Talk:Ebionites/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Cite verification - ground rules

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

On the face of it, yes. If I have understood this altercation correctly (?).

1.You placed an Eisenman quote to support John's messianic role.

2.Ovadyah challenged this.

3.You failed to provide the explicit quote confirming your illation from Eisenman's text, which Ovadyah asked for (to verify the assertion)
?

4.The original citation thus was erased by Ovadyah.

That seems to me reasonable, but I haven't followed the intricacies of this thread. Since Eisenman's work is notoriously difficult, compact of an immensely tangled set of hypotheses based on elucidations of obscure textual traditions, using it requires due caution. It is an admirable labour of high philological intensity, but demands considerable hermeneutic tact if its varied claims are not to be distorted.

Perhaps, we can iron this out, with Eisenman at our respective elbows, by going through the process here, on the talk page. If you Michael C. Price, could be so kind as to cite here the original Eisenman reference you added, and to which Ovadyah objected, we can check it immediately, and see how Ovadyah's subsequent objections stand up against the rules? Regards to you both Nishidani 10:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I will supply the water-tight quote after we have Ovadyah's explicit agreement that these rules (which seem reasonable to me) are applicable to all sources. This section is about the generic issue, not Eisenman in particular.

I disagree that step 4 was reasonable. Ovadyah should've tagged the disputed citation, then asked and waited for feedback here; instead he just deleted the citation. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you would like nothing better than to argue endlessly over the proper procedure for weeks, as you have done numerous times in the past. However, the wiki rules are already well established: If you added the material, then the burden is on you to prove it should remain. Your straw man about adding a disputed citation is laughable, considering I was the one that informed you that adding disputed tags to featured articles will get you blocked. If I had added such a tag, I'm sure you would have moved swiftly to do just that.

Why don't you just acknowlege the obvious. You refuse to provide specific evidence from your sources to support your edits because you can't. You are lying through your teeth, synthesizing your own editorials to push an extreme POV. We have already caught you doing it so many times, I can't believe you have the chutzpah to still deny it. Ovadyah 14:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Now, Michael's selectively stripped-down version:

top of p69:

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

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

Dear Ovadyah. I am intruding somewhat, perhaps unjustly, because I am not familiar with the whole thread's history. But on the point he raises, the two passages in Eisenman do appear to equivocate in a way that gives some substance to Michael C. Price's inference. Eisenman asserts many things he can't prove, though his hypotheses are acutely reasoned and textually grounded. The only problem, as I think you hint, is that Eisenman's reference to his own belief is fleeting and extremely tenuous, almost a passing remark dropped as a provocation, and does not appear to belong to the essential thrust of his central arguments. But, in raising the point, I don't think Price is abusively niggling an adventitious point.Regards. The page is an excellent one, by the way and I commend those who have constructed it, for what my small opinion is worth Nishidani 15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, Eisenman's remarks in that quote clearly refer to what is portrayed in the Gospels. Referring to JTB as a messianist leader is not the same thing as saying JTB is the Messiah, which Eisenman clearly did not do. I should also mention that Michael Price is being investigated by two admins for previous "inaccurate" statements here. Ovadyah 15:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, in controversial areas, religion and Middle Eastern politics especially, is brimful with innumerable inaccuracies sustained and reverted constantly by otherwise important and esteemed editors. Eisenman's remark on p.69 is, as I independently argued, ambiguous, and could give rise to the impression Price received. His earlier remark on p.62:-

'Josephus . .clarifies the rerason for John's execution, as opposed to the more mythologized one encountered in the Gospels. . . .Herod, consequently, feared that John would lead an uperising and decided to have him executed . . .This execution, as in the case of Jesus, James and quite a few of these Messianic or 'opposition' leaders . . .was a preventative one.'

Here Eisenman uses 'Messianic' loosely, and his usage implies that he regards John in that light. The whole quibble is on whether Eisenman regards John the Baptist as the Messiah - he doesn't, or as merely one of many 'Messianic' (in the loose sense of a charismatic holy man within the heated nationalist hopes of that age and place) figures in Judea. I think there can be little doubt that in the second sense, Eisenman classifies John as one of these numerous 'Messianic' types. If the disagreement is simply this, then it is simply resolved. I will agree with you however that it is a nugatory point, and perhaps not worth worrying to death for inclusion into the article.Nishidani 16:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Eisenman is using the term loosely in the second sense, as you say, "Eisenman classifies John as one of these numerous 'Messianic' types". However, look at how he is being referenced in the article:

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

It's clear that Eisenman is being used in the article as a reference to support the statement that JTB was regarded as the Priestly Messiah in the DSS. And there was only one Priestly Messiah identified in their writings. However, the Gospels in no way do this, and that is the context about which Eisenman was speaking. Ovadyah 16:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely wrong. The Eisenman cite does not support the word Aaronic (only the Tabor cite does that). Ovadyah was the one who called for more precise citation placement -- now he complains about it? And the context that Eisenman is talking about is not just the Gospel view of JTB (which is rejected as overly "mythologized" on p62) but draws heavily upon Slavonic Josephus. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

RFC or an admin, but no one seems to be interested because they see that you are unbalanced. If you could stop assuming bad faith for a moment you might realise that but, of course, you don't see it that way, hence Congratulations, the bad guys have won, again.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

See the rest of the dialogue here --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Distinguished from productive editing

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

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

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

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

Nazarenes in intro (and elsewhere)

I relegated the info about distinction between E. and Nazarenes within the intro. However, the question is whether it belongs there at all. Somme seem to dispute the separeteness of the groups. In any case, I think that the gist of this should be covered elsewhere in the article. It certainly has no bearing whatsoever on the Islamic view (unless the referenced article makes it).

What do others (except me and the editor who chose to insert this) think about this? Str1977 ^(talk) 16:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explicitly not asking for my views. I mentioned the Nazarenes in the intro precisely because they are often hard to distinguish from the Ebionites -- as the reference I gave discussed.--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you put it there I guess you agree with putting it there. You may of course comment too but that was not what I was asking about. I know my view (as far as it goes, I not were certain on this), I know yours. I asked about others.

My point was that the distinction is controversial and that the reference you gave does not support all the things you wrote. It mentions the virgin birth but that's about it. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It mentions a lot more than just the virgin birth, including everything I said. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As distinctive markers between E. and N.

And note that this is not actually the issue as even if the reference doesn't carry this, the info is still accurate. The issue is where to put this and how. And I know your view on this. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It was the issue when you said the reference you gave does not support all the things you wrote. It mentions the virgin birth but that's about it. That was clearly untrue.--Michael C. Price ^talk 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that was not the issue but a point I was making. And no, I don't see where the article talks about other things as points of distinction. I do not disagree with you in regard to whether these were points of distinction - I just can't see it in the article.

So once again the issue is: Where shall we put this. How shall we word this. Please, Michael, give others a chance to comment. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I am denying no one a chance to comment; if other people wish to comment I am sure they will -- but I think it might help them to see who is misattributing what.
2. Search through the Hegg PDF for the sentence that contains the last instance of "Ebionite" and you will see that it refers to Paul and Jesus' divinity, as well as the virgin birth.
3. As for why the comment belongs early on: it highlights concisely the basic beliefs of the Ebionites, as contrasted to the Nazarenes (just as the Nazarene article does in its intro. w.r.t the Ebonites).

--Michael C. Price ^talk 22:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Nazarene article doesn't do that. Misrepresenting once again? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It compares them, and now it contrasts them as well. As for misrepresentation I gather, from your silence, that you now accept that the Heggs says what I claimed. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean, you made the other article do it! It didn't do so before and hence you misrepresented. "Again" because you in the past misrepresented sources. As for Hegg, I said that the substance of your addition was correct and hence I didn't bother any further. I have better things to do then to continue pointless discussions. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Nazarene article had noted their similarity with Ebionites (in the lead) before my edits. Now it is better sourced. Glad we finally agree about Heggs. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

---

What do others (except me and the editor who chose to insert this) think about this? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, since you specifically requested my comments, I will offer my opinion (to you).

The Ebionites are often distinguished from another Jewish Christian sect, the Nazarenes, by their rejection of Jesus' divinity, his virgin birth and the apostleship of Paul.

The identification of the Nazarenes as a sect separate from the Ebionites is controversial. What is currently stated in the article as a "fact" is disputed. I already mentioned Harnack as one prominent scholar who believed that they are the same sect, identified by two different names. The schism within the sect over the virgin birth and association with gentiles has nothing to do with the difference in names. Harnack makes an exception for Epiphanius, who he believed identified the judaic Ebionites as Nazarenes and referred to gnostic Jewish-Christians more generally as Ebionites. Harnack's exact comments can be found on the talk page of Ebionites/wip, where I created a section for them. Of course, this view was completely surpressed, even though it was made known to the editors. That's not a big surprise, considering the tenditious editing going on here. Fear not, relief is on the way. Ovadyah 14:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything about the Ebionites is disputed. Who exactly is suppressing Harnack's views? I've no objection to the statement that some maintain the distinction between the Nazarenes and Ebionites is confused fiction -- all the more reason for the two articles to cross reference each other, of course. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, Michael, don't repeat that old song. Just because "everything is controversial" (assuming that is so) doesn't mean that we can state one controversial opinion as fact or endorse it via prominent presentation.

Cross-reference is fine but in a proper way ... not like that. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't my previous response cover all those points? --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you begin with the old song again. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't blame others for your own repetiveness. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought you'd taken a vow of ad-hominem abstinence?  :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, educated yourself about the argumentum ad hominem.

Then, enlighten me what "abstenence" means.

Finally, reflect on whether you have said before what I reacted to. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

External Links

The See Also / Exernal Links section was removed during Peer review, per consensus of the editors at the time, to upgrade the article for FAC. Part of the problem was that it was being used as free advertising for several gnostic and vegetarian Christian fringe groups. We can discuss it further on the talk page, but I am opposed to using the section as a back-door way of adding non-notable and non-verifiable fringe groups to the article. Cheers. Ovadyah 14:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to explanation under About See Also on the talk page. Ovadyah 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection of the article to put a stop to this nonsense. Ovadyah 14:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebionite Eucharist?

The article does not mention what secondary sources think about the eucharistic practices of the Ebionites, but I found the following quotation from Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.1.3, mentioned on an Islamic web resource on the Ebionites. [1] Ovadyah 01:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her: wherefore also what was generated is a holy thing, and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all, who effected the incarnation of this being, and showed forth a new [kind of] generation; that as by the former generation we inherited death, so by this new generation we might inherit life. Therefore do these men reject the commixture of the heavenly wine, and wish it to be water of the world only, not receiving God so as to have union with Him, but they remain in that Adam who had been conquered and was expelled from Paradise: not considering that as, at the beginning of our formation in Adam, that breath of life which proceeded from God, having been united to what had been fashioned, animated the man, and manifested him as a being endowed with reason; so also, in [the times of] the end, the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having become united with the ancient substance of Adam's formation, rendered man living and perfect, receptive of the perfect Father, in order that as in the natural [Adam] we all were dead, so in the spiritual we may all be made alive. For never at any time did Adam escape the harms of God, to whom the Father speaking, said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." And for this reason in the last times (fine), not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the good pleasure of the Father, His hands formed a living man, in order that Adam might be created [again] after the image and likeness of God.

— Ireneaus, Against Heresies, 5.1.3

Also, I found a description of communion practices in the Eastern Church, which mentions the Ebionites. Excerpted from "Syrian Christians, A Brief History of the Catholic Church of St. George in Milwaukee, Wis. And a Sketch of the Eastern Church", by Exarch Anthony J. Aneed, Milwaukee, 1919. [2]

"The Ebionites, for example, held that the Holy Eucharist could be confected with no other kind of bread but unleavened, or azymes; to confound these the Church allowed for some time the use of leavened bread also."

This quotation is probably derived from a reference by Epiphanius in Panarion 30.16, also mentioned in The Tekmoreian Guest-Friends, W. M. Ramsay, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 32, 1912 (1912), pp. 151-170: "The Ebionites celebrated their annual Eucharist with unleavened bread" (Epiphanius, Haer. XXX. 16). Ovadyah 01:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the primary source to the above two references in Panarion 30.16.1. Ovadyah 20:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they perform the mysteries annually in imitation of the holy [eucharist] in the church by using unleavened bread and for the other part of the mystery, by using water only.

— Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.16.1

Add this information in the Judaism subsection of the Views and practices section. I'll edit it if necessary. --Loremaster 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ovadyah 03:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The new primary sources have been copied to the Sources archive and Wikisource. Ovadyah 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster 18:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What is it about

The Tekmoreian Guest-Friends, W. M. Ramsay, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 32, 1912 (1912), pp. 151-170: "The Ebionites celebrated their annual Eucharist with unleavened bread" (Epiphanius, Haer. XXX. 16).

Indeed they perform the mysteries annually in imitation of the holy [eucharist] in the church by using unleavened bread and for the other part of the mystery, by using water only. Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16.1

performing an annual celebration that you don't understand? Ovadyah 13:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And what is it about

The Ebionites, for example, held that the Holy Eucharist could be confected with no other kind of bread but unleavened, or azymes; to confound these the Church allowed for some time the use of leavened bread also.

the use of leven in the Eucharist to confound Ebionite practices that is hard to understand?

I'm sure the Syrian Catholic Church would not be amused to hear your description of them as "fringe", especially since they are in communion with the Holy See. Please try to keep your Roman Catholic biases in check and edit consensually. Ovadyah 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation - Ebionites

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am off for a week in an about a hour. So things will have to be resumed later. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please hold the acceptance period open for 14 days. I suspect this is a way to avoid responding. I'll let you know if Michael is actively editing on Wiki during this period. Ovadyah 13:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the usual attribution of bad faith from Ovadyah. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I showed good faith by requesting mediation in the first place. Your acceptance of mediation gives me hope that my faith was not misplaced. Ovadyah 22:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick to attribute good faith to yourself, eh? :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for mediation

While we are waiting on the Request for Mediation, I suggest we carry on as best as we can. Str1977, would you be willing to work with me to fix up the article? Ovadyah 16:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as best as I can. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we accomplish the easy tasks first. I propose we go thru the article and identify the sections we are both ok with or which need only very minor revisions. If we can eliminate rewriting entire sections, that greatly simplifies the task ahead of us. Ovadyah 16:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll start at the bottom and work my way up.

Religious Perspectives

Do you have any issues with this section? I propose we retain it. It is a new section and was tagged accordingly. I'm not all that happy with the content, it is quite sparse in places, but as with all new material, I accept that there will be changes and additions before it becomes stable. We might want to consider combining the subsections and just have separate paragraphs within one main section. I think the section as a whole is valuable in that it provides a place for the notability of religious polemics, which are not necessarily consistent with scholarship. This is particularly true for the historical Ebionites, since almost nothing would be known about them if it were not for the polemics of the Church Fathers. Ovadyah 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we can retain it in such a way. However, I do insist that it should not contain scholarly, historiographical issues. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Scholarly issues should be moved elsewhere, since the whole point of this section is to capture religious perspectives. The changes are so minor here, why don't you just make them as you see fit, and I'll go over your edits as we did before. I just want to eliminate the useless sub-sections. Ovadyah 03:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I eliminated the useless sub-sections. Ovadyah 04:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Archaeology

I propose that we have this section and the Rabinowitz source document reviewed by Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Imho, Rabinowitz is more of a commentator that a scholar. I have questioned his credibility before, and I would like to put it up for discussion among a larger group of editors. I have no issues with the content or style, as long as we feel it's based on reliable source material. However, I also propose we eliminate Rabinowitz as a reference elsewhere in the article, as he is merely giving opinions based upon the scholarship of others. Is this acceptable? Ovadyah 16:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Removing a source because it "is merely giving opinions based upon the scholarship of others" shows a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia's preference for secondary or tertiary sources.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. We have a consensus. Let's eliminate the Rabinowitz references throughout the article, and if Rs/N thinks the Buried Angels publication is scholarship lite, we should get rid of the Archaeology section. Ovadyah 03:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I eliminated the Rabinowitz references outside of Archaeology. I also removed the Keith Akers reference. This is more pseudo-scholarship that was taken out of the FA version. It should never have been put back. Ovadyah 04:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have submitted a request to the Rs/N to look into the Rabinowitz matter here. Ovadyah 20:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been able to determine that Rabinowitz has a Ph.D. from Brown University and is listed as an independent scholar. Here is a list of his prior publications: publications

Jacob Rabinowitz (Rabinowitz, Jacob) Catullus's Complete Poetic Works by Jacob Rabinowitz and Gaius Valerius Catullus Softcover, ISBN 0882142208 (0-88214-220-8) The Faces of God: Canaanite Mythology As Hebrew Theology by Jacob Rabinowitz Softcover, Continuum Intl Pub Group, ISBN 0882141171 (0-88214-117-1) Jewish Law: Its Influence on the Development of Legal Institutions by Jacob Rabinowitz Hardcover, Bloch Pub Co, ISBN 0819701734 (0-8197-0173-4) Rotting Goddess: The Origin of the Witch in Classical Antiquity by Jacob Rabinowitz Softcover, A K Pr Distribution, ISBN 157027035X (1-57027-035-X) The Unholy Bible: Hebrew Literature of the Early Kingdom Period by Jacob Rabinowitz Softcover, ISBN 1570270155 (1-57027-015-5)

He is described in several websites as a practicing neo-pagan. One website has examples of his original poetry:

Here are some poems by Jacob Rabinowitz, another Neo-Canaanite. I thought they were so powerful that i asked his permission to have them here.

Jake is the author of several interesting books including: The Faces of God: Canaanite Mythology As Hebrew Theology, The Unholy Bible: Hebrew Literature of the Kingdom Period, and his great book on Hecate, The Rotting Goddess: the Origin of the Witch in Classical Antiquity The last two are published by Autonomedia.

Canaanite Poems by Jacob Rabinowitz

Does anyone have more opinions on his scholarship and the online book Buried Angels? Ovadyah 20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The reviews do not look promising. I suggest we remove the Archaeology section entirely. No other encyclopedia mentions this material for a reason (it's crap that Rabinowitz added to the article himself). Ovadyah 04:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, while Rabinowitz should be considered a "fringe" scholar, imho, the work of the Franciscan archaeologists that he reports on is not. Another option is to cite that work directly, even though it is published in Italian. We have done this previously for works published in German. That would allow us to keep the Archaeology section and side-step the problem of fringe research. Ovadyah 14:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Writings

I have no issues with this section. Let me know if you do. Ovadyah 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume no response means no issues here either. Ovadyah 03:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Views and Practices

I have major issues with this section, particularly the Essenes sub-section, which has been tagged. I propose we recombine all the subsections, except for the Jesus sub-section, as it was until very recently. Imho, sub-sections that are one or two sentences long look ridiculous, and were created to push a fringe POV. I'm more or less ok with the content, except for the Essenes sub-section, which has become bloated all out of proportion to it's importance, and needs to be cut back significantly. I propose we go back to the previous version before partition, maybe on the /wip page, and add in the newer content that is worth keeping. Let's agree wherever we can, tag where we agree to disagree, and ask for help from a Third Opinion or the Mediation Cabal to work out the differences. Is this acceptable? Ovadyah 16:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this really needs to be redone and actually focus on views and practices, e.g. views about Jesus, Paul, James, John, insistence on Jewish practices (Judaism is a misnomer here), vegetarianism etc. and not on links to other groups (that might be covered elsewhere). Str1977 ^(talk) 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We have a consensus in principal, and we need to work out the details. Many things don't quite seem to fit because these categories were forced to begin with and should be simplified or eliminated. Ovadyah 03:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I condensed the sub-sections on figures other than Jesus to one Other Figures section. Ovadyah 04:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the second paragraph of the Essene section with the FA version and collapsed the sub-titles. I removed the disputed tags, since the FA version does not have the synthesis problems of later versions. Ovadyah 23:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

I have no issues with this new section. I still agree it should be separate from the History section. Let me know if you think otherwise. Ovadyah 16:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My view depends on what the legacy section is about - is it about the possibly influence on Islam (which is an arguable part of the history) or generally about later reaction and influence. It should be separate but still attached to the history and differentiated from the "religious perspectives". Str1977 ^(talk) 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes the most sense to have it be generally about later reactions and influence. The influence on islam material was moved into this section later after someone deleted it in a dispute over verifiability that was resolved. Ovadyah 03:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved the influence on Islam material back to History. Ovadyah 04:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

History

I'm ok with most of the content, particularly the first four and last two paragraphs. We already established consensus on a lot of this. The fringe-theory section could use a good review, and the mis-attribution of some references needs to be fixed. Ovadyah 17:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. We have a consensus. Ovadyah 03:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the Eisenman mis-reference (again). Any other revisions to History? I'm confused more generally about using Eisenman as a reference in this section. His original thesis, which is what is being cited, was that James the Just was the Teacher of Righteousness and Paul was the Spouter of Lies. This fringe thesis has been completely discredited by the academic community (see raging edit wars over this, I think in Appendix 4). Eisenman expresses doubts in the same text that Jesus even existed, and as I said before, he mentions JTB as a messianic leader only in passing. This is a surrey with lots of fringe on top! Ovadyah 04:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

After John's death they continued to follow the ministry of Jesus, who had been baptised into the movement by John, and whom they regarded as the royal Davidic Messiah.

eg. The article clearly implies that Eisenman agrees with this statement, even though the statement is unreferenced. This is a sneaky editorial synthesis. In fact, this is all Tabor. As I said, Eisenman questions whether Jesus even existed, and he identifies James as the leader of the early Christians. Ovadyah 05:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Eisenman states that the existence of James as Jesus' brother testifies to the existence of Jesus. (See introduction to his James the Brother of Jesus.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a citation for Tabor to make clear that these are the views of Tabor alone. Ovadyah 05:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Name

I'm ok with this new section. Let me know if you think otherwise. Ovadyah 17:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay by me. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. Ovadyah 03:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The Lead needs a major rewrite, after all the other content issues have been resolved. The lead is now too sparse, and it does not give a complete overview. If we can make it this far, I suggest we go back to the FA version and add in whatever new material is worth keeping. Ovadyah 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you specify the version you have in mind? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I will, but I want to see how the rest of it shapes up first. Maybe we should do it the opposite way. Start with what we have and add back any material from the FA version that still fits and is not disputed. Ovadyah 03:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am now satisfied that the most egregious problems of neutrality and factual accuracy have been addressed with the recent changes that are closer to the FA version. Str1977, please go over the body of the article, and when you are also satisfied, we can fix up the lead. Ovadyah 23:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have completed my changes to the lead and the article. I added more specifics to describe the traditional version, and I restored information on the modern version challenging this view from the FA version, which was removed. Ovadyah 18:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed your changes and can say that there is nothing in there that I disapprove of, except the little tweak I made about the link between Ebionites and Jerusalem Church. Another thing is that I still have my doubt that Eisenman espouses Tabor's view of John the Baptist as Messiah. I cannot speak for certain as it has been a while since I read Eisenman, but still.

I removed the Eisenman reference, which implied (incorrectly) that Eisenman has that view. I reread the book, and he definitely does not say that JTB was a Messiah. If you think the text still implies that he does, please change it to make it clear that this view is Tabor's alone. Ovadyah 12:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How does a Jewish messiah differ from a messianic leader? --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A messianic leader is one who anticipates an imminent or realized eschatology in which the Messiah(s) come at the End of Days to triumph over the forces of darkness. A good example would be the Teacher of Righteousness, who clearly saw himself as playing a role in this unfolding process. It is widely believed by DSS scholars that the Teacher wrote the Temple Scroll, which describes the eschatological Temple. In JTB's case, according to the Gospels, he was preparing Israel for the imminent end-times by bringing the nation to repentance through his baptism of renewal. There is no tradition that explicates the roll of the Priestly Messiah as bringing the nation to repentance. In Rabbinic tradition, it was to restore the historical nation of Israel by uniting the northern tribes with Judah. Ovadyah 17:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What I have not yet done is review the entire text in line with the issues voiced above. I will do so once I find the time. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. I agree with the reviewers comments in FAR, despite the gratuitous insults, that parts of the article are too choppy. That's a problem of style more than content and needs to be polished up once we resolve the content dispute. Ovadyah 12:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I recently heard back from Mark Goodacre at Duke U. I asked Mark to comment on what he sees as the mainstream scholarly opinion on the Ebionites. Hopefully, he will have time to respond while we are in mediation. I previously invited James Tabor to participate (twice) when we were getting the article ready for FAC. Ovadyah 12:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark just informed me he won't have time to help us out. Too bad! Mark made me a believer in the Farrer theory. Ovadyah 02:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Price has withdrawn from formal mediation. No big surprise there. Ovadyah 12:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

MCP's closing statement (deleted out of context quote)

Ovadayh, please don't copy text from a talk page out of context again. My reasons for withdrawing are quite simple: my issues were dismissed without explanation. Some mediation process that was! --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am now convinced that this can only end one way. Ovadyah 12:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC has been tried, right? If it has, the two remaining steps are community enforcable mediation and Arbitration Committee. I am personally of the opinion that this article, as a featured article, is important enough to keep at a high level of quality that I am agreeable to any steps which might be required to have this dispute resolved, including those specified above. John Carter 14:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a content RFC has been tried. Unfortunately, no one responded to the request. I also informally requested comments from two admins and that didn't work either. Ovadyah 15:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with either of the above suggestions. A user conduct RFC is another possibility that has yet to be tried. Ovadyah 15:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually hadn't thought of that. If you think that's the way to go, I'm more than agreeable. John Carter 15:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I will look over the requirements. A good case can be made for a user conduct RFC with the rejection of formal mediation. Meanwhile, we need to keep misleading content out of the article. Ovadyah 15:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are the user conduct RFC guidelines. This seems like the next logical step before Arbcom. I'm skeptical that community enforcable mediation will work because all parties have to agree to the mediation. Ovadyah 16:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. But it might also demonstrated a willingness to at least assume good faith on the part of all individuals involved. If for whatever reason one or more parties does choose not to agree to mediation, I think it might generally look best if any outsider were to come in and see that party disagree themselves rather than see someone else assuming that the other party will not act in good faith. Just an idea, of course. John Carter 16:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Let's proceed with community enforcable mediation if the others also agree. Ovadyah 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to recuse myself from further editing on the Ebionites article. I only came back to give mediation one last try in the hope that a demotion of the article could be averted in FAR. Since formal mediation failed and the article could not be saved from demotion, my work is done here. Ovadyah 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the misleading tag on the article with a totally disputed tag to reflect the unwillingness to seek a solution to the content dispute through mediation. There has already been an attempt to introduce misleading content back into the article. Ovadyah 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that is a reference to my reintroducing a sourced quote from Eisenman? How can that be misleading? --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything can be misleading, depending upon the reasons for placing content in. I guess the question then becomes, why was the content reintroduced? John Carter 15:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The intent or reason behind an edit is irrelevant. I guess you mean what is the justification -- which is that it is a reliably sourced, fits in with other theories, is notable etc -- generally that it is in accord WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly true, but definitely evasive. And it is a reasonable question considering that there are several other factors than those you mentioned, including WP:Undue weight, as well as the various points of "giving 'equal validity', POV pushing (which can be done by selective inclusion of facts), and other matters. John Carter 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Only evasive in the sense that I refuse to answer irrelevant questions that will inevitably lead to unproductive ad-hominem accusations. You can speculate about my motives all you like, I only care about the state of the article.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ovadyah Shouldn't the very controversial claims made either by some editors, or by those whom they quote (Tabor) be referenced with specific citations (pages)? I find the Aaronite thesis note sends us to a huge alphabet soup referenced to Tabor which is of no help whatsoever to those who might like to check the claim.Nishidani 19:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ovadyah indicates he is taking a rather extended break on his userpage. Point out to me the specific location and maybe I can try to find page citations myself, if I can find the books in question. John Carter 20:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, as I am sorry to hear of the war of nerves his scholarly approach to this intricate topic has had to suffer here. The text is:-

In contrast to the re-judaizing "degeneration" view, scholars James Tabor and Robert Eisenman argue that the Ebionites developed from non-gnostic messianic Essenism,[7][6] being initially the Jewish followers of John the Baptist,[6][7] whom they regarded as a priestly Aaronic Messiah[7] or Messianic leader[6]. After John's death they continued to follow the ministry of Jesus, who had been baptised into the movement by John, and whom they regarded as the royal Davidic Messiah[7].

The sources are

6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Eisenman, Robert (1997). James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Viking. ISBN 1842930265.

7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Tabor, James D. (2006). The Jesus Dynasty: A New Historical Investigation of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743287231.

Perhaps I have missed something in the labyrinths of this debate, but I fail to understand how two scholars, with distinct works, and often disagreeing among themselves on details, can be conflated in this manner. My apologizes for any trouble this may cause you, if you care to check it. I can't recall Eisenman saying anything so synthetically coherent in the book cited. Regards Nishidani 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Tabor mentions Eisenman favourably in the introduction or foreword to his "Jesus Dynasty", so evidently he sees a conflatable synthesis there.

I think John Carter is asking for page numbers on the citation itself. This is reasonable and we should work towards this. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael C. Price I'm afriad that won't do, justifying the conflation of distinct and highly nuanced theories by two independent scholars, on the grounds that one of them mentions the other favourably in the introduction to his book (the gravamen of my request is for evidence for a theory, not hints of positive appraisal of one theorist by another).

When you write '(Tabor) evidently . .sees a conflatable synthesis here' you admit that you personally infer from a generic nod to Eisenman in Tabor's text that he sees a conflatable synthesis here. I.e. you are making the synthesis, attributing it by inference to Tabor, and then using Tabor with extreme looseness to source your wholly subjective construction of a 'synthesis' that conflates (objectively confuses) the two viewpoints. This slipshod methodology, in which a reviewer, confuses his own deductions with those of the authors, is banned in academic scholarship, and cannot be allowed on this page by any interpretation of the rules. If this is the way you have constructed that paragraph, it will have to go out, as having smuggled a personal piece of interpretation of two authors (OR) in, and then retroactively attributed that POV to the authors cited.

As to the request for page numbers, that is your task, not 'ours' or John Carter's (and I apologize to him), as you imply in writing 'we should work towards this'. They have been required for several months from you, and you, at this late date, still refuse to proffer the exact textual evidence for the contested interpretations you insist on. The burden of proof is on you, not on others in here. Since you have the books at your elbow, it is not necessary for 'us' to 'work on this'. Open the books, supply the exact page numbers and the phrasing, and we can then work on that (if,and only if in the meantime my query above, has been adequately addressed, i.e. you clarify how you justify your use of OR (original research) as representing what otherwise strikes you alone as the unitary position of two authors who are not apparently on record as reciprocally arguing the same position on the theory you attribute (synthetically) to them) Nishidani 09:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the request for page numbers, that is your task, not 'ours' - no, that is the task of all editors here, since it is a defect that applies pretty broadly across the article, not just to my contributions.

Citing two authors with divergent views in some areas is not OR nor synthesis. What matters is whether they are making the same claim in the specific area which they are cited about -- which in this instance they are. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But they are not making the same claim in this specific area. They agree on some elements but not on others. It is your synthesis that wants to subsume Eisenman under Tabor. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Where their claims are different I have distinguished them by giving them separate cites. e.g. "Messianic leader" vs "Messiah". BTW please don't try the trick of deleting Eisenman's quote on the grounds that it is a "passing remark". First, that is a subjective evaluation. Second, all quotes are passing remarks: it is the reliability/notability of the source as a whole that is relevant not of each line of the source. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The above statement regarding the responsibility of citing sources by Michael C. Price runs directly contradictory to established wikipedia policy, as clearly and explicitly defined at Wikipedia:Verifiability. That page explicitly states that, and I quote, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material," which is the first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. I very strongly encourage Mr. Price to abide by this official policy of wikipedia.

Regarding his second claim, that, and I quote Mr. Price, "Citing two authors with divergent views in some areas is not OR nor synthesis", that statement is extremely ambiguous. However, the official policy at WP:SYN expressly states, and I again quote, "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research".

Once again, twice in the same post in fact, Mr. Price makes a statement of his belief which at least I believe clearly and explicitly runs contrary to official wikipedia policy. I believe Mr. Price might be very well served by actually becoming acquainted with these policies before deciding to make such statements in the future. John Carter 15:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Both paragraphs make irrelevant starwman arguments:

1. I accept responsibility: I'm just pointing out that it is shared by all of us.
2. I'm not advocating synthesis/OR by citing two sources to push a position that neither source makes. Instead I am citing two sources that take the same position.

I believe Mr. Carter might be very well served by actually reading what I write, rather than what he imagines I write. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to see that you are actually willing to take responsibility for your additions. For what it is worth, I am placing a comment on the Wikipedia talk:No original research#Synthesis? page regarding your assumption above. I believe we would all be well advised to follow whatever statements are forthcoming. Oh, and, by the way, by policy you have seven days to find that information, or it shall be eligible for removal. I will also be looking for the sources independently myself tonight, but I can't be sure they'll be readily available. John Carter 16:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: John the baptist as messiah, you can find the relevant Eisenman pages on this and Nishidani's talk page. The Tabor pages are quoted explicitly on this talk page. Do improve the article by adding them the references -- although you will find that the structure of the references (which I did not initiate) mitigates against such additions.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael, Eisenman does not call John the Messiah and even you admitted to it by trying to include "messianic leader" (and not Messiah) into the article. The trouble is not with the term "messianic leader" but with the fact that it is ambiguous (consider that another "messianic leader" appears in the article) - placing Eisenman's term side by side with Tabor implies that a "messianic leader" is something similiar to a "Messiah" - the root of the problem is your synthesis of Tabor and Eisenman when their theories are quite distinct. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a synthesis since the claims are distinguished and separately cited. That there is another "Messianic leader" or Messiah is irrelevant. -Michael C. Price ^talk 08:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Buried Angels

According to this page, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, the book Buried Angels seems to be a volume from a vanity press self-published by a party described as a Neo-Canaanite. Can anyone explain to me how this source, which was identified on the page above as being "not reliable" and "definitely a vanity press" is somehow still included in the article, as it seems to be clearly and explicitly far from a reliable source? Should I not receive an adequate response within 24 hours, I will remove the source and the information sourced by it. John Carter 17:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no material in the article that is solely dependent on Rabinowitz (apart from the archaeology section, which I'm not bothered about). If you think otherwise, quote the text here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, that section is the only one which specifically cites him as a source. If you have no objections, as indicated above, to removing that material, then there is no reason not to remove it, and I am doing so now. John Carter 15:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In the end I do not object to the removal but I thought this went way too fast. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The sentence "Poverty, especially characteristic of the early Christians of Jerusalem, evoked from the Pagans and Jews the contemptuous appellation of "the poor" is missing a secondary subject, and the sentence does not make clear who the latter clause is referring to. The phrase the "self-given term of pious Jewish circles" is at best vague, and merits improvement. Also the phrase, "the term" is used to start the fourth paragraph. The term in question itself should probably be added for purposes of clarity. The last sentence of "Religious perspectives" at present is an incoherent run-on sentence. I'd fix it myself if I had any indication what it was trying to say, but I regret to say that I can't be sure based on the current structure of the sentence.John Carter 18:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Two of the eight paragraphs in the "history" section are devoted entirely to the ideas of two modern writers, Eisenman and Tabot. Another paragraph in "Judaic and Gnostic Ebionitism" seems basically based on the writings of these two individuals, with another name added as well. I believe that such overemphasis on two individuals in a topic which has had as much written about it as this one may very well be a case of undue weight being placed on the ideas of these two individuals. I would very much welcome some information as to why the writings of these two individuals are given such possibly excessive weight in this article. John Carter 18:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just the view of two individuals. They are the tip of scholarship which includes Hyam Maccoby, Martin A. Larson, James H. Charlesworth and Keith Akers and no doubt many others of which I am unaware.--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, they are not "they" but Eisenman is Eisenman and Tabor is Tabor and either has quite distinct ideas. Secondly, they are the tip but not simply of scholarship but of fringe "scholarship, as is Maccoby. There is definitely an undue prominence of these guys in the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet the only judgement so far has found against the "fringe" claim. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What judgement are you talking about? Tabor the looney endorsing Eisenman the looney? Str1977 ^(talk) 12:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How short / convenient your memory is: "This isn't a case of WP:FRINGE. There is constructive progress, but this article may suffer from WP:OWN. Some of Ovadyah's citation requests for every subclause border on WP:POINT.[10] If a source is given at the end of a sentence or paragraph describing a view, you do not need to give a source for every phrase of that sentence. The question will be whether the cited authors' position is or is not fairly summarized, but it is not constructive to litter a short paragraph with a whole bunch of citation requests (come on, WP:UCS?). dab (⁳) 10:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)" I look forward to hear the squealing that dab's being quoted out of context. :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Two points. In at least one of the cases referenced above, I am aware of the author making only a passing reference to this theory in the book of which I am aware. However, basically, right now, I regret to say that I have only your word, and no content in the article itself, on which to conclude you might be accurate. That is not sufficient for wikipedia standards. Please feel free to introduce citations, by page and direct quote preferably, to verify your contention. As is, we have no references to verify such a statement. As I am sure you are aware, there are a number of "theories" out there regarding this subject, many of which are seemingly at least partially directly contradictory, and as such it is a subject about which there is currently substantial disagreement. In cases like this, wikipedia is best served by the most thorough referencing possible. John Carter 20:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't just have my word : you have the articles about them and the links therein. Your final point is correct, but I'm in no rush to update the article, just pointing out that their views are not as fringey or isolated as some pretend. And of course their views are not in perfect accord, nevertheless there is a general view amongst them that sees the Essene influences on John the Baptist and/or James the Just, alongside Jesus, as important to the history of the Ebionites. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WP cannot be a reference for itself, Michael. As for the rest,, I agree with John below. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said WP could be a reference for itself. I just said that you don't just have my word for some of the claims I made. Good grief. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you mean the possible Essene influence on John the Baptist, as there has never been any such influence even remotely definitively established. And, of course, I do believe that inclusion of direct quotations and page numbers in the references is in this case reasonable. Also, there is the potentially very dangerous ground of trying to give an indication of unity where there is in fact only "general agreement". To phrase anything in such a way as to give the false impression of unity, when there is only "general agreement", runs the very serious risk of crossing the line into OR. However, I believe that we are more than justified in requesting such additions be made with all reasonable haste. Also, if your contention of Essene influence on John is to be included, then of course that too would require sufficient referencing. I do believe that simply mentioning the possibility of such influence, when in fact knowledge of the Essenes (if that is what the Qumranites were) is so minimal that so far as I have read, it may well qualify as POV pushing to assert such influence existed without also including clear statements to the effect that such influence is as best only theoretical. John Carter 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I mean possible, since that appellation applies to everything.--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Michael, the old song again and again and again. Not everything is just "possible" as some things are clearly attested by the sources. Of course, a scholar may doubt this as well but there is no basis (in reality) to put everything into the same pot of "we don't know for sure". Str1977 ^(talk) 08:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing "possible" with "probable" -- still. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And you have yet to point out how any of the arguments regarding John the Baptist are basically anything more than unsubstantiated conjecture on the part of an academic. As is, we have at best minimal creditable evidence regarding either the Ebionites or the Essenes. To somehow speculate that these two groups about whom at best minimal information is available somehow had specific influences on each other, despite the almost complete lack of substantiatable evidence for either one of them, is probably not overly supportable. Hugh J. Schonfield was a noted biblical scholar as well. However, you will find that his book The Passover Plot, which was basically pure speculation regarding a possibly conspiracy theory-type story of Jesus, and for that matter even Schonfield himself, are not even mentioned on the Jesus page, despite its much greater length. You are once again seemingly in the eyes of I think most everybody else here completely and utterly failing to address the official policy of WP:Undue weight. You do not have the choice to declare that a statement must be included to the degree that these theories are included on this page on the basis of, at least I believe, falsely citing NPOV when in fact the content for the theory you are defending seems to take more space than any other single source on the page. And this doesn't even address the fact that, basically, so far as I can tell, the source is based on little if anything beyond a simple "what-if" situation, making it in effect the virtual equivalent of The Passover Plot above. John Carter 20:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And you have yet to point out how any of the arguments regarding John the Baptist are basically anything more than unsubstantiated conjecture on the part of an academic. And I have no intention of doing so, since that would be to judge content, which you still don't seem to understand is forbidden on Wikipedia. It is sufficient that Tabor is a reliable and notable source on the subject.

Thanks for the mention of the "Passover Plot". I remember reading it some 20 years ago. And yes, I think it merits mention in the Jesus article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean possible, then surely you would have no objections to including such a qualification in the text itself, as you have said above that that is what you meant. John Carter 15:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Only provided that everything in the article is tagged as merely possible. It would be easier to have a blanket statement near the beginning of the article to that effect. Personally I find the need for such tagging redundant: just present all the views with citations everywhere; since they are contradictory it such be obvious they are all only historical possibilities. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that that is even remotely acceptable in wikipedia. Were we to take that attitude, then there would be no way to rule out the inclusion of the idea of the Ebionites being cannibalistic bloodsucking green skinned telepaths or any number of other patently absurd speculations which no doubt exist in the fringe world. It is reasonable and proper to differentiate between conclusions based on evidence, however lacking that evidence is, and suppositions and conjectures based on lack of evidence. Were we not to do so, there would be few if any articles in wikipedia which would make any sense whatever. I do not want to see articles saying that Abraham Lincoln communed with extraterrestrials, that Marilyn Monroe was killed after being found to be a vampire, or any of the other lunacy I have encountered over the years. It is fair, reasonable, and almost explicitly required to differentiate between ideas put forward in an article, based on the degree of evidence to support them and the comparative level of acceptance the idea has. That, is, in fact, exactly what the official policy of WP:Undue weight addresses. I believe we should differentiate between what facts as we have, such as the quotations in Irenaeus and others, the other sorts of evidence which may or may not support a given hypothesis, and the hypotheses themselves, based on the various degrees of credibility, evidence, and acceptance they have, based, wherever possible, on explicitly citable sources. John Carter 17:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You have that completely wrong: if the "idea of the Ebionites being cannibalistic bloodsucking green skinned telepaths " was reliably sourced -- which it isn't, of course, along with your other examples -- and notable then we would report it here. We would also report critiques of same theory which its notability would have generated. Your comment about Irenaeus is an attempt to judge content and synthesize based on primary sources; commendable for a researcher, but not acceptable here. This has all been gone over many, many times before. Read the talk archives. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

John, you don't need to read the archives because of this as you got it exactly right. Even if everything is doubtful, somethings we know clearer than others, some things are more speculative than others. And unproven theories built on unproven theories are not the same as clear statements by our sources.

AS for the grey cannibals, we may report such a claim if it reliably sourced and widely held. But we would not treat it as fact when we report another claim that, based on the idea that Ebionites are grey cannibals, deduces that they had red eyes. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael, your comment above clearly ignores the established wikipedia policy of WP:Undue weight. Given your insistence on preserving this, at best, poorly sourced information with such prominence in the article, I am beginning to wonder whether you are so unalterably committed to giving this matter the space in the article that it currently has that it might not be reasonable to believe that you may not be acting in good faith, or at least with any semblance of objectivity. The fact that you can cite one policy which is I believe clearly superceded by another, more specific policy, is not sufficient cause to ignore the more specific policy. We have already requested you to provide the verification of your statements that we will need to have to be able to assume how much space in the article should be devoted to that subject. Please focus on the matters at hand, and please stop attempting to raise what seem to me to be at best smokescreens to try to obscure the more essential matters. We will know how much attention the article will be reasonably able to give the theory you are so committed to putting forward when we know how accurately and widely the belief which you are so determined to make this article include is credited by the leading scholars in the field. Please focus on establishing the credibility of your arguments, rather than indulging in these seemingly pointless attempts to ignore appropriate policies. John Carter 14:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Your comment above clearly ignores the established wikipedia policy of WP:Undue weight." -- no, it was covered by the requirement of notability, in addition to WP:RS.--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

.Michael C. Pricewrites:-

Not just the view of two individuals. They are the tip of scholarship which includes Martin A. Larson, James H. Charlesworth and Keith Akers

To clarify. The tip (cusp, is the word you are groping for) of scholarship has no place for a vegetarian Keith Akers and an ex-businessman,Martin A. Larson, (who died before Eisenman published his 1997 magnum opus) both of whom dabble in theorizing about Ebionites. The cusp of scholarship is where people who have formerly mastered the relevant dozen languages required to understand the period we are talking of, stand.

Jacob Rabinowitz has a doctorate in classical Greek, but in literature, not in the quite distinct area of the history of Greek cult and religion, which requires different gifts. Formidable amateur student as he may be, he is no more accepted in that field than is Robert Graves who wrote 'The Greek Myths'. Graves was trained as a Greek scholar, but his 'Greek Myths' is never cited in the professional literature because it is a literary text driven by a patently false theory to support Graves' doctrine of poetry.

We are left with Eisenman and Tabor, the latter qualified, the formerly brilliantly so, but both exponents of a radical and eccentric reading of early Christian literature which has yet to find much support. Eisenman's books, further, should be handled with extreme care, and those without a professional knowledge of the half dozen ancient languages he uses for his theories should not cite him without availing themselves of the secondary critical literature reviewing Eisenman's theories. For eccentricity is, as we recall from John Allegro's mycological theory of Christianity, no stranger to biblical studies. Eisenman's theory is so reconditely intricate in its labyrinthine readings of little known texts, whose language is itself often the subject of intense philological dispute, that amateurs trying to cite the theory frequently come a cropper, as I think, has occurred in here. Many of his peers, Geza Vermes, for one, judge Eisenman's work as cranky.

So far as I have seen, (a) Eisenman and Tabor are conflated where their positions are distinct, on specious grounds, with an OR reading. Eisenman's theory is not widely accepted as anything more than a brilliantly idiosyncratic attempt to rewrite what he regards as a forgery, on the strength of a highly intuitive reconstruction, itself purely hypothetical and without normal critical methods of historical support. Jacob Rabinowitz's book is again outside the pale of mainstream scholarship, and has yet to receive, to my knowledge, anything but strongly adversative recensions. Thirdly, the reply to the charge of fringe-views being given undue weight (a correct surmise also in my humble view) consisted in a listing of three names falsely identified by Michael Price as being on 'the tip of scholarship'. Two of those names refer to amateurish fringe-movement writers with no knowledge of the languages, no grasp of the historical scholarship, and no formal training in hermeneutics, very much, excuse my frankness, like Michael Price. Nishidani 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who excludes people on the basis of being a vegetarian or an ex-businessman is barking mad. Thanks Nishidani for exposing your prejudices. And for pointing out that Jacob Rabinowitz has a doctorate in classical Greek. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Martin A. Larson should not be on the actual page. He was not a scholar. (2)Eisenman has since updated his view, so in a sense the large inferences Michael Price has, without convincing others who have checked the text, derived from Eisenman's 1997 work, will have to be corroborated by him by sourcing Eisenman's The New Testament Code: The Cup of the Lord, the Damascus Covenant, and the Blood of Christ.. That second book represents Eisenman's conclusions after a further decade of analysis, and has more weight for what he thinks than the now superceded 1997 volume.Nishidani 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

MichaelCPrice. This is one of the finest, quality pages Wikipedia has produced, and shows considerable scholarship and dedication on the part of those who have constructed it collaboratively. The subject matter requires highly technical analyses of recondite historical material, and to do that the scholarly secondary literature must be mastered, preferably by editors who have both some background in semitic and classical languages and biblical historiography. You have introduced two people Keith Akers and Martin A. Larson who lack these fundamental requirements for being taken seriously. Rather as if, in a page on String Theory and Physics composed by people with a grounding in those disciplines, someone were to adduce ideas about it by an auntie who loved knitting, and thought her experience in threading needles could be used to clarify Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, and an uncle who, from reading Parade Magazine (where Larson published some of his views), thought his expertise in cotton yarn could help in refining, by smoothing out the knots.

I am not an expert on Wiki rules. I have a degree in classical Greek and know what is, and is not, evidence in an historical field. I.e. academic conventions do not allow one, in writing up a thesis to doctoral level, to mention irrelevent bits and pieces of gossip from the fringes by people who lack all formal training in the subject under discussion. This means both Akers and Larson cannot be on this page. As to Jacob (we have no way of telling whether all or none or some of our speculations are correct*) Rabinowitz, I took the trouble to look at the reviews by several tenured scholars, who picked the book to pieces methodologically (citing his errors of reference, or noting his 'unscholarly willingness to view the evidence in whatever manner he sees fit.') We have gone through all this before Sir James Frazer, Margaret Murray and Robert Graves (to whose outlandish theories JR is deeply indebted), i.e. learned men without a minimal handle on standard methods of scholarly evaluation of evidence, driven by a pet theory to see evidence for their ideas everywhere. That Rabinowitz has a doctorate in Greek, specializing in literature, in no way makes him noticeable for what he argues on Greek religion, particularly when his contributions are dismissed by the best authorities in the field. ('In summary, . . (he) to be read too carefully because of . . numerous methodological errors to reward significantly the student of ancient witchcraft.', Derek Collins).

p.s. We all have 'prejudices'. One of mine is that cranks may be given a tolerant hearing in footnotes, at times, if they say one thing of interest that might have unexpected intuitive value, but that generally rules of method, and the shortness of life, do not allow us to admit ideas and evidence into complex technical arguments requiring long and deep training in highly specialized disciplines of knowledge. This is the case here. Only Eisenman and Tabor qualify, and they minimally for the reasons given, and only if cited separately, and not by a OR synthesis.

Another 'prejudice' is if someone relentlessly hammers home in courteous company an odd-ball, idiosyncratic theory, that lacks all purchase on recognizable scholarly realities, while proving deaf to all remonstration at breaches of customary restraints on insistently overplaying one's hand, while flourishing indifference to common criteria of reasonable evidence, he is defined as a bore. I know that, in saying this, I violate some wiki rule on assuming good faith, but so have you, in the persistence with which you belabour fringe theories on a subject you have no background in, by citing, in the main, people whose best qualifications on the subject lie in a publishing record in forgotten back issues of Parade Magazine and Reader's Digest etc, and when citing the few authorities you have read, citing them erroneously and attributing to them ideas that are yours, and which you have failed to demonstrate are shared by them.

• J Rabinowitz 'Hekate and her 'styles of piety'.ch.3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Maccoby and Charlesworth are published scholars, in addition to Eisenman, Wise and Tabor. Larson, Rabinowitz and Akers attest to the subjects' notability, in addition to their research. Hence they all merit mention. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael C. Price, you write:' Larson, Rabinowitz and Akers attest to the subjects' notability, in addition to their research. Hence they all merit mention. '

They don't attest to the subject's notability, any more that street gossip be cited to attest to the notability of Jesus Christ. The subject's notability is a matter of historical record. You are using them speciously to 'attest the notability' in order to smuggle in their irrelevant views on the subject. Let them in, and one opens the doors to every crank who has mentioned the Ebionates in his/her letters, pamphlets or self published books.Nishidani 10:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Do you understand what "notability" means?--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, we do. It refers to WP:NOTABILITY, which explicitly states significant coverage of a subject in reliable literature. The question here is what constitutes significant coverage. I do not believe that anyone would argue that a passing reference to a hypothesis in a scholarly work would necessarily qualify as "significant". After all, I know several authors who have mentioned in passing The Passover Plot and other works regarding Jesus, but those mentions are not so important that they require that the subject be substantiatlly included in the article Jesus. We are attempting to determine exactly how much credibility and how substantial the sources which you have introduced are. That is why we are asking for the specific quotes and other information. We clearly cannot do so until that information is provided. I can and will review the materials myself, but I think that you would probably state that my conclusions were not to be trusted. That is why we have requested you to provide the information we need to be able to make a fair and reasonable judgement on that content. If you were to focus more of your effort in that regard, then I believe that this conversation would be ended much more quickly. On that basis, I would request that you focus your energies there, and refrain from the presumptuous, almost accusatory comments as per your last post above. John Carter 17:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I second John Carter's request. We need the precise quotes from both Tabor and Eisenman, with page references, for the synthetic passage under examination. I would add that, if you are not satisfied with the judgements that John Carter, or even I, might make, it should not be difficult to call in several other Wikipedians with a good track record for neutrality, adherence to the rules, and a knowledge of either the period or the Bible, in order to further evaluate the material, and whatever judgements we might make on it, which has been requested now for some time. I think it is a closed case that Akers and the other gentleman cannot be cited in this article, except perhaps in a section towards the bottom on modern 'Ebionite' cult revivals Nishidani 20:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out, the precise quotes & page numbers, relating to JTB's messianic role, are already on this talk page. If you have anything new to contribute on the subject then append it to the appropriate section. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael, please note that what was requested were the full quotes. To make it clearer, you have already attempted to include citations from a source who clearly and explicitly does not meet WP:RS sources as the sole source of the "Archaeology" section, with the possibly knowingly misleading qualifier that this self-published Neo-Canaanite were a "Biblical scholar". On this basis, I believe that we are more than justified in requesting that you provide the page numbers and the explicit quotations which you are using as the basis for the inclusion of this material, as you do not seem to have either the inclination or ability to make any determinations whether a given source meets the reliable sources requirements. This is not limited to simply your additions regarding John the Baptist, but in fact all of your additions. You have not presented the direct quotations which were I thought clearly and explicitly asked for. On this basis, I am becoming even more concerned about whether it is reasonable to assume that you are acting in good faith, or are simply trying to push a given point of view, given your apparent absolute refusal to even consider how the official policy of WP:Undue weight would apply to the information you are seeking to see kept in the article. Please alleviate these concerns by presenting the information requested. I aJohn Carter 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr Carter, did you actually read what I wrote? On the subject of "JTB as messiah" the precise (i.e. full) quotes and page numbers are already here. Make a contribution at the appropriate talk section / add the page numbers to the article. I'm not going to run around repeating the same arguments endlessly. We can broaden the subject to include other citations as well -- although you will probably find they have also been discussed elsewhere. But let's compartmentalise this by dealing with the JTB question first.

Smearing me with accusations about the archaeology section leaves me mystified. First, the section no longer exists. Second, I had nothing to do with it when it did. So just what is your beef here?????--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I thought any reasonable person would understand that, in an instance where new evidence is available which would seem to perhaps mitigate the degree of reliability which had earlier been placed on other sources, that it would be reasonable to provide a forum for centralized discussion of them, by, in fact, placing the quotations under dispute in a single, hopefully current, location, so that all parties who might be coming into the discussion might be able to quickly, at a glance, see the sources referred to. Perhaps I was wrong. Considering that the quotations are in fact from sources you have cited, I thought it most appropriate that you be the individual who would make the quotations available on this page, so as to remove even the hint that the person placing the quotations there might have in some way misrepresented the previous statements. That would also allow for easier referencing, as well. And, please remember, that the purpose of these questions is to determine exactly how the official policy of WP:Undue weight might apply in this instance. By the way, I acknowledge that the history indicates that the "Archaeology" section was added by another party. However, I believe that you will also note that the section was added over 1000 edits ago, and that it could reasonably be understood that someone might make mistakes in finding the exact time any given statement was added to the article, particularly with the article having undergone substantial restructuring over that period. I believe that the request for centralized discussion is reasonable. Perhaps, we might even follow your suggestion regarding the citations of the Baptist first. However, as there is a very real chance that other parties may be coming into the discussion for the first time, and that there have been so many edits regarding this subject, that it would be reasonable to, as it were, at least present the earlier discussions in a comparatively straightforward way. And, for what it's worth, I expect to be adding the exact quotations to justify the inclusion of the data from the Encyclopedia of Religion this evening. The only reason I have not done so to date is that I have been considering whether it might be possible to present the article in full in a specific location, perhaps on a user subpage, so that it would be readily accessible to all parties during the time of the discussion. I do not believe that such however would be possible. I will however present the statements I propose to add, with the specific page number (not hard, they're all in the Ebionites entry anyway) and exact statement from the original to support it. John Carter 15:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Having looked over the prolonged discussion of John the Baptist as founder and messiah in the Essenism section of this talk page I find it counterproductive to cut a paragraph out of context. It will save more time in the long run if the people interested in disputing this point make the effort to locate passages and then read all the dialogue that ensued. And then make any contribution at the appropriate place. If you want to avoid all that, see Tabor's views about John the Baptist as the founder of the Ebionites here. And note that Tabor frequently speaks of the Messianic movement as a movement of "Two Messiahs" (John the Baptist and Jesus), for example here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally cannot see how the above answer can be taken as any way as indicative of good faith. The above user has simply repeated arguments about inclusion of data which honestly doesn't even necessarily belong on this page, and once again reiterated his own statements without including the quotes specifically asked for before he could once again indulge in his off-topic comments. It is certainly possible that we could request a Request for Comment on Michaels behavior if he persists in attempting to dodge the pertinent questions asked of him. It is also possible that, potentiallyl, we could proceed to ArbCom which could take definite action regarding such blatantly nonresponsive, evasive comments. I very sincerely urge Michael to address the issues raised, and not once again try to derail things by such blatantly non-responsive, off-topic comments as the one above. John Carter 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not dodging anything. I have already pointed to where the page numbers, quotes and discussions exist. And I explained why I didn't want to conduct the debate elsewhere. Why don't you take up the discussion threads that are waiting for you in the Essenisn section of this page (i.e. not very far away). --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you have not pointed to them. If you are really really unable to repost the quotes and point us to the archives, then you should go to the archives (or rather the history) and link to the edits in which you posted them back in the day. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did point to them when I said they were in the Essenism section. And no I do not wish to cut and paste them because that would move them out of context and lead to further confusion (of which we have already had an example). And as you know the debates took place over a quite a period of time with a considerable number of contributions: it simply is not practicable to cut-and-paste. BTW we not talking about *archive* material here. Use the talk page sections as they are intended. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Michael, the apparent concensus is that you should. In this case, your apparently sole dissenting opinion is of little if any consequence, particularly considering that this is yet one more time in which you are apparently clearly and explicitly indicating that you consider your own opinion to be of greater consequence than what seems to be the existing consensus. I believe that continuation of such behavior could very reasonably, and in fact almost certainly proves, evidence of lack of good faith. John Carter 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael C. Price You write:-

'I'm not going to run around repeating the same arguments endlessly. We can broaden the subject . . . But let's compartmentalise this by dealing with the JTB question first.

No. You cannot 'broaden a subject' and 'deal with the JTB' question when a very specific clarification on a passage is required, in that it appears, as shown above, to violate Wiki rules, since you may well have made a synthesis, based on personal inferences, of two distinct scholars' ideas. To 'broaden the subject' means to avoid answering the query about your violation of these rules, wriggling out of the doubt by changing the subject. Persist in refusing to cut and paste the evidence (if it is, in the form we ask for, available in the talk records) is evidence of uncooperative editing and bad faith. Either by cutting and pasting, or several minutes of retyping, you can provide us with that simple set of texts, surely a time-saving way for both you and others, for the clarification asked of you? I take it that if you refuse to do this, the contested passage can be eliminated, since your silence would suggest you can not justify it in terms of the rules of composition some see as having been compromised there Nishidani 15:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have more productive things to do than to respond to the demented ravings of someone who thinks that scholars can't be vegetarians. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you do, such as directly responding to the requests to substantiate your own conclusions. And still you refuse to do the things directly requested of you, and indulge in these silly little disparaging comments. We would welcome your actually doing the more productive things you have to do, but somehow you refuse to do so. Why, I wonder? John Carter 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already substantiated my position. And I have indicated (repeatedly) where you can find this substantiation and debate. You claim I "refuse to do the things directly requested of you" yet you do not do the things I directly ask of you (such as pick up the existing threads on this page). I would welcome your actually doing the more productive things you should be doing, but somehow you refuse to do so. Why, I wonder? --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As has already been explained, to you, it would be best if you did so yourself, so that any claims on your part that your previous statements were misrepresented would be clearly untenable. Also, it appears to be the consensus of the majority of the editors here, with yourself being the sole explicitly disagreeing party. For the purposes of demonstrating your own good faith, something that has been explicitly questioned here, I would think that you would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate good faith. In fact, failure to do so can be taken as at least potentially yet another indicator of the opposite. John Carter 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply Michael C. Price's remark on 'Tabor's views about John the Baptist as the founder of the Ebionites here. And note that Tabor frequently speaks of the Messianic movement as a movement of "Two Messiahs" (John the Baptist and Jesus), for example here. --Michael C. Price talk 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC'

What I, and I think John Carter as well have request is, to repeat, a justification of the following passages:-

“In contrast to the re-judaizing "degeneration" view, scholars James Tabor and Robert Eisenman argue that the Ebionites developed from non-gnostic messianic Essenism,[7][6] being initially the Jewish followers of John the Baptist,[6][7] whom they regarded as a priestly Aaronic Messiah[7] or Messianic leader[6]. After John's death they continued to follow the ministry of Jesus, who had been baptised into the movement by John, and whom they regarded as the royal Davidic Messiah[7]. These scholars relate that, at some point around this time, or slightly later, the movement organized itself into communes in several cities.[24]”

This is the text to be verified. In your latest reply, you speak of only Tabor, but refuse to provide the corroborative evidence from Eisenman to justify your 'synthesis' of their two respective positions, a synthesis apparent in the Ebionim text as it now stands. I.e. you are again being evasive about the gravamen of the charge you do not have proof for what is asserted in the Ebionim text, which, in its first sentence, contains three propositions.

In this text, there are three primary assertions which the editor who wrote it maintains are shared by James Tabor and Robert Eisenman. In order not to leave any margins for ambiguity. The three propositions are said to be found in both James Tabor’s book, and Eisenman’s book (1997)

You now do not cite either book (Eisenman is cited in the text) in your reply to our request for evidence to substantiate this passage. Instead, what you supply is fudging and two links, one to a James Tabor page, the other to an ABC interview, both only for Tabor’s view. To simplify. The first sentence has three propositions.

The propositions are.

(a) the Ebionites developed from non-gnostic messianic Essenism

(b) the Ebionites were originally the Jewish followers of John the Baptist

(c) the Ebionites regarded John the Baptist as a priestly ‘Aaronic Messiah/Messianic leader.

(a) On Tabor’s page ‘The Jewish Roman World of Jesus’ , we read (1) ‘The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of (Jewish/Israelite) followers of John the Baptizer and later Jesus. (2) 'The Essenes were a wilderness , baptizing, new covenant, messianic/apocalyptic group’ dating back 150 years before the births of both Jesus and John.(3) ‘John the Baptizer seems to arise out of this context and rekindle the apocalyptic fervor of the movement in the early decades of the first century C.E,’ (Essenism is the context of John the Baptist’s apocalyptic fervour). (4)Since terms like ‘the Poor’ are shared by Essenes and the ‘Ebionites’, ‘you might call the Jesus movement a further developed messianic "Essenism", modified through the powerful, prophetic influence of Jesus as Teacher.’

Comment: There is neither here, nor on the ABC article page you link, any reference to ‘non-gnostic’. The evidence you provide shows that (a) could be a simplistic summary of what Tabor is said to think in these two links. No mention of Eisenman, as required. (Eisenman indeed makes the Essenes contemporary with early Christianity, unlike Tabor who places the floruit of the community at Qumran 150 years before the births both of John the Baptist and Jesus)

(b) is not, from the linked page given, what Tabor says. Tabor says there: ‘The term Ebionite . . . was taken from the teachings of Jesus.’ Since John the Baptist died very early in Christ’s ministry, according to the Gospel account, how can they who were called Ebionites after a passage in one of Christ’s teachings, be called the Jewish followers of John the Baptist? After all, Tabor, in that same article, only says ‘The earliest followers of Jesus were known as Nazarenes, and perhaps,later,, Ebionites’. Tabor also says that:

'I use Ebionite/Nazarene as an historical designation to refer to those original, 1st century, largely Palestinian followers of Jesus, gathered around Yaaqov (James) in Jerusalem, who were zealous for the Torah, but saw themselves as part of the New Covenant Way inaugurated by their "True Teacher" Jesus..'

Comment. No mention of John (that, I presume, is inferred from the 'twin messiah' theory cf. (c)). This is therefore a synthetic judgement you make, confusing in its simplifications, which finds no corroboration in the popular texts of Tabor’s ideas you link us to. Again, no mention of Eisenman, as requested.

(c) ‘Tabor believes that, contrary to the New Testament, Jesus and John the Baptist were twin Messiahs’ (ABC News article).

True, this is mentioned as Tabor’s view in the ABC report. But, again, no evidence is adduced that Eisenman shares this view. (Eisenman, in a stray remark, can be construed as defining John the Baptist as just one of many messianic figures. He, to my knowledge, does not speak of ‘twin Messiahs’. In Tabor's two articles, furthermore, there is no mention of an 'Aaronic' figure.

To sum up, in (a) the word ‘non-gnostic’ is not justified by the two texts from Tabor, and no evidence is forthcoming Eisenman shares this view.

In (b) you clearly misconstrue Tabor, and no evidence is forthcoming from Eisenman for the view you attribute to Tabor

In (c) Tabor says this. Eisenman doesn’t.

You were asked to clarify our impression that you had made a ‘synthesis’ of two authors, attributing to one what you had inferred from the other. In reply you justified this procedure, not permitted by the rules, with the following statement:-

‘Tabor mentions Eisenman favourably in the introduction or foreword to his "Jesus Dynasty", so evidently he sees a conflatable synthesis there’.

Evidently means you infer from Tabor’s favourable view of Eisenman’s work that Tabor himself considers his work, and Eisenman’s work susceptible to a synthesis, which however Tabor does not provide, and which you endeavoured to construct, only then to assert that this synthesis is already present in Tabor.

My analysis suggests that only part of sentence one in the Ebionate text you worked on can be reliably referred back to Tabor. There is no evidence any of it can be referred to Eisenman. Thus you are guilty as charged. You have forged the evidence, and fobbed it onto Eisenman, with a combination of circular methodology, illegal synthesis, misattribution, and misinterpretation.Nishidani 21:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to leave aside the "non-gnostic" issue "(a)" for the moment (since it is a broadening of the issue from the original focus on John the Baptist); and we need focus here, or we'll never get anywhere.

Michael, this is frankly not acceptable. No one other than you has stated that the "original forucs on John the Baptist" existed. A resonable discussion by definition cannot take place when 'one party clearly and explicitly refuses to respond to the points made against him. In fact, such an obdurate failure to respond to reasonable questions can be taken as yet another indication of bad faith.John Carter 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It was the disputed quotes about John the Baptist that triggered this latest debate (the "issue" above). --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

However, the explicit request made to you was to answer all the questions raised, not just repeat earlier arguments. Should this behavior continue, this could reasonably be taken as yet another indicator of bad faith. John Carter 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Regards (b) and (c), they relate to the clause "being initially the Jewish followers of John the Baptist,[6][7] whom they regarded as a priestly Aaronic Messiah[7] or Messianic leader[6]." Breaking the clause in two:

Regarding ""being initially the Jewish followers of John the Baptist,[6][7]" I'll provisionally accept that the cite ([6]) to Eisenman can be removed, but the Tabor cite is accurate. And - to repeat myself - the page numbers and quotes about this are available in the Essenism section of this talk page.

The Tabor cite is also from what is very much a fringe theory. It has not been established that, whether accurate or not, that book qualifies for inclusion in this article. Please address the substance of the complaints made against your position, rather than once again trying to engage in misdirection. John Carter 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

With regards to "whom they regarded as a priestly Aaronic Messiah[7] or Messianic leader[6].", these are both accurately sourced. You know the page numbers and have the full "Messanic leader" quote from Eisenman on your own talk page (which is linked, and partially copied, to this talk page debate above). The "priestly Aaronic Messiah[7]" comes from Tabor, but not from the ABC article nor the link I directly gave JC - those links were not offered to support the "Aaronic" proposition. Which illustrates the perils of debating this out of context; again, though, this issue has been discussed before and the thread is still open in this talk page (as you know, since you contributed to it). Take the debate there.--Michael C. Price ^talk 05:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy is not important when there has yet to be any reasonable assertion that the sources included even remotely meet the standards of WP:RS. Once again, I ask you to please deal with the substance of the complaints, which are whether these seemingly almost completely unsourced, speculative hypotheses of this one individual who has no status as an expert in the field merit the disproportionate coverage that they currently have. You have once again completely refused to respond to the essential point made, and even the title of this section, which is, in the event you forgot, "Undue weight". Please address the issue at hand, and cease these incessant attempts at misdirection. Also, please provide evidence how Tabor meets WP:RS criteria, which would have to be met for him to be given the amount of weight which he currently receives. John Carter 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael, failure to address all the points raised against you would have to be taken as further prove of your failure to be acting in good faith. Please note that you have already been described on this page as having repeatedly violated several wikipedia policies. Violating more will not help your case even remotely. John Carter 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"You know the page numbers and have the full "Messanic leader" quote from Eisenman on your own talk page (which is linked, and partially copied, to this talk page debate above)" - whose talk page? Str1977 ^(talk) 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani's [3] Note the Eisenman two page numbers (and quotes) right at the beginning that it is claimed I am not supplying. Also linked from the Ebionite talk page Cite_verification_-_ground_rules. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

But you are not supplying them. You are time and again sagin that you have already provided them but you have done so elsewhere and even then you did not point us to them - only after my question are you doing it now. But even then, I find references to pages 62 and 60 but no text to go with page 62. Page 69 is amply discussed but also amply it is made clear that Eisenman is not saying what you want him to say. PS. Please don't close the gap between this line of discussion and the "shall we" posting below. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Shall we now proceed to separate Eisenman and Tabor?

Eisenman should come first since Tabor agrees with what he wrote and adds his own specifics.

That is the root of the synthesis: Tabor endorsed Eisenman, Eisenman did not endorse Tabor.

The non-gnostic in Essenes is questionable anyway as it suggests that the Essenes were, at least partly, gnostic. A view at best quite removed from scholarly consensus if not alltogether nonsense.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, "non-gnostic" is to contrast with the "gnostic" theory presented elsewhere in the history section. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what the passage says. It talks about "non-gnostic" Essenes as if there were gnostic Essenes. Also, according to what someone wrote above, the "non-gnostic" is not found in the reference. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The last point above is very important. If the reference does not substantiate your assertion in the text, then by definition the text must be removed. John Carter 20:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible additions to text

I have found what I consider to substantive, well-sourced information regarding the subject which I would like to have considered added to the text. What follows is not a word-for-word quote from the source, but rather an approximation of what I would think to add (or modify) to the text. Please inform me if this meets with approval.

Introduction:

Ebionites (Greek: Ebionaioi from Hebrew; אביונים, Evyonim, "the Poor Ones") is a word used to describe at least one early Jewish Christian sect that lived in and around Judea and Palestine from the 1st to the 5th century CE. What information exists on them comes from the mid second to the mid fifth centuries, scattered throughout that time. On that basis, several have concluded that the term was used to describe a single group. It is impossible to create a continuous history for the group, however. It has even been suggested that the term was not in fact used to describe a single group, but rather a term used to describe a number of Judaizing Christian groups over that period.

Some modern scholars have attempted to reconstruct the views, practices and history of the Ebionites, drawing on the Church Fathers as well as additional sources. However, the origin, history, and distinctive characteristics of the Ebionites remain subjects of intense debate within the academic community.

I would also add changes to the effect that while the Ebionites are as stated, often distinguished from the Nazarenes, as well as the Symmachians and Elkeasites, the terms are not used consistently and it is difficult to draw distrinctions between the various groups. In fact, it has been suggested that the term may simply have been used to describe any form of Jewish Christianity which emphasized the need to observe the Jewish law. Other information from the source which might be considered relevant would be to change the statement that they accepted only a Hebrew version of Matthew, but perhaps a gospel which may have been similar to the Gospel of Matthew, but did not include the narrative of the virgin birth and Jesus' infancy." It also states that specific observations included circumcision, keeping the Sabbath and celebrating the Jewish festivals (like Yom Kippur and Passover) and observing Jewish dietary laws.

The source is the Encyclopedia of Religion, editor in chief Lindsay Jones. Detroit:Thomson-Gale, 2005. ISBN 0-02-865997-X. The entry itself was written by Robert L. Wilkin in 1987, according to the text. Most of the other entries from the volume I have are of later dates, however, which leads me to think that Jones did not think the entry itself deserved updating. Make of that what you will.

Thank you for your consideration. John Carter 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The passage is contradictory. It says, without a qualifying source, "It is impossible to create a continuous history for the group, however." and goes on to say that this is precisely what some scholars have attempted. I.e. it is judging content, which is forbidden.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not contradictory, at all, in any accepted use of that word. The author simple states that a continuous history is impossible because sufficient sources to write one are lacking from the historical record. Which is true. Notwithstanding the absence of necessary evidence for a continuous history , some scholars endeavour to reconstruct the views, practices and history', and they do that by hypothesis and illations, which are interesting, but not, properly speaking, 'historical'. Tutto qua

In the meantime, you have been asked to provide information and justifications for apparent violation of Wiki procedural rules, and have failed to come up with either evidence or reasoned grounds for those editorial intrusions.Please address the requests, and, in the meantime, remove Akers and Larson, who are not simply up to snuff for a serious encyclopedia article on the 'Ebionites', and must be removed Nishidani 09:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed those requests. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You are again using the word 'address' wrongly (as with 'contradictory'. All you did was answer a request by saying 'we' would look at it', or repeating a view contested for lack of adequate wiki evidence or for contravening Wiki rules. Repetition of a contested POV is not tantamount to addressing one's interlocutor's demand for evidence. Nishidani 10:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All the additions which I added are explicitly sourced in the volume cited. The attempt above was only a rough approximation of the text which I would ask to include. And it should be noted that I can, at request, easily provide explicit quotations from the text which will verify that the data proposed for inclusion is based on the text. What I had asked was, as I thought, an attempt to discuss additions to the text. I expect that the phrasing would require work, and I did not in any way think that that first attempt at phrasing would be the final draft included. And the source itself makes the statement that it is impossible to trace a countinous history, explicitly stating that there are only three or four contemporary sources over a period of some three hundred years. Also, I believe that as a matter of logic, it makes sense that individuals who are primarily interested in "putting down" opponents will not necessarily use the most accurate, but most emotionally charged, language. Athanasius of Alexandria is said to have accused virtually everybody he disagreed with as being Arians, whether they agreed with Arius or not. In recent years, certain evangelical Protestants have branded as Catholic anything which preserves some of the ritual or hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Such instances of inaccurate language are clearly regular enough to be accepted, and possibly even expected. And, of course, I would welcome any constructive changes to the text, to make it fit more clearly into the existing text. I personally think that the word "Symmachians", which was used in the text cited, might be replaced with "followers of Symmachus the Ebionite", as we don't have content related to "Symmachians" per se, and I honestly don't know who the Elkeasites are, and I can well understand removing that reference if we can't amplify it beyond the simple name. Also, for what it's worth, the source referred to three specific gospels which the Ebionites used, although few if any references exist to them to be able to differentiate them. It did not however go into any detail about them. The sources cited in that book might do so, but I didn't check them. I think it might be worth mentioning that they did have multiple "gospels", but that details regarding them are lacking. John Carter 15:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotations are as followed, from pages 2595 and 2596 of the volume cited. By the way, an additional reference from 1999 was added to the text, indicating that it was reviewed, and, evidentily, not necessarily requiring updating. Anyway, the quotes are as follows: "Ebionites is the name given to a Jewish Christian sect that flourished during the early history of the Christian Church. The origin of the term, a Hebrew word meaning poor persons, is obscure. It may have been an honorific title given to an original group of Christians who were Jews living in Jerusalem that needed assistance from Christians elsewhere in the Roman Empire (Romans 15:25, 2 Corinthians 9:12.)" ...The term was first used by Irenaeus.... "Some later writers used it ironically to refer to the poverty of understanding of the members of the sect, who did not believe that Jesus Christ was the divine Son of God. ... The origin, history and distinct character of the Ebionites have been subjects of intense debate ... They are sometimes identified with the minims (heretics), mentioned in the Talmud. The Ebionites were Jews who accepted Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (Christ) while continuing to maintain their identities as Jews. They cultivated relations with Jews as well as Christians, through they were welcomed by neither. They followed the Jewish law, insisting on circumcision, keeping the Sabbath and celebrating the Jewish festivals (Yom Kippur, Passover), and observing the dietary laws (e.g., abstention from pork), and other Jewish customs. ... Besides the Ebionites there were other Jewish Christian sects, such as the Nazarenes, the Symmachians, and the Elkeasites, but it is difficult to distinguish one from the other, and the names are not used with any consistency. Ebionite is the most common designation, and it may simply have been a term used to characterize any form of Jewish Christianity with a stress on the observance of Jewish law. They repudiated the apostle Paul because of his denigration of the Jewish law. They saw Jesus as a prophet, an exceptional man in the line of Jewish prophets (as described in Deuteronomy 18:15), and denied the virgin birth. They justified their way of life by appealing to the example of Jesus' life: he was circumcised, observed the Sabbath, and celebrated the Jewish festivals, and taught that all the precepts of the law should be observed. They celebrated Easter on the same day that the Jews celebrated Passover, and they held the city of Jerusalem in high esteem. ... Information on the Ebionites is scattered over three centuries, from the middle of the second to the middle of the fifth, suggesting that the sect had a continuous history from the earliest period. A continuous history cannot be documented, however, and it is more likely that the persistence of people called by the name Ebionites is evidence that within Christianity, in spite of the break with Judaism and the bitter polemic against Jewish practices, there continued to spring up Christians who believed that one could be a Christian and still observe the Jewish law. ..." I note in the text the reference that Jesus "taught all the precepts of the law should be observed." I believe that this would make them distinct from mainstream Christianity, which did not teach that. Presumably, as well, that information would be based on a quote from one of their books. Anyway, that's my source. John Carter 23:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin A. Larson

I have removed references to Martin Larson in the text itself. The text as it was written gives the mistaken impression that Larson is a scholar in the field. He is described as having a degree in English literature, not even remotely relevant to the subject at hand. While he has written on the subject, his name would I think only merit inclusion as an individual who was knowledgable in the field, and wrote several volumes, but whose work is not necessarily scholarly or particularly reliable. John Carter 20:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed another reference to him as well. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How to proceed

I believe we now have two matters before us. One of these is in regards to the fringe theory which has been integrated into the article, and how to remove whatever text and other content the article may have regarding this subject which would be seen as being WP:Undue weight. The other is whether or not to proceed with any disciplinary actions regarding the individual who seems to have violated several wikipedia policies. I believe the three options open to us are Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, and Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. I would welcome any responses. John Carter 14:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(a) The fringe theory stuff is not proper to a densely analysed historical problem, as any more than a one liner of the type: 'In modern times, the use word 'Ebionite' has been loosely appropriated by a variety of fringe religious groups.' Mentioning them, is like mentioning every movement, tens of thousands, which identifies itself with Jesus. The article is about the historical reality of Ebionism. The best solution would be to create a link at the bottom of the page to a new article 'Neo-Ebionism' and let adherents to those various fringe groups rip and rap on it.

I suggest using all three. The editor in question has proven deaf to all technical remonstrance, and evidently does not understand the subject, and the wider problems of historical criticism associated with it. Michael Price still refuses to supply, on pretexts of varying kinds, the precise pages and their words, he employed in his meaningless and misleading synthesis. That this is a OR synthesis, cloven-handed at that, has been amply demonstrated. I cannot help on which recourse should have priority, since I know virtually nothing of these procedures. But I think some attempt should be made to have him abstain from the page for some months, since his presence here is holding up the near-completion of the page to the top quality it aspires to.Nishidani 14:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Community Enforcable Mediation can only take place at the express willingness of all parties involved. Michael Price has already first agreed to, and later withdrew, from regular mediation, and there is no reason to think that he may not act similarly again. On that basis, I personally favor the latter two. I think ArbCom is the more generally resorted to means. The Community Sanction Noticeboard primarily is used when the editors of wikipedia believe that a given editor should be blocked. I think it can also be at times the quicker means of resolution. I do believe that the question of showing that the rules of wikipedia have been violated, which is required for ArbCom, shouldn't be a problem though. I guess the main question could be do we have enough editors to make the request for Community Sanction seem to be broadly-based, and/or do we want to perhaps take a bit longer for the benefit of the added formality of an ArbCom case. John Carter 15:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings John Carter and Nishidani. You guys are doing a terrific job! I just stopped by to weigh in on this important issue. I agree with John that Community Enforceable Mediation is a waste of time. Michael Price would never agree to abide by any punitive recommendations regarding user conduct. I am fully prepared to give whatever testimony is required for ArbCom or Community Sanction Noticeboard. I favor the approach that will lead to the most permanent solution. Ovadyah 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Though I am open to all three measures, I cannot see how a mediation would work given one party's unwillingness. I must agree with Ovadyah on this as I must joyfully at his comments about the "terrific job".

I am proposing fixing the problems still present in the article, rectifying the information to factual accuracy, NPOV and due weight. And if that is blocked we can consider disciplinary measures.

As for the neo-Ebionite passage, I would leave it like this. It is basically only giving a link.

In the history section Eisenman and Tabor must be separated and also condensed, if possible. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a request for arbitration as per here. John Carter 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Ovadyah. Count me in. I'm extremely reluctant to take exclusionary measures in almost any area, thanks to early instruction from the works of René Girard and those of many others. But, on the other hand, the obdurate attrition at work here threatens to drive out people of pronounced scholarly temper. Both they, and the page, must be, in this case, defended from the harassment of stone-deaf incompetence. Perhaps a note should be dropped on the talk pages of all those involved constructively in building this page, in order to give full leeway to a democratic decision. Nishidani 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 You write: 'In the history section Eisenman and Tabor must be separated and also condensed, if possible.

This shouldn't be too difficult. The Eisenman-Tabor section must be completely recast, collaboratively, and the simplest way to do this is to make (1) a heading for the indefensible passage. (2)Separate, as you suggest, Tabor and Eisenman's views (3) Give the relevant text, with exact page numbering from both authors' for whatever is to be written in there to replace the unworkable synthesis we have detected.

With the evidence thus shared, in full view,we can arrive at a proper rephrasing of the section, which respects both authors, and is not a subjective synthesis. One point, Eisenman has weighed in with a new and voluminous tome (2006, noted above), which I have not as yet been able to get. That should eventually be scrutinized and taken into account. Regards Nishidani 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I can get ahold of the new Eisneman. It would help however if someone would make a clear statement of what positions Eisenman had taken earlier, so that I could respond directly to them. It would be I think inappropriate for me to make assumptions as to what was stated, and that's why I would like to have a specific list of the points made so that I could respond with a, hopefully, equally specific list of points regarding his most recent statements in the subject. John Carter 20:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding leaving notes on the talk pages of those who constructed the article, I've already done that. John Carter 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Profound apologies to all those who may have been misled by my admittedly false statement above. I regret to say that I am not as current on all the details of the new interlibrary catalogs as I should be. I noted the new Eisenman book was listed as being in the "Mobius" cataglog at http://mobius.missouri.edu/search/ as being at Washington University in St. Louis and/or Assembelies of God Theological Seminary in Springfield, Missouri, and assumed that meant it was at both. It is in fact only at the AoG seminary in Springfield, which I discovered when I came to the Washington University library this morning when I looked for it. As a non-student, I have been informed that they would not request the book for me either. My apologies for having jumped to conclusions regarding my clearly woefully inadequate grasp of this particular interlibrary system. My profound apologies to all concerned. John Carter 14:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have Eisenman's new book "The New Testament Code". I don't have time to go through it cover to cover, but I can find out what he has to say about specific topics as needed. Ovadyah 20:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Speculation of any parties has no place receiving substantive coverage in a wikipedia article

I don't think that any policy or guideline allows a wikipedia article to make mention of outside works which themselves have at best little if any sourcing. I do note that the majority of the content which has been basically agreed to deals at least to some degree with the minimal facts about the subject which are known, and the other relevant facts which can be reasonably concluded from them. I cannot see how anyone can defend the inclusion of material from any source which does not in and of itself have any sort of reliable sourcing. It is worth noting, again, that none of the "connections" of John the Baptist or the Essenes to the Ebionites can even be said to be suggested by the available evidence. Pushing inclusion of a single POV in an article on the pretext of that single, conjectural, POV, somehow being a "balance" of other potentially POV material which directly deals with the known facts of the case, is I believe something that would uniformly be seen as a perversion of the NPOV policy. It is not the place of MichaelPrice to attempt to unilaterally dictate the rules of wikipedia so that his pet theory can be included. I believe that the existing consensus on virtually every other article of the major articles of wikipedia would indicate this to be the case. And I note that he has stated above that he has no intention of giving any reason to defend why this basically purely conjectural, speculative hypothesis to which he is so adamantly dedicated should be included on any substantive basis. Unsubstantiated speculation on anyone's part, even an academic's, has no place receiving the percentage of article space the speculation regarding the Essenes and John the Baptist has in this article. I believe any claims to the contrary should point toward a specific precedent which is directly applicable to this case, instead of once again seeing the mindless, almost ritual claims of NPOV. And if Michael wishes to assert otherwise, then I believe a much better place to make such a case would be at the Jesus article, regarding the addition of information regarding the Passover Plot. That would receive a much greater degree of attention, and thus be a much better gauge of receptiveness to this seemingly original claim that speculation deserves a place in these articles, than does the attempt to dictate policy by including such unsubstantiated speculation here.

Also, please note that Eisenman's claims of John the Baptist and his putative refusal to recognize the mission of Jesus "backing up" the theory of the Mandaeans, as per recent comments on Robert Eisenman's talk page, yes, by me, indicate that the comments in the article are almost completely counterindicated by the overwhelming consensus view of virtually the entire academic community. And, yes, I will provide the corroborating citations there if such seem to be indicated. However, in this case, I think anyone with even a minimal acquaintance with the literature and history of the Mandaeans would know that already. However, the fact that the author made such completely "original" statements in the first place I think very seriously calls into question his status as a reliable source. John Carter 21:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tabor was already widely cited in the article before I ever edited it; all I did was to present his views more accurately. As for Eisenman I only cited him with reference to his input on John the Baptist and James the Just. His views on Jesus are not relevant here. Finally the comment "Unsubstantiated speculation on anyone's part, even an academic's,, has no place [...]" indicates that you are still trying to judge content which is expressly forbidden. Sources are allowed to speculate, we are not. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact the claims I am making are entirely in accord with official wikipedia policy, a policy which I and others have explicitly referred to several times, WP:Undue weight. I would strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the subject. If you already have, and have found yourself incapable of understanding it, then please request assistance. I say this only because despite that official policy, which is directly relevant to the issue here, being cited to you repeatedly, you have yet to offer, as far as I can remember, a single direct response to or even acknowledgment of that policy. John Carter 14:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

you have yet to offer, as far as I can remember, a single direct response to or even acknowledgment of that policy -- that's because John Carter's continued assumption of bad faith blinds him to the facts: I have repeatedly cited Tabor's notability as justification for the weight given to his POV in the article. (I am assuming that issues such as WP:RS are not a problem, since Tabor was cited all over the article before I came along.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael,

it is simply not true that we are robots that can only parrot what others (the so-called "sources") say. We are human beings writing an encyclopedia and what you call "judging content" is in fact the attempt to represent all notable (judgement!) views in the proper manner (judgement!). So "to judge content which is expressly forbidden" is another of your though-up nonsense rules, just like "reporting (primary) sources is forbidden" and "everything is dubious".

I agree with you that we cannot simply exlude speculative views but we owe it to the reader to then inform them about the nature of the claims made. Speculation is not scholarship. Distinguishing the two is not endorsement.

Finally, it is simply nonsense when you write that Eisenmans "views on Jesus are not relevant here" - why are they not relevant? This is the article on the Ebionites and this way or that way Jesus was quite important to that Jewish-Christian group. So if Eisenman is at all relevant to the article his views on Jesus are as well. You do not rectify the presentation of Tabor by including things he doesn't state nor by attributing Taborite thoughts to Eisenman. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason Michael says that Eisenman's "views on Jesus are not relevant here" is because Eisenman questions whether Jesus existed. That view is inconsistent with Tabor's (and Michael's) view of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah. Michael can't claim that Eisenman and Tabor are in agreement unless he selectively throws this out. Ovadyah 14:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Str1977 above, that at least mention of such ideas can reasonably be included. Unfortunately, a fully accurate heading would have been even longer than the existing one, and I chose at least a little brevity over total accuracy. Also, if the above statement that Eisenman disbelieves in the existence of Jesus is true, then I believe that there can be no statement that the parties are in any sort of real agreement on this subject at all, given the huge disagreement on one of the fundamental premises. It would be like saying that two people who agreed the sky were blue were in agreement on the subject, even if one of them believed that the sky was in fact the skin of a blue-skinned goddess and the other thought the color were due to absorbtion of light in the atmosphere. In fact, I have every reason to believe that such an attempt would constitute an attempt at a novel, and possibly false, synthesis of ideas which would almost certainly definitely qualify as OR. John Carter 14:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as long as we now know what you meant you can go being brief. As far as Eisenman on Jesus goes I now understand Michael's remark better. It is indeed not directly relevant to the article if Eisenman thinks Jesus didn't exist (from my reading however that is not what Eisenman thinks - he merely doesn't rule out the non-existence) BUT it is quite relevant to the discussion here as it clearly shows (once again) that Eisenman and Tabor do not agree. They have some things in common (the axe to grind mentioned below, a tendency to prefer speculation to the actual sources) and Tabor endorses Eisenman in his book even though their views are not identical. But they are two guys with two views. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 is correct about Eisenman, so I need to qualify my statement about Eisenman's view of Jesus above. My read of Eisenman's view in his book on James the Just is that Jesus' existence, even if true, doesn't really matter because James is the Righteous Teacher, and the driving force behind early Christianity. He regards Jesus as a merely symbolic figure, real or otherwise. What he certainly does not do is identify Jesus as the Davidic Messiah. That is all Tabor. Ovadyah 16:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

John, Eisenman and Tabor need to be separated. They hardly share common views about anything, except a common axe to grind against orthodox Christianity. That is the thread Michael is attempting to weave into a sythesis (that Christianity is a false religion), grouping disparate sources to make it appear as though this is the prevailing view of modern scholarship. Ovadyah 15:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. That is probably also why he wanted to represent Tabor-man as the scholarly view and all other scholars merely as parroting Christian tradition. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Amen, amen. Ovadyah 16:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again you are all spinning off into ad-hominem speculations (although it is quite entertaining to read them). I have never said that Tabor's POV is the "prevailing" scholarly view. Obviously it isn't. But it is a notable, reliably sourced view and hence deserves reporting in reasonable depth. As for Eisenman vs Tabor, clearly they have divergences, but where they agree I cite both together, where they disagree I cite them separately. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And none of your opponents ever aimed at removing a proper coverage of Tabor. Your edits certainly made Tabor play first fiddle in the concert of "scholarly view" with others serving to confirm him. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we are actually trying to get you to address real concerns, in clear accord with wikipedia policy. I do note that you have once again failed completely to even remotely address real, valid, policy-centered concerns with these attempts at misleading. And notability does not mean that any content deserves being addressed in reasonable depth in the central article, which this is. It may deserve reasonable attention in a separate article, perhaps linked to or in the same category as this one, but that is another matter completely. Once again, you are appearing to indicate that you cannot perceive the difference between notability and undue weight. If you can, and you are simply misrepresenting yourself for whatever reason, there is clearly no reason to assume good faith. If you cannot perceive the difference between the two, then there are real questions about whether you should be the person deciding anything regarding this or any other subject here. John Carter 21:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So why was the article peppered with Tabor citations before I came along, if his views are so undeserving of reporting here? --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Produce verification, please. And note that answering a question with another question is hardly anything anyone would call a true response. If you are willing and/or able of responding directly to a question directly put to you, now might be the time to prove it, by responding to the last question I placed above, in addition to producing verification of your statement just above. John Carter 22:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes answering a question with a question is appropriate; my question is pertinent and to the point. As for verification, I'm sure you can find the old version of the article as quickly as I can. But if you really have a problem with the history function, let me know. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"I'm sure you can find the old version of the article as quickly as I can" - if YOU make a claim, it is YOU who should back it up. It is not the job of others to confirm or disprove your claims. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that such verification was provided more an hour before Str1977's complaint. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my claim about the article being peppered with citations. In fact there were none, but a very interesting article it used to be [4]. Tabor's POV that the Ebionites were followers of John the Baptist, as well as Jesus, was displayed in the first paragraph of the lead. The second paragraph featured (exclusively) the views of Eisenman. All I am trying to do is restore the balance that has been lost and I am accused of bad faith, pushing a fringe POV, not understanding undue weight etc. Perhaps you guys should do some self-examination. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael, no one hear (not me at least) considers you the "root of all evil" in this article. There have been bad editors before and sure the version you linked to was a POV mess. But currently it is you who is blocking the improvement of the article in various ways. Others may have done this before and quite possibly in worse ways, but it was you who wrote an intro that pitted "Christian tradition" against "critical scholars" (by which you meant those rejecting the traditional narrative and those thinking the Ebionites more faithful) - you also rewrote the history section so that Tabor-man would precede the more common view on the Ebionites. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There was not a POV war going on at the time and Ovadyah and Loremaster were two of the principal contributers! I did not rewrite the intro as you describe; as for rewriting the history section, all I did was place two adjoining paragraphs about Tabor/Eisenman in chronological order. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)]].

So you did not rewrite the intro? See this. It is a small change and the previous version was not ideal either but you certainly pushed it further.

So you only ordered the paragraphs chronologically - well that is already POV pushing if there is no consensus timeline agreeing with you or, even worse, if the common view contradicts your time line. The "chronologically earlier" passages belonged to the view of Tabor, not of Eisenman. Ordering the two in chronological order is part of creating a synthesis. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I do not call making a small change a "rewrite".

Ordering the paragraphs chronologically is not a synthesis, any more than the reverse order was. I just thought it clearer to talk about John the baptist (c 30) before James the Just (c 60). Good grief. WP:UCS. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, small changes sometimes have a big impact. Reordering as you did is POV pushing and synthesis: there is not problem in relating one theory about the Ebionites' history in chronological order (and hence the other - not reverse - order was not en par with yours) - but there is a problem in drawing this item from one theory and that item from that theory and then order them chronologically, especially if the earlier item is even more fringe than the latter. You might still not get it but only your hero Tabor includes John at all - putting John first because he lived first is endorsing Tabor - maybe some weirdo would claim that Ezra founded the Ebionites and according to your logic he should be put first. No-no! Str1977 ^(talk) 10:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If it helps the discussion, parallel versions of the text are archived on Ebionites/wip. There you can view the FA version of the Lead, History, and Views and Practices sections along with more recent versions. The current text has much of Michael's mischief cleaned up by reverting to the FA version. I'm sure he would waste no time restoring the disputed content. Isn't that right Michael? Ovadyah 14:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)