to add material to indicates that your assumptions are wrong is a disturbing indication of what some might consider your total disregard for anything that disagrees with your own conclusions. The only thing that is truly obvious is your own diosregard for anything but your own conclusions, and a total disrepect for even the sources cited in the same section. ] (]) 21:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is a direct quotation from Tabor's book ''The Jesus Dynasty'' about the vegetarianism of John The Baptist on p.134 and direct quotations of the related endnotes on p.335 of the hardcover edition. ] (]) 17:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

{{quotation|The Greek New Testament gospels says John's diet consisted of "locusts and wild honey" but an ancient Hebrew version of Matthew insists that "locusts" is a mistake in Greek for a related Hebrew word that means a cake of some type, made from a desert plant, similar to the "manna" that the ancient Israelites ate in the desert on the days of Moses.(ref 9) Jesus describes John as "neither eating nor drinking," or "neither eating bread nor drinking wine." Such phrases indicate the lifestyle of one who is strictly vegetarian, avoids even bread since it has to be processed from grain, and shuns all alcohol.(ref 10) The idea is that one would eat only what grows naturally.(ref 11) It was a way of avoiding all refinements of civilization|Jesus Dynasty p.134}}
{{quotation|The ''Gospel of the Ebionites'' as quoted by the 4-century Christian writer Epiphanius. The Greek word for locusts (''akris'') is very similar to the Greek word for "honey cake" (''egkris'') that is used for the "manna" that the Israelites ate in the desert in the days of Moses (Exodus 16:31).|ref 9 p.335}}
{{quotation|Compare Matthew 11:18-19 and Luke 7:33-34. See also Romans 14:1-4,31, where Paul characterises one who follows such an ascetic diet as "weak in faith."|ref 10 p.335}}
{{quotation|There is an Old Russian (Slavic) version of Josephus's ''Antiquities'' that describes John the Baptizer as living on "roots and fruits of the tree" and insists that he never touches bread, even at Passover.|ref 11 p.335}}

Michael, I'm not sure where you want to go with this JTB section, so I'm going to leave it alone for the time being. It would be very helpful if you could lay out some ideas on the talk page for how to expand it. I may take a look at the remaining material I moved to the talk page in the interim. Btw, John Carter deleted all the Tabor references from the article. I have restored the references for the two sections I worked on, this one and James vs. Paul. If you decide to add any of them back, please fix the page numbers to match the hard cover version. I can help out if needed and look up page numbers. Cheers. ] (]) 00:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ovadyah, I have found some more sources for this section, which I will add. Basically they support Tabor's contention that John the Baptist was the Ebionite's first leader with Jesus, at this stage, just as a disciple. The new source is
* W. Barnes Tatum. , Sonoma, California: Polebridge Press, 1994, ISBN 0944344429, ff. 93, Chapter 5 ''John and Jesus: The Two Baptists'' subsection: ''Jesus as John's Disciple;'' .
Looks pretty kosher to me, what do others think? --] <sup>]</sup> 07:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:Looks good. We will need to get the relevant page numbers at some point, but I would add it to the article and take care of that later. Cheers. ] (]) 12:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

== Refs ==

{{reflist}}

== Gnostic/Essene ==

The Gnostic section suddenly starts talking about Essene influences. I suggest breaking the section in two and placing the gnostic stuff later (after James vs Paul) since most sources (e.g. Catholic Encyclopedia) regard the gnostic infusion of some Ebionites to have occured quite late, whilst the Essene influences are quite early.--] <sup>]</sup> 05:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I dug a bit deeper into the literature on this, and this late gnostic infusion hypothesis is starting to look less likely (to me). Koch provides an extensive review of the literature in the preamble of his dissertation, and one of the things he points out is that it is likely that Epiphanius composed the ''Panarion'' in at least three stages. Specific to the gnostic Ebionites, Koch notes that Schmidke found a clear literary relationship between Chp. 18 on the pre-Christian Nasareans and Chp. 30 on the Ebionites. Schmidke postulated that the material on the Nasareans and Ebionites was originally together in Chp. 18 in an early draft of the ''Panarion''. Epiphanius divided the material into Jewish and Christian sections in a subsequent draft and expanded the Ebionites section with new sources documents. He then expanded it a third time by adding his personal accounts of the Ebionites to the final draft. ] (]) 15:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
:If Michael believes that the gnostic infusion is quite late, I would be happy to see the Reliable sources which indicate that. For what it's worth, there still seems to be a very serious question about when the Ebionites themselves started as a distinct group (Tabor, among others, says they apparently started about the middle of the second century). And, unfortunately, regarding dissertations and the like, just as a reminder, they generally aren't considered particularly reliable except in those cases when they are specifically cited as sources by other, generally more reliable sources, G. Koch's Penn dissertation, thus, would qualify as a reliable source, but other dissertations which aren't cited by reliable sources probably wouldn't. ] (]) 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
::John, stop wasting bandwidth with old battles. Focus. The Catholic Encyclopedia says ''Besides these merely Judaistic Ebionites, there existed a '''later''' Gnostic development of the same heresy.'' --] <sup>]</sup> 18:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
::Michael, please yourself stop wasting bandwidth with your seemingly incessant violations of ], as you did once again above. The CE is at best a dubious source, in any event, given its pretty much obvious bias. That source, given your quote, does nothing to address when the groups it is discussing first appeared, and, as you know, there are serious questions when the Ebionties came to exist as a separate group by that name. Ignoring those matters as you do above does nothing to address those concerns. For the material to be included, I think at the minimum we would need a secondary source, which the CE isn't, a clear indication as to when that particular source thinks the Ebionites as the Ebionites began, and an indication when it believes the Gnostic Ebionites began. Based on what I've read, personally, it is making an assumption based on the work of Epiphanius who I think may have been the first to describe Gnostic Ebionites, and his reliability is at best questionable. That makes the reliability of any comments based on him equally questionable. So, please, provide a secondary source, not a tertiary source, and, if possible, some indications that the ideas of that source have been accepted by the academic community. ] (]) 18:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
:::BTW I note that Adolf von Harnack traces the name "Ebionite" back to the ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
:Ovadayh, could you post a link to Koch's dissertation here? At first glance Koch seems to be identifying the Ebionites with the Essenes, not Gnostics, in Epiphanius' first draft, . --] <sup>]</sup> 20:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
::Sure. Here is the link. ] (]) 02:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
:::A pay site, unfortunately. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Sorry. I rechecked Google Scholar, and I don't see other options. ] (]) 12:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::One more thing. Be careful about seemingly small differences in English that turn out to be big differences in Greek and Hebrew. A case in point is ] vs. ]. They have completely different roots. In Greek they are Nasapaioi vs. Nazwpaioi (p=rho, w=omega). The first one is the gnostic group. They are often co-mentioned with the Ossaeans. The second group is the Judaic one we associate with the early Christian church. ] (]) 02:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Thanks, quite interesting. This area is a minefield, and looks like the source of much historical confusion. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::::You are welcome. I'm going to add a bit to this minefield with a conjecture below. ] (]) 16:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the Jewish Quarterly Review? This review article looks like it could be important for our purposes. . ] (]) 15:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm making an OR conjecture, so take this in the spirit of stimulating further research and discussion. It has been thought for a long time that there were at least two groups of Christians from the earliest times, a group based in Galilee and another group based in Jerusalem. This is reflected in the different emphases on location of the early church in the gospels of Mark/Matthew vs. Luke/John, respectively. My conjecture is that these two groups are the ] under Peter and the ] under James as founder figures. Everyone was doing something before Jesus came along, so they were probably both pre-existent groups to some extent. We know from the primary sources that Peter was a Galilean and a hemerobaptist (daily bather), as were the Nasoraeans. By contrast, James is always associated with Jerusalem and a rather legalistic approach to Christianity. Both of these groups are in conflict with Paul's law-free gospel, even though they differ between themselves over the intent and letter of the law. There are also significant differences in christology between the groups under Paul (pre-existent Son of God), Peter (pre-existent Angel of YHWY/ Son of Man), and James (a mere man and the brother of James). The flight to Pella is the tradition of the Jerusalem group of Nazoraeans, as Peter's followers were already in Galilee. After the fight to Pella, the two groups are in geographic proximity, and the beliefs and practices of the spiritual Nasoraeans (prophesy and faith healing) and the more legalistic Nazoraeans start to become blended. This blending results in a modification of beliefs and organizational structure, and a new group emerges known as the Ebionites, which retains the shared hostility of the original groups to Paul's law-free gospel. ] (]) 17:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
:I take it in this view that John the Baptist was a Nasoraean? I'm not so sure about the name Ebionite popping out of nowhere, since it may have Essene origins, but the general idea has a ring of plausibility about it. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, regarding JTB. I think there were several messianic and gnostic (small g) groups of daily bathers throughout the Jordan valley and Dead Sea area that regarded JTB as a founder figure, and some of them came to regard Jesus as the messiah. We know that Apollos was familiar with one of these groups before he met Paul. The self-designation Evyoni (essentially, Poor Me) goes back to the lamentations of Jeremiah, and it was used in this way by the Righteous Teacher. I think there was an eventual democratization of the term following the death of the Teacher, and it began to be applied collectively as the term Evyonim to those who regarded themselves as the Teacher's spiritual successors. The same process of democratization happened to the Pharisees, who came to regard themselves as an elect laity, the Haberim, that observed temple regulations and dietary restrictions more faithfully than the priests. ] (]) 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::It's important to keep in mind that the Essenes were not necessarily the Qumran sectarians, who viewed themselves as an elect group of holy warriors that self-identified as the Yahad. For example, I think the Covenant of Damascus was an Essene manifesto, but the sectarian version of it was the Manual of Discipline. ] (]) 19:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

== Catholic Encyclopedia and four groups ==

Okay you've got me how this makes sense, you have the quote:

The ] classifies the Ebionite writings into four groups:<ref name="Arendzen 1909">{{CathEncy|wstitle=Ebionites}}</ref>

Then you've got 5 (five) things in the ensuing list (after the colon), only one of which looks like it qualifies as a "group". This doesn't make sense so I eliminated the above sentence. It has been reverted without any attempt to make it make sense. What gives? Also, if the article isn't going to list the 4 groups the Catholic Encyclopedia gives, what is the point of presenting this 4 group factoid? ] (]) 21:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
:It wasn't "reverted without any attempt to make it make sense." However perhaps we can avoid this matter by simply citing the Catholic Encyclopedia 4 times? --] <sup>]</sup> 19:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
:I see I haven't missed much. The problem is that the fifth "group", the ''Gospel of Barnabus'', is not referenced in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (see Wikisource). That seems clear enough from the text of the article. Maybe we should remove ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' as a Wiki in the reference and just go with the link to Wikisource. It should not be necessary to repeat the source four times. This seems like unreasonable nitpicking to me. ] (]) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:I kind of doubt the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is still the state of the art on Ebionite literature, so it is probably dubious to go out of the way to keep to their division. ] (]) 18:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
::Old doesn't mean obsolete, as you appear to be arguing, tirelessly. If you can come up with reliable secondary sources that advocate a different way to think about Ebionite sources, we should incorporate that new information into the article. ] (]) 00:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Nope, I'm really just saying you've got a clause with a colon at the end that says 4 groups are following and then a list with 5 things in it. If you change the colon to a period it looks kind of stupid. I can count to four and I can count to five and, well they aren't the same thing. ] (]) 18:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
::::That why the fifth entry says "but not the Catholic. Encyclopedia". --] <sup>]</sup> 19:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
::::Can we resolve this amicably by moving the GoB reference elsewhere, perhaps to the section on Islamic views of the Ebionites? The problem seems to be its position in the article rather than content or sources. Please, let's put an end to this. ] (]) 22:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::Michael, I moved the GoB material to the top of the Writings section, above the Catholic Encyclopedia. Hopefully, this resolves the issue, but feel free to rv if you strongly disagree. My opinion is that we have more important things to worry about. Cheers. ] (]) 02:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::Good solution! --] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

== Restoration of template ==

The template indicating that the page needs to be rewritten, which had been placed on the article by me, was subsequently removed by another editor, partially on the basis of mediation regarding this article taking place. As of yet, there has been no mediation regarding the article. My concerns regarding the article's over-reliance on sources which clearly qualify as fringe as per ] and comparative neglect of other, more generally reliable sources, still remain unaddressed. I am on that basis restoring the tag, as the concerns which caused the template to be placed in the beginning have not yet been met or to my eyes sufficiently addressed. ] (]) 19:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
:Does anyone else, apart from JC, support the insertion / retention of the template? --cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 20:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
::To clarify, excessive weight and prominence is given to the theories of Tabor and Eisenman, both of which clearly meet, according to the review material on those works indicated here and elsewhere, as fringe per ]. Comparative disregard is given to works which have been received much more favorably by academia. The fact that this article has been in arbitration and mediation multiple times indicates I believe that the current group of editors involved cannot reach a conclusion which adheres to policies and guidelines, barring successful mediation or other steps. Therefore, I cannot see how a flawed consensus that fringe theories should be given this much weight qualifies as a reasonable consensus as per policies and guidelines. ] (]) 21:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
:::I was not asking if John Carter agrees with John Carter, but whether ''anyone else'' agrees. --cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 21:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, I concur with John Carter. The template should stay in place. I may be in a position to comment more extensively in late February or early March.] (]) 21:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
::::Anyone else not canvassed by John Carter? --cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 23:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::Michael, please read ]. Also, I do not believe it is the place of any editor, specifically in this instance including yourself, to attempt to disqualify outside input in advance, as you seem to be doing in the above comments. If you can find that I have violated the terms of that guideline in my requests for input, I would welcome it. I would also call to your attention that this is, believe it or not, the Christmas season, and that there are a number of editors who may not be editing immediately. I believe, in light of the evidence, it would be unreasonable to attempt to remove the template until and unless outside editors, not including those involved in the mediation, comment. I am also frankly surprised by your apparent rush to attempt to resolve a matter which is pending mediation in what might seem to outsiders as a somewhat rushed and perhaps cavalier manner. Why are you apparently in such a hurry about this? ] (]) 23:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
::::::The usual wall-of-text justifications that aren't. --cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 23:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Michael, please indicate to me how the above comment, which obviously draws conclusions without providing a single piece of evidence to support them, is even remotely appropriate as per ]. Should you perhaps not be able to do so, then is it really asking too much of you to cease to make such comments? Also, is there any good reason you can give why your own comment utterly failed to address anything substantive? ] (]) 23:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The article needs work. The lead doesn't summarize the content. The article relies too heavily on primary sources (and thus features OR) and on questionable sources (e.g., a 100 year old Catholic encyclopedia). JC didn't canvass me. ] (]) 02:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
:Leadwind, I'm sure it was well intentioned, but I have reverted most of your changes; such deletion of material is not acceptable and looks like drive-by disruption. For instance your removal of historically well attested gossip about Paul's motivation is not appropriate. (Please familarise yourself with the subject a bit more before making further sweeping deletions.) And this nicely illustrates why we should cite ''all'' acceptable sources, not just what one particular editor considers the best (see earlier talk discussions).
:Thanks for deletion of the "now kiddies" nonsense.
:--cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 06:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
:Agreed. Blanking sourced content without discussion is a no-no. The lead was recently rewritten by Ret. Prof., and there may now be some adjustments required to align it with the main body. However, the answer is not to delete the sourced content. Agree completely about the overuse of primary sources, unless they are explicitly cited by reliable secondary or tertiary sources. ] (]) 17:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
::This would include, of course, the theories which are primarily sourced in the works of Tabor and Eisenman, wouldn't it? And, by the way, as can be seen in the material at ] and the accompanying talk page, the historical sources are regularly discussed in the literature. ] (]) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
'''Comment''': The article does require work, and the tag was appropriate. I'm familiar with many of the sources used, some of those in dispute, and mentions by other scholars regarding the Ebionites. I do not think that anyone questions that contemporary evidences for the Ebionites are extremely slim and say very little. Much of the scholarship is able to offer little more than conjecture, and are self-admitted hypothoses in absence of more evidence. The article does seem to suggest that we know more about this sect than we do, and some of it based on popular literature such as ''The Jesus Dynasty'' which are both sensationalistic and have been widely denounced as fringe, as John Carter has demonstrated. Hypotheses from scholars which do not enjoy wide consensus need to be clearly identified as such and clearly attributed in the text itself. There are still uncited statements in the article, and although most of the primary sources are appropriately used, some are used to support synthesis and this also needs to be corrected. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
:A proposal has been made in the opening arguments of mediation to begin with the primary sources and document exactly what they say. However, this is an unacceptable way to proceed, as primary sources are by definition unreliable sources. It is accurate, imho, to state that "much of the scholarship is able to offer little more than conjecture". Our job is to document that conjecture, as long as it is made by reliable sources, not to decide for the reader what is "truth". ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
::'''Reply''': ] ancient sources which have been published are RS when limited to documenting what those sources say. This is widely done in historical articles, even articles which have GA/A/FA status, for just that purpose. They are not, however, acceptable citations for statements which contain synthesis, which must be cited to secondary sources. Documenting conjecture is fine, as long as conjecture is clearly labeled as such and attributed. Otherwise, the line between hypothesis and fact becomes blurred in the reader's mind (as happens too frequently in "popular" non-fiction titles). There is also a matter of ], which requires that the article present various scholarly views "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". By overloading the article with various hypotheses, the material for which scholarly consensus DOES exist gets overwhelmed by speculative minority viewpoints, which is mixed in with the other text. If documenting prominent hypotheses, then it would be clearer to place those into their own section with each view clearly attributed in the text to the supporting scholar(s) so readers do not have to sort out what is generally accepted from minority views. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
::The above comment clearly responds to Ovadyah's inappropriate description of the only historical sources we have on this subject, which are the works of the church fathers, provided that they are limited to saying what is said in those sources. It should be noted that my proposal to start the article with such sources would either repeat what the sources themselves say or use secondary sources neutrally describing the content of those primary sources. I have to say that Ovadyah's comment above strikes me as being almost laughable. In this instance, it seems to me that it is '''he''' who is seeking to indicate that the theories of two sources which have been described in reliable sources as "rejected by the academic community" (Eisenman) or "irresponsible" (Tabor) deserve much more regard than they have been given by the academic community. As per wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it is our objective to reflect the academic opinions of the community, as per ], ], etc. I have said before that I have no objections to adding material regarding religious beliefs which are out of step with the academic opinion, provides those alleged religious beliefs can be clearly indicated by reliable secondary sources and are notable enough to be included. Any individual can create an internet church and say that they have hundreds, if not millions, of followers, when, in fact, the truth may be that only the person creating the page actually ascribed to those beliefs. We are most or less obligated by policy to base content on what reliable independent sources say, and I have yet to see any such useful information regarding any extant potentially relevant internet churches produced. ] (]) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
::::There are relevant historical sources other than the works of the church fathers. Please familiarize yourself with the concept of ]. ] (]) 20:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::Please indicate what they are then. In this sense, I believe to be "relevant" it would also be required that they actually discuss the group by name. For my purposes, I was thinking of the fathers through I think Epiphanius, maybe further. I am aware that there are other sources, but to the best of my knowledge it is only a supposition of some that they are directly relevant to the Ebionites, as they are not named. Also I cannot see how saying "there are other sources" than the church fathers is reason for the rather little weight as per ] which the article currently gives to what are, basically, the only sources which can be said to deal with the subject without additional speculations. ] (]) 23:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
::::::John Carter, it is not your call, or any other editor, to decide which primary sources are relevant by putting conditions on which sources should be allowed and which should be excluded. The very act of doing that is analysis and interpretation. As I already pointed out below, that is a clear violation of ]. It is up to the reliable secondary and tertiary sources to decide which primary sources are relevant. Your inability to see this simple point, imho, results from a type of confirmation bias. When I stated there are relevant primary sources other than the church fathers, I did so based on my recollection of the secondary literature, not because I personally think they are relevant. ] (]) 04:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
:::I agree that you can "document" the contents of primary sources as long as you don't interpret them in any way ("<B>Do not</B> make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."). The proposal in mediation was for certain editors to decide on what should be included in the article based on their interpretation of what the primary sources say. That is a clear violation of ] and ]. I also agree that conjecture should clearly be labeled as such and attributed. ] is a guideline, and what constitutes ] is often ambiguous and subjective. The proper balance between majority and minority views can only be resolved by community consensus. It has been stipulated by all parties from the beginning that the works of Eisenman and Tabor represent minority views. We differ on the <I>degree</I> of weight they should be given. ] (]) 20:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
::::No, we differ in providing any support from independent sources regarding the matter, because few if any sources from reliable sources as per ] have been provided. Seeing such support as is postulated above displayed would be welcome, but has, for whatever reason, never been produced. Without such evidence, any statements regarding the views having even minotiry support are themselves not demonstrably founded by any reliable sources which have yet been produced. and, as per ], the burden of proof to include information is on those who seek to include the information. I don't think we have yet seen any substantive support of either Eisenman or Tabor in reliable sources produced to date. ] (]) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
:::Regarding Tabor, I have been very conservative in how I use Tabor as a source. I have restricted my citations to Tabor's direct references to primary sources, usually quotations, to support his interpretations. As to unfavorable reviews of Tabor's work in SBL, SBL is a religious magazine pretending to be a scholarly journal. Some of its content is religious propaganda that can't be taken seriously, particularly the editorials. ] (]) 20:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
::::This statement is truly extraordinary, and almost literally laughable. Tabor's beliefs have been basically entirely rejected by the academic community. As such, as per ], they deserve little if any discussion in this main article. The fact that the above editor is once again seeking to completely ignore relevant content guidelines to support his pet theories is a serious and ongoing problem that this article has. And the almost total disregard of sources which have received much more regular and substantial support in reliable sources is the other problem. To the best of my knowledge, you yourself are the one who has been insisting that Tabor, whose work has been fairly universally decried, has to be included not only regularly in the content, but as one of the few to be listed as a reference/further reading. I cannot see how anyone can say that their insistence on using a source, when there is clearly relatively little support for it being reliable, qualifies as "conservative". ] (]) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
:::Now that I have taken a closer look at the ] that brought you to this article, please also see ]. Thank you. ] (]) 21:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
::::'''Reply''': If you are implying that John Carter has been campaigning, the message posted to me did not attempt to sway my comments, other than to request my input. I do participate when able in the Religion and Christianity Wikiprojects and respond to requests for comment when I'm able. S/he mentioned there was dispute was over the tag, which is how I knew in which area comment was being requested. Regarding being careful as to how Tabor is used, I noted, in reading through the article prior to commenting, that there was at least one citation where he is the sole source (apart from a primary source which cannot be used to support synthesis). Again, if you wish to cover minority views, the best way to cut through the disagreement about weight is to either discuss them only in a separate, clearly labeled section on minority hypotheses, or in each instance to both clearly attribute to the minority scholar and label as a minority viewpoint. In highly contentious cases, those qualifiers need to be within the text and not relegated to footnotes where most readers will not notice them. As I mentioned above, in reading the article, I came away with the impression that I was being led to believe that there is much more information on, and wide consensus on details regarding, this sect than exists. That was due primarily to the lines between minority hypothoses and majority scholarly consensus not being clear. I have no idea whether that is the objection which prompted the tag to be added, but in my view that is a serious problem which would support keeping the tag until it is addressed. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::I had myself raised the possibility of the relevant guideline myself to Michael. This is now twice when other editors have accused me of violating a guideline without providing any substantial support of such allegations. Such behavior is itself a likely violation of guidelines. I would be very heartened if such unsupported allegations made by editors were to cease. ] (]) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
::::::Since you insist on pushing the point, allow me to instruct you. Requests for input are supposed to be made in a ], rather than in a flagrantly biased manner as you have done and . However, if you wish to take the matter to ], the admins there can instruct you further. ] (]) 19:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

== Recent removal of reasonably added template ==

I have restored the weasel words template which was removed with both a clear failure to AGF with the I believe inexcusably judgemental statement that it was "intentionally inappropriate." I indicated in my own earlier edit summary my reasons for adding the template, which are I believe in perfect accord with ]. Failure to address those concerns is not in and of itself sufficient cause to remove the template. On that basis I am restoring the template until and unless those concerns, which specifically include how many scholars are being discussed and how representative their opinions are of the opinions of the broader community, are addressed. I sincerely hope that rather than continue to engage in edit warring the other editors involved actually address the concerns raised. I also note that in Ovadyah's edit summary for removing the template he included "see talk," when, in fact, the only comments on the matter were later added by me. Misrepresentative edit summaries that imply something that is not supported are perhaps not the best form of comments to be made. ] (]) 17:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
: I note in Ovadyah's most recent removal of the template, he indicated that I had added it with the specific intention of provoking an edit war. Beyond the fact that such unfounded inflammatory statements are fairly clearly violations of content guidelines, they also seem to have been used, in this instance, as a way of refusing to address the comments which had already been placed on this page. I believe that any further jumps to conclusions on that individuals part, conclusions which some might see as perhaps bordering on paranoic, considering he is apparently indicating that he thinks any indication that the article has problems are intended to start an edit war. Indicating problems exist, based on policies and guidelines, does not start edit wars. Reverging the material indicating those problems exist, without addressing the concerns raised, and making unfounded accusations against others to perhaps try to distract any onlooker could much more reasonably be seen as being intended to start an edit war. I believe that any further reversions, without providing the material requested in the comments above, will be, if anything is, the edits which might be seen as attempting to start an edit war. ] (]) 17:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

::No John Carter, five independent sources are referenced that support this particular view. You were asked by the mediator during ] to produce even one source that argued against this position, and you utterly failed to do so after a month of waiting. If you want to argue the five sources represent a minority view then come up with additional reliable sources that represent your (non-existent) majority view to prove it. The only failure here is your failure to edit in an unbiased manner. ] (]) 18:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
:::First, it should be noted that your comment above about my "(non-existent) majnority view" seems to once again be jumping to conclusions which violate AGF and are themselves completely unfounded. I never said that there was a "majority view", as you have implied. I very sincerely wish you could keep your comments to statements which '''directly address the concerns raised''', which your own comment above does not in any way due. And you are, apparently, completely ignoring the evidence which was produced months ago at ], and the other recent additions to the page on '']'' ''by others'' which indicate that there is no independent reliable sources on the internet (which seems to be the only source you individually will accept) which support Tabor's views. Would it be asking too much of you to actually address the concerns raised, rather than raise what are, I believe, clearly unfounded and irrelevant insults and attacks on others. And I find it amusing that you insult me by indicating I couldn't produce sources to support my contention, when we have all been waiting for you to produce reliable sources which support the conclusions of Tabor for how many years now without having any which can be included on that page produced. ] (]) 18:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
::::If you have so much evidence, let's see some of it applied (by you) to improve this article, rather than deleting content you don't like followed by locking the article and arguing endlessly on the talk page for improvements you are unwilling to make yourself. ] (]) 18:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::The reason I haven't is because other editors would remove it or contest it, as the history of this page and other page indicates. Please read ], ], and ] and, rather than continuing to engage in off-topic oommentaries, either address the issues raised regarding weasel words as per that page. Also read ], which makes it clear that the burden of proof lies primarily on those who seek to keep or include the material. If you and others could actually address the concerns raised, rather than engaging in pointless accusations and insinuations, the environment might be better for all concerned. Also, it is hardly a new problem for this article. Similar problems were noted at ], apparently were never resolved, and were probably a part of the reason the article was demoted from FA status. On that basis, the editors involved should already have been well aware of the weasel words problems and guidelines, considering both Ovadyah and Michael C Price were actively involved in the article then as well. ] (]) 18:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I explicitly identified the scholars who hold the majority view that James The Just was considered the head of the Jerusalem Church and a founder figure by the Ebionites. Views to the contrary by reliable sources have yet to be provided, despite repeated requests. ] (]) 23:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
:Evidently it is asking too much of some editors to bother to read other pages. Also, the use of the word "majority" in the text is so clearly unsubstantiated that I have to once again question the judgement of the editor adding it. Based on the statement "the majority", there could only be a maximum of nine authors who have discussed this subject, and that has yet to be itself indicated. Also, the recent additions seem to in at least one source, Tabor, who explicitly states in his book that the Ebionites were founded around 150 AD, and "Judaic Christianity", which is said to have "survived" in the Ebionites, is not itself clearly and explicitly linked in the quotation to James the Just. On this basis, I believe that the material added is, apparently once again, a violation of ]. As can be seen in the recent history of this article, this is not the first time that error has been made, so I would encourage all editors involved to read the policy in question and maybe work a bit more diligently to ensure that their actions actually comply with that policy. And, again, I believe that the use of the word "majority" in this context is completely and utterly unsupported by the material added, and is likely a violation of ]. ] (]) 23:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
::If you think the description of this view as a "majority view" is too strong, please produce your own majority view (or even a minority view) that argues otherwise on this talk page. Of course you can't, so your only solution is to delete the content of the entire section. ] (]) 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
::Similarly, if you think there is a problem with ], then <U>prove it</U> here on the talk page, rather than indulging in your usual baseless accusations and threats. It should also be noted that this specific content issue has already been addressed in ]. ] (]) 23:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
:::I very sincerely urge you to read ], which clearly indicates that the burden of proof is one the editor who adds the material, in this, case, you. Policy does not require that '''I''' prove anything is wrong, it requires that the individual who adds material, in this instance '''you''' '''prove''' the material is justified. Please act in accord with policies and guidelines and do what they demand of you. Thank you. ] (]) 23:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
::::Baloney. You can't cry ] like a baby and expect everyone else to prove a negative - namely that synthesis problem <U>doesn't exist</U> where there clearly is none. Show me a <I>specific problem</I> and I will attempt to address it. ] (]) 00:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Ovadyah, your rude comment above once again seems to be off-topic and clearly fails to address the matter being raised. I am sorry that you seem to believe that you can add whatever you want, whether it is supported by policy or not, and then dismiss your failure to abide by policy and guidelines as "baloney." If you believe that, for whatever reason, your edits do not have to conform to policies and guidelines, then you are of course free to make a comment at a noticeboard or through an RfC about that belief. However, until and unless you do so, it seems that I am once again forced to remind you of ] and ]. Please make any future comments you might choose to make directly relevant to the material in question, and refrain from such clearly off-topic commentary, and actually do what policy and guidelines indicate you are required to do to defend the material you added. Thank you. ] (]) 00:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::You already have an ] open for this, so take your complaints there and we'll see what the admins have to say about it. ] (]) 00:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::And I will be particularly interested in what they have to say about your repeatedly adding comments which do not address the matters raised, which you have done I believe more than once in this thread alone. And I did show you a specific problem, which was that you seem to be indicating that the five sources you think are relevant, not all of which honestly necessarily support your contention, including Tabor, cannot be said to be a "majority" until and unless either (1) a specific source using that word is found to describe the balance of opinion - no such source has been produced, or (2) it is clearly indicated that the number of sources does constitute a ] as per that term. And I once again point out that your assumption that Tabor's statement that the Ebionites were necessarily followers of the Jewish Christians who followed James is itself not specifically supported by the text you produce, nor, necessarily, by logic. Since you have said that you would specifically address specific issues if pointed out to you, I very strongly suggest that you abide by your word and guidelines and comment directly on the issues raised. Thank you. ] (]) 00:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The "James the Just as the head of the Jerusalem church" issue was explicitly resolved in the first round of mediation, in which many pro sources were provided (some of which explicitly stated it was the majority view) and not a single con source was supplied. Obviously John Carter didn't like the answer he got so he derailed the mediation, waits a few months, and brings up the issue again. . -- cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 06:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}The point is the speculative synthesis that "''A majority of scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church (including Pierre Antoine Bernheim, Will Durant, Robert Eisenman, John Painter, and James Tabor) argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death rather than Peter''." That just doesn't fly: none of the sources support who constitutes "scholars who have studied" let alone supports "a majority" opinion. In addition to the '''unsupported synthesis''' involved in stating "a majority of scholars who have studied", there is the problem of cited sources not supporting the statement. This isn't limited to the example cited by John Carter; Will Durant also makes no such statement or connection, no citation to a reference for Bernheim is given, and the citation to Painter doesn't mention Ebionites at all in the referenced section describing James the Just and early Judeo-Christianity and formative Judaism, nor does it depict James as being regarded as a founding figure. Other well-regarded scholars, such as Pritz, are much more cautious in how they deal with what are limited ancient sources, rather than staking unqualified claims as to what may be inferred from the little evidence that is available. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
:There are two issues here. First, James as head of the early Jerusalem churh, and second, the identification of this church with the Ebionites. Durant makes the connection. (And the article already explains that the term Ebionite may have only been applied by contemporary sources in their later years.) Bernheim is referenced through an interview (which is perfectly acceptable for a respected academic source). Finally there is no reason to regard James as a founder - that role is left to John the Baptist or Jesus. I shall check the Painter ref. -- cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 12:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
:I have restored Durant as a notable and reliable source. The removal of this reference was completely inappropriate. ] (]) 14:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
::Yes, completely inappropriate, but in line with N's previous habit of deleting material based on his own idiosyncratic preferences. Perhaps his topic ban should be extended from the Israeli-Palestine conflict to all Middle Eastern related topics? -- cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 16:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
:Asyntax, the statement "a majority of scholars who have studied" is demonstrably true, if publications and books mean anything. There are no counter-examples in the literature. However, if you can identify one or more reliable sources, we will incorporate the opposing view into the article. ] (]) 14:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
::Agree with Astynax and John Carter. --] (]) 15:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
::Ok, I removed the majority claim. However, I challenge anyone actually working on this page to produce reliable sources advocating an alternative view, as opposed to blanking the entire section and locking the article. ] (]) 16:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
:::I actually did bother to check the references to the statement before commenting. Durant does NOT make ANY connection that supports the statement being referenced, and the edited quote inserted into the footnote misleads as to the content of Durant's passage. Durant makes a single mention of Ebionim as a survival of Judaic Christianity. He makes no mention of James as having founded a sect, nor does he say anything at all else about the Ebionites—including anything about Ebionites regarding James as "their leader after Jesus's death". If you are going to reference Bernheim, then quote him and supply a reference to the interview. The normative view/views is that the sources are largely inconclusive. Alternatives are supplied by scholars such as Pritz who describe the Ebionites as either a later offshoot of Judaic Christianity which continued alongside it, a syncretic movement that arose in Syria even later, a ] by later authors of multiple movements, etc. The problem of drawing conclusions (i.e., synthesis) from references, instead of only reporting what they say, has been mentioned here before, as has the problem of the article making it seem that more is known about the sect than there is. When sources in a field are limited, even scholars can easily be tempted to mix up the ingredients and put out novel postulations (to make a book a more exciting read, to advance their careers, or simply to stimulate interest in a field for which there is no new information). In many cases, they cross the line into fringe territory. If they garner wider support, then they can become notable for our purposes if treated carefully and not give the impression that they represent a consensus. But Wiki policy does not allow us to imitate them and insert our own construct, does not allow us to make connections that the references do not themselves make, and does not allow us to synthesize a consensus (although we can quote a reliable source that states that there is a consensus). ] <sup>]</sup> 19:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
::::Astynax, why do you say ''He makes no mention of James as having founded a sect''? Where does the article claim this? I've already explained that this is not the case - why do you keep bringing it up? -- cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 23:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::The article claims "''the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death rather than Peter''." As there are no records of an Ebionite sect prior to James the Just, his becoming "their leader" would denote a role in the foundation of this sect. Regardless, the statement is not supported, and there is no record of an Ebionite sect being in existence as early as during James' lifetime. Nor does a simple mention of "Ebionim" on a page that happens to also mention of James elsewhere in another paragraph constitute Durant making "a connection"—that is a misuse of sources. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::It is your synthesis from primary sources that James was their founder, and one contested by some sources. As for their date of formation, that is vague and disputed (as mentioned in article) and also very dependent on the naming issue (also mentioned in article). -- cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 10:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:::I would underwrite that statement fully, and it could apply to much of the article, which is contaminated by an ambition to retrieve by a selective original synthesis of a few marginal theories an image of a religious group we know little about with precision. Therefore, as I have said before, the abiding problem here is methodological - the procedures being used patently defy the limits imposed on editors as to what one can do on Misplaced Pages, they infringe ] and ].
:::Ovadyah, I will ignore Michael Price's silly interactions with me, but, really, there should be no discussion as to the use of Will Durant, who by no stretch of the imagination, as opposed to scraping the barrell, could be classified as a 'scholar' endowed with the linguistic and specialist historical gifts to make a judgement on an obscure technical question in the Middle Eastern history of religions. He worked as a syntheziser of secondary sources, and is wholly outdated. To use him is to grasp at straws, or scrape the barrel because one might think his 'view' useful to one's own personal interpretation. Responsible editors with a good historical sense must sieve away the chaff of cheap citation, and stick to the best available up to date materials.] (]) 21:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

== Weasel wording ==

<blockquote>'''a''' Jewish Christian sect that flourished throughout the Holy Land in the '''beginning of the Christian era'''.</blockquote>

(1)'''a''' refers to a single unitary sect following Christ's Judaism during his lifetime, and therefore implicitly we are to understand that the Ebionim were Christ's followers, part and parcel of his entourage. Indeed, giving point 2 below, it would follow grammatically that Christ was the leader of the Ebionim.

(2) In the common acceptance of the expression, Christian era refers to the assumed date of the birth of Christ, i.e,. ''Anno Domini'', 1 AD. To say 'at the beginning of the Christian era' in talking of the ''floruit'' of the Ebionim movement is to place their origins around the birth of Christ or/and, in the decades immediately after it, during his (presumed) lifetime. Thus from the very outset, the language has been tampered with to insinuate a theory, that the Ebionim were contemporaneous with Christ. This is just one of several things wrong with the first line of the article's lead.] (]) 11:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(3)'''throughout''' the Holy Land, outside of Galilee, during Christ's lifetime? Impressive! ] (]) 12:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:#"Beginning of the Christian era" does not equate to "in Jesus' lifetime". I have no problem sticking the word "around" in to soften the chronology, if that makes you happy.
:#Sources for the claim that they were multiple sects, please.
:-- cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 14:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::You're clearly unfamiliar with English usage, and the classical period under discussion, and this has always been a key obstacle in trying to exchange comments with you.
::<blockquote>'''The beginning of the Christian era''' was fixed in the early 6th.cent. by a monk called Dionysius Exiguus, who . .began his Ist year with the Annunciation.' Mason Hammond, Anne Amory, ''Aeneas to Augustus: a beginning Latin reader for college students,'' 2nd ed. Harvard University Press, 1967 p.381</blockquote>
::The second point is methodological, which I will return to if I can get an intelligible response to the first. <blockquote>'Most modern researchers reserve this term (Ebionite) for ''the more extreme form'''s''' of Jewish Christianity'' (Robert Van Voorst, cited by Richard Bauckham, 'The origin of the Ebionites', in Peter J. Tomson, Doris Lambers-Petry (eds.) ''The image of the Judaeo-Christians in ancient Jewish and Christian literature,''Mohr Siebeck, 2003 pp.162-181, p.165.</blockquote> Please note that the source states that most authorities use the term Ebionite to designate a plurality of Judaeo-Christian groups. We don't know who the word Ebionim refers to because descriptive accounts in patristic literature (vide Skarsaune et al.) consistently describe them confusedly.
::I'm not convinced by ''obiter dicta'', or ''ex cathedra'' denials.] (]) 00:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Your points are irrelevant to improving the article. BTW it is news to me that Dionysius Exiguus spoke/wrote modern English. Thanks for the information. -- cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 09:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::::Your opinion, and failure to engage in a rational response to both a legitimate comment, and a detailed reply to your follow up queries, are duly noted. ] (]) 11:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::I didn't respond to your second point since you indicated that it was conditional on the first point - which was abusive and stupid. -- cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 12:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::Yeah, whatever. You are obliged, since you asked for a specific source, and I took the trouble of providing one, to clarify why, in your view, that source does not support the position I took, and which you challenged. Thank you ] (]) 13:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::"Yeah, whatever" says it all. I'm not obligated to respond to abuse - try it on Ovadyah when he returns. -- cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have given the proper wiki link to Christian era. The link distorts the natural meaning of 'beginning of the Christian era', which is a calendrical concept, by confusing it with the 'early Christian period' which postdates the incipit of the calendrical period by at least 3 decades in the usual chronology.

(1)

(2)Veselin Kesich in his recent ''Formation and struggles: the church, A.D. 33-450 '', writing of ], says he 'was active '''about the beginning of the Christian era''', (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 2007, p.85). Hillel died in 10CE. Kesich is using the term 'beginning of the Christian era' correctly, unlike our text. Our lead manages the extraordinary trick of having the Judaeo-''Christian'' Ebonim ''flourish'' before Christ's maturity. There is no way around that lethal error in the way this lead introduction has been formulated.] (]) 12:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:No lethal error at all - the term ''may'' have preceded Jesus, James and John the Baptist. -- cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 15:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::I'd like a neutral, preferably an administrative voice, to review this interaction, without asking that content be judged. It is, in my view, not conducive to editing to have a situation where one of the parties edits, but, by appearances, refuses systematically to follow up, or answer, the other. Writing:
#Beginning of the Christian era" does not equate to "in Jesus' lifetime". . .Cheers.
#'Your points are irrelevant to improving the article. . .Cheers.'
#'Sources for the claim that they were multiple sects, please. . .Cheers.'
#'I didn't respond to your second point since you indicated that it was conditional on the first point. . .Cheers.'
#'I'm not obligated to respond to abuse.- try it on Ovadyah when he returns. -- cheers,'
#'No lethal error at all - the term ''may'' have preceded Jesus, James and John the Baptist. -- cheers,'
::All these are dismissive ], that employ the editor's personal opinion as though it were authoritative. I am not interested in Michael Price's personal views on the Ebonim, but in what reliable sources say of them. So far I have his contemptuous shrugs at requests to engage in a dialogue on what RS say, capped by the ironical cheers, and an assertion that implies he will not respond to whatever I say, but I may try the other editor, momentarily offwiki, whenever he returns. One cannot edit if an active agent in reviewing the text continues to write whatever he thinks should be there in blithe indifference to input from third parties.] (]) 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes, please do review the interaction. Please also note Nishidani's abusive, pompous, prolix and belitting style that makes constructive progress impossible. This has resulted in numerous appearences before arbcom & AN/I and an ongoing indefinite topic ban (in a closely related area) because of . It seems he has learnt nothing from this experience.
:::It would be a good idea to look at content also and note, for example, that the Ebionite article says: ''The Qumran community referred to themselves by many epithets, including "the poor"''. This has a factual bearing on point 6, which Nishidani chooses to interpret as bad faith. (I could go through the other items also, but what's the point?)-- cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 22:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::I would suggest you familiarize yourself with my real record. Two blocks, 8 hours and 24 hours, at the beginning of my work on wikipedia, for edit warring 4 years ago. Until the Arbcom decision, the three administrative measures taken in a short space were overthrown almost immediately as errors. On my every appearance here, you have raised the Arbcom report as grounds for not engaging with me, and this is pretextual. I have never been cited for inappropriate behaviour on this article: you have. Now, can you please answer my question.
::If the consensus (most modern researchers) are said in reliable sources to use the term Ebionite for a plurality of groups (''the more extreme '''forms''' of Jewish Christianity''), on what grounds can the lead induce the reader to believe, against most modern research, that the Ebionites were a single unitary sectarian reality? ] (]) 23:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::"real record"? You somehow think your active and indefinite topic ban is not "real"? Of course you are a victim of a miscarriage of justice? Right. You were the one to call in the admins here, so what's sauce for the goose.... Anyway, since you have, for once, restrained yourself from "incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith" I will respond to your substantive point. The article already makes it clear that the term "the poor" was applied generically and therefore must have applied to more than one sect, in at least some sense. But I would like to see what Ovadyah makes of it, and he should be back in a week or two. Have you a googlebooks link to the text, in the meantime? -- cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 23:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::::<blockquote> The article already makes it clear that the term "the poor" was applied generically and therefore must have applied to more than one sect, in at least some sense.</blockquote>
::::I'm afraid your point only supports mine. What you now say disinvalidates the generalization, unsourced, in the first line of the lead, which says the Ebionim were
::::<blockquote>'''a''' Jewish Christian sect.'</blockquote>
::::In English, a sect means that, a single sect. You cannot support that line by arguing that the word '''must have applied to more than one sect'''.
::::At stake is the simple construal of English, and the most elementary form of logic.] (]) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:49, 28 June 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ebionites article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Former featured articleEbionites is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 9, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 13, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 22, 2006Good article nomineeListed
December 24, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 12, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
October 24, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconReligion: Interfaith Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject iconJudaism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJewish history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChristianity Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconVeganism and Vegetarianism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11

Topic specific archives

Peer Review Archive
Spiritual Ebionite Archive
Dispute Archive

Sources

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


This article has an unclear citation style

I suggest that all contributors to the Ebionites article follow the example of the Gospel of the Ebionites article when it comes to notes, citations and sources from now on. So we have a lot of work to do. —-Loremaster (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No primary sources

Here we have an article about a "group of Christians" that are devoid of any primary sources. I notice one contributor is obsessed with the "bloodline theory of Jesus Christ" as found in the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" even though it had nothing to do with Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion, and Plantard distanced himself from the nonsense in late 1982 on a French radio programme. Also Plantard actively criticised the book from 1989 onwards. The subject matter has been dead in France for ages. Plantard was a spent force in 1989 when his latest manifestation of the Priory of Sion was responsible for the final demise of Pierre Plantard, who died in 2000. It's only the British people that ever became obsessed with "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". Plantard himself had no interest in the "Jesus Bloodline" from the get-go because he was an old-fashioned French Roman Catholic, as can be gleaned from his works and writings. Octavius88 (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

As the Misplaced Pages article on the Ebionites clearly states in the introduction section: "Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about them derives from the polemics of their Gentile Christian opponents, specifically the Church Fathers." This fact has never prevented numerous respected secular and religious encyclopedias of having entries on the subject of Ebionites.
As I suggested 4 years ago, the Ebionites article has an unclear citation style. We should all focus on improving it, which means, among other things, making proper use of primary sources (the Church Fathers and the Jewish-Christian gospels) when and where needed.
That being said, you are the one who is obsessed with flogging a dead horse since no one here currently believes in the Priory of Sion myth of Pierre Plantard nor the conspiracy theories of the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. I've been watching over the Priory of Sion article for years to ensure, among other things, that readers know that the Priory of Sion has been thoroughly debunked as a hoax.
However, what you seem to fail to understand is that the uncontroversial notion that James the Just is the biological brother (or half-brother) of Jesus is NOT related to unfounded speculation of a Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene. (For the record, I personally think that Jesus didn't father any biological children due to a vow of celibacy because of his belief that marriage would cease to exist in the Kingdom of God on Earth, and his alleged promotion of eunuchs as role models.)
Bottom line: Please avoid engaging in unprovoked and absurd personal attacks against contributors to the Ebionites article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
FYI: You'll be happy to know that the mention of ″relatives of Jesus″ (which could be misinterpreted as promoting the hypothesis of Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene) has now been deleted from the Ebionites article. --Loremaster (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Robert Eisenman

Fringe. His works on The Dead Sea Scrolls are rightfully rejected. He is a Muslim by faith. Octavius88 (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting that someone's Muslim faith (or Jewish faith or liberal Christian faith or lack of faith) automatically prevents him or her from doing good scholarship on Christianity... That being said, although I'm not a fan of Robert Eisenman's works, we cannot deny or suppress the fact that he is among the few modern scholars who have written on the subject of Ebionites. Furthemore, although one of Eisenman's book is used as a source, the article does not discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls nor link them to the Ebionites. --Loremaster (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Categories: