Talk:Ebionites

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)

Apropos Arbitration

I wrote this for the Arbitration page, but have posted it here since it would appear from the rules that once a statement has been made there it should not lead into a discussion. It is in reply to Michael C. Price

DBachman's opinion (and it has weight),now cited by Michael Price, that this article may suffer from WP:OWN, referred to Ovadyah's requests for precise documentation on a specific argument. However, Since Ovadyah's requests have since been shared by several other people, the WP:OWN cannot surely apply to Ovadyah (I hardly think 'collective ownership' is the point here, either, since those same editors frequently disagree among themselves, but have managed to achieve a consensual mode of editing). If anything WP:OWN could bear on Michael C.Price's ultramontane defence of a passage he has admitted was a synthetic construction based partially on his own inferences, precisely the point made by all others party to this dispute. Secondly, Michael C Price's complaints about the reduction, over time, of Tabor and Eisenman's presence, and his defence of his editing as an attempt to achieve balance by reincorporating them, appear to ignore, for want of a better word, the problems of fancruft, to which indeed the same DBachman alludes on his homepage as a problem. Nishidani 11:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

ps.I do not personally think your problem is 'bad faith'. I think the problem is you have not the slightest idea of why other editors challenge you, and you do not understand standard methods of historical analysis, involving the balanced sifting of evidence, the attribution of primary weight stringently to the evidence, and what it can and cannot allow us to infer from it. Eisenman rewrites the evidence speculatively because he considers the primary evidence doctored, and imagines a different story to the one narrated, and therefore has to be handled with extreme scruple. Tabor instead goes far far beyond what little evidence we have. Technically, the two, though accomplished scholars, hazard hypotheses that fail, to use an idea you once cited, Popper's verifiability criteria (note in particular that the radiocarbon evidence Eisenman pressed for, when done, contradicted his own beliefs. What did he do? He challenged the results and methods. Popper used to have a field day with that kind of gamesmanship). Nishidani 11:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct Nishidani, the arbitration page is not an arena for us debate in. Surprise, surprise, it's here! Some points:

1. You ignored the first sentence of dab's judgement. "This isn't a case of WP:FRINGE."
2. Your assessment of Tabor and Eisenman is judging source content. Forbidden. Absolutely forbidden. They are notable, they are reliable sources, they represent the tip of a broad corpus of biblical scholasticism. End of story.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note these comments from dab himself [5], regarding this discussion, in which he states he "did not in fact conclude that MichaelCPrice had in fact provided sufficient references as he appears to make out in his statement" and that the quote from Tabor is, again quoting, "completely insufficient in terms of WP:V if challenged, because it attributes specific points to entire "books". ... This will not do at all. The burden of providing page numbers and if necessary verbatim quotes (to avoid misrepresentation of an opinion) is on the party wishing to point to those sources, in this case on MichaelCPrice." I think I trust User:Dbachmann's assessment of his own statements much better than anyone else's, including MichaelCPrice's. John Carter 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with Dbachmann: I have never used dab's statement to imply that page numbers were not necessary. In fact when the subject came up just recently for the nth time I agreed (again) that page numbers were required for all the citations. That is an ongoing program for the future. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael, nowhere do I see in wikipedia policy where any individual can write off direct challenges to the credibility of his sources as "an ongoing program for the future". I think your case would be much better served if you focused your attention on producing the required sources now, rather than attempting to fob them off into some point in the indeterminate future. Failure to do so, particularly after even the only individual who seemed to agree that the citiations weren't an immediate need, can and may well be seen as yet another indication that perhaps good faith is not to be readily found in your actions. John Carter 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Before we can add page numbers to the citations we need to collectively agree on how this should be done. If we add them to each citation then the grouping of multiple citations together in the reference section will be lost; each cite will appear individually. Is that what we want? I don't mind either way, but we all have to agree beforehand.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I hope eveyone will pardon me for saying your last statement above looks to me like one of the most pathetic attempts at evasion I have ever witnessed in my life. However, if you find the matter of formatting of references to be even more important than the factual content itself, which your comment above indicates, then please produce the page numbers and quotations on the talk page. In any event, your question above is in no way even remotely just cause for delaying what is now I believe clearly and almost universally seen as being the necessary production of the information to verify the inclusion of this content. John Carter 20:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Michael for this discrete page referencing much earlier, without significant reply, so I join John Carter, and request once more that you take the contested passage, which you defend, paste it in here and supply the notes for each assertion or proposition, with accompanying text.That will upset no one, and finally give the objective evidence, verifiable to all, for that contested synthesis. This is the premise for the discussion, none other. If 'each cite appears individually' I have no objection, and I gather neither does John Carter. If Str1977 and Ovadyah drop a note of assent, then you will have the go-ahead to quickly wrap up this troublesome niggling, in the way that doesn't trouble you ('I don't mind either way'). For the first time we shall have achieved a consensus on which, here, you say you will readily act.Nishidani 20:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Any assent required of me to go ahead I gladly give.

I agree that the issue of formatting is no reason not to provide the requested information.

But to answer Michael's question: once we have assembled the references with page numbers we can look at them and if the same sets of pages appear repeatedly, we can group them together. For instance, if we have serveral references to page 21, 22 and 24 we can mege the references into a single footnote. But again, the question is no reason not to provide what is asked of you. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, add the page numbers to the article. However, I echo the comments of the other editors in pointing out that this is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Michael, it has been requested repeatedly that you provide the specific text from the source along with the page numbers to support your justification for reintroducing disputed material into the article. Failure to comply is a willful disregard of Wikipedia policy. Either prove on this talk page that Eisenman says John the Baptist is a Messiah or remove your false claim. Ovadyah 19:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even without their explicit agreement, the fact that neither one disagreed to my adding a similar quotation above regarding my subsequent addition to the article is I think clear evidence that such behavior is acceptable in their eyes. So, yes, Michael, please, with all due haste, produce the evidence which you said you would be willing to produce. I cannot imagine that anyone would object to the presence of such quotations on the talk page first. And, in fact, it is perfect in line with procedures regarding proposed additions, with the exception in this case that the additions are already there. John Carter 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I shall ignore the continuing further assumptions of bad faith, although how my closing statement that "I don't mind either way, but we all have to agree beforehand." becomes "one of the most pathetic attempts at evasion I have ever witnessed in my life" is quite beyond me. As for producing page numbers I have already provided them on this talk page. If there is no new discussion at the appropriate places within, say, 24 hours, I shall start adding them to the article as requested. Thank for your cooperation. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note however that what was indicated as being required was not simply page numbers, but the exact quotations themselves. Please do add all such content as required. It was pointedly and specifically noted that the page numbers and exact quotations were what were called for, and nothing less, under the circumstances, can be seen as being sufficient. John Carter 15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The last time I supplied exact quotes in reference strings / citations the quotations were deleted. Sort out the issue amongst yourselves. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be disconcerted, if I didn't have a pronounced funny bone in my cerebral cortex, by the alacrity of trumpeted triumphalism which titivates your attempted riposte to my remarks.

You remarks only underline my points. That you do not have the slightest inkling of what, in the human sciences (as the French call them), constitutes the formation of clear, technically qualified, writing on a historical subject.

I'm glad you note I'm correct, particularly since, unlike most others, it was you who made several major statement changes there, changing a statement into a discussion forum, whereas the others mainly corrected small elements of phrasing, or spelling.

re point 1. If in replying to someone, a correspondent had to cite and comment on every word and phrase ('you ignored the first sentence') dialogue would be meaningless. But since you jump at the omission (trivial) I will reply.

You note DBachman said 'This isn't a case of WP:FRINGE.' DBachman is one administrator, with a very substantial wiki record. He is not the Pope. Tabor and Eisenman, young man, are not 'fringe scholars'. Their theories are 'fringe theories', because they have very very little echo in Biblical scholarship. Check any Biblical journal for frequency of citation on critical areas (as opposed to desultory reviews).

This fact of major scholars producing fringe theories is a commonplace in science and the humanities, even. To note just the present field, Barbara Thiering, a highly qualified scholar, made a big splash in 1990 with a book on Jesus, as did John Allegro much earlier. None of these works is considered as a serious contribution to the subject. They are fringe theories that kicked up a controversy and quickly died, just as Tabor's theory (I suspect) will. Mark Twain, a brilliant writer, thought Shakespeare was Edward de Vere, as did another accomplished writer with similar gifts for creative fantasy, Sigmund Freud. Their names are endlessly adduced by de Vereans as evidence for the seriousness of the claim. The claim is rubbish, and the theory a fringe theory, despite the hype and rumble.

You write 'Your assessment of Tabor and Eisenman is judging source content. Forbidden. Absolutely forbidden.'

Rubbish. Where is the rule that says someone not contributing to a page, because it has been, despite your efforts to the contrary, already handled by excellent editors, cannot intervene and post his understanding of the issues on a talk page? I don't need to 'assess' Tabor and Eisenman. They have already been amply assessed by their peers, and gotten the thumbs down. Learn to read. When I say that Eisenman doesn't accept the historical evidence as it has been handed down to us, and rewrites it, that is not 'an assessment (or . .) judgement of source content'. If you knew Eisenman's book well, you would have realized immediately, for this and other statements I make, that I am merely paraphrasing what Eisenman himself says (i.e., to cite what he says of Acts 'one of the most successful rewrite enterprises ever accomplished.' (p.963). Not accepting these rewrites, he then backwrites the text to reconstruct it in various points according to his vision (unverifiable) of what the original text underlying the palimpsest he says we have, must have been. Since we don't have the originals of the NT, all such hypotheses of reversion must remain at the level of mere hypothesis, of which Eisenman's is an extreme example. To note that is to note what critics of his work remark on, and thus is not 'judging source content' but echoing source critics on his use of sources.

You don't understand the texts. You have no knowledge of the primary sources in their original languages. You don't seem to understand that Tabor and Eisenman can't be conflated. You have no understanding of scholarly methods. Little wonder you cannot even understand what I or anyone else writes in contemporary English. You can't even distinguish 'scholasticism' from the proper word that fails you as you write the 'end of (the) story' ( your fairy tale), i.e. 'scholarship.' I'm beginning to suspect that you are more interested in transforming the Ebionism page into your own private talk show, and that you brandish your obtusity in order to rope guileless others into appearing on it, from the wings, as you play the compere at centre stage, and profit from their patient queries to bignote yourself.

Sorry for the tone, but 'quanno ce vò, ce vò', as they say in Trastevere.Nishidani 12:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that, if anyone can find any of the academic reviews or other discussion of any of the books included on this page, quotes from those reviews or discussions indicating what the reviewers think of the books is almost certainly directly relevant to the article, so long as extensive quotations/citations from those books are included. Also, in response to Michael's vapid repetition of "Forbidden. Absolutely forbidden," I would like to point out that judging whether content should be placed in a given article is, by the policy he has to date shown absolutely no understanding of, WP:Undue weight, almost, "Required, Absolutely required". I once again offer the possibility of explaining this policy to Michael, as he has to date shown absolutely not the faintest grasp of it. John Carter 15:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it impossible to believe that a person of Michael's intelligence can't understand a simple concept like undue weight, particularly after it has been explained several times. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that he refuses to accept the principles of undue weight because it allows other editors to resist the inclusion of his fringe ideas into the article. Ovadyah 20:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to your ad hominem speculations.--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No one feels comfortable with ad hominem speculations, though, in exasperation, faute de mieux, driven to them out of an inability to persuade the other to desist from ad libros (actually de libris) speculations. Come now. No one doubts your intelligence, as the record shows. The wish is only that you display some sign of respect for the intelligence of your varied interlocutors.

Remonstration affirms a lingering faith in dialogue, and thus in the person. Only silence speaks the idiom of contempt. Nishidani 20:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So does ignoring core Wikipolicy, when it has been explained numerous times. I'm not sure if you understand that not judging content is a fundamental core non-negotiable policy. Do you think I'm making this up? --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael C. Price. You don't seem to understand anything here at this point. As someone, who, despite a critical awareness of the extreme difficulties and technical dangers in Eisenman's approach, was fascinated years ago by his hypothesis, I entered this Talk Page to mediate on your behalf, showing a willingness to give your take on that work a solid hearing. I did not interfere with the page, except to correct a spelling anomaly. Wiki policy on editing refers to rules of drafting the page, and therefore if you accuse me of violating one - content judgement - that in no way affects those who have worked on the page, or the controversial passage, since I haven't touched it. What I did was to give you a thumbnail sketch of why many authorities in the world of Biblical criticism consider Eisenman's hypothesis an unreliable source or at best, one to be handled with extreme caution. I expounded these considerations on this talk page. I did this because you do not seem to know (1)where Eisenman is coming from (2) as proven, you misinterpreted his text, understandably so since even the best of critics have difficulty in parsing its meaning and its implications, and (3) you ignore, in calling Eisenman's work something that represents the 'tip' (cusp) of a considerable hermeneutic consensus, Eisenman's own affirmation that his work does not represent a 'consensus:-

Almost everything in the book, from the restoration of James to his rightful place . . to the elucidation of the Dead Sea Scrolls in a manner at odds with dominant scholarly comsenses, will occur outside the traditional or received order.' Eiseman,James the Brother of Jesus p.xxxvi

Here you have Eisenman explicitly admitting that his work runs in the face of scholarly consensus, (2) that scholarly elites (the consensus) have dominated a docile public and that (3) he trusts in a knowledgeable and enlightened public to break the scholarly consensus, implicitly in this last affirmation (ibid) by using the enlightenment his anti-consensual POV provides them in order to break the bonds imposed on them, as a docile public, by a long tradition of accomplished scholars. This is Eisenman's POV, that his book is a fringe theory designed to convince a docile readership to challenge the standard authorities in the field. You have risen to the bait, taking up the banner of a 'non-consensual' theory to challenge the 'docile public' of other editors caught up in the magical thrall of mainstream scholarship, being yourself neither a trained hand at the subject nor someone (see the record) who actually understands the problems and implications of Eisenman's work.

Eisenman has the intellectual courage to assert his ideas are wholly out of whack with the scholarly consensus of the subject. All your critics in here take him at his word. You do not. You keep insisting he is at the forefront ('tip' ) of a growing scholarly consensus which includes Keith Akers (a vegetarian who knows nothing about the subject), Larson (sp.) who had a degree in English literature and wrote for Parade Magazine on a field he had no academic training in, long before this book by Eisenman was published. Like you I am personally intrigued by his thesis. Unlike you, I take to heart the comments of those many authorities in Eisenman's field, the Geza Vermes, Antony Saldarinis and others, who document the errors, oversights, methodological incoherencies, who reviewing him as a peer write that 'his conclusions are improbable, his arguments incoherent and his prose impossible,' and warn the reading public against a naive embrace of what is a fringe theory. Unlike you, I do not run to the Wiki rule book to try and justify myself. I simply, on the talk pages, try to tell you to shake off the spell of enchantment by looking at the larger literature, and to take into serious consideration the challenges which a scholarly consensus has laid in Eisenman's way. What you object to as an illegal 'judgement of content' in my remarks on this Talk Page' dialogue I have endeavoured to make with you, is nothing more than an objection to what Eisenman himself says, which I paraphrase, and what his major critics say, which I also paraphrase. That you should find it objectionable that someone on a talk page should remind you of what Eisenman thinks, and his critics say, and that you should atribute both opinions to me as a judgement of source content instead of being a construal of the state of the academic debate, shows once more that you grasp for straws, using an 'ad hominem' argument to undermine the pertinence for the page you are drafting of what the 'scholarly consensus' (not mine) says on Eisenman, a consensus which, greatest of all ironies, Eisenman readily recognizes Nishidani 09:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Four points:

1. You are allowed to say whatever you like on the talk page, but when you suggest removing content from the article based on your judgment, that is where you run afoul of Wikipolicy against judging content. Of which I shall remain critical.
2. How mainstream Eisenman is in some of his views is entirely irrelevant when the cited views overlap with other scholars. (Which why, Ovadyah, they are only "mentioned in passing".)
3. I do mean tip, not cusp. Tip of the iceberg, you see. E.g. the view about Essene influences on early Christian origins. Hardly an isolated view. In fact mainstream, according Vermes whom you so adore ".... More precisely, in some organizational, administrative and cultic respects it is probable that the nascent Jewish-Christian Church modelled itself on Essenism (or whatever name is to be used for the Dead Sea sect). Such views represent common knowledge among scholars investigating the relationship between the Qumran community and Christianity,...." That Vermes is also critical of Eisenman (and Wise) for other views (see previous point 2) reinforces his acknowledgment of the mainstream nature of the bedrock they are working on.
4. I'm sorry to see you still sneer at "Keith Akers (a vegetarian who knows nothing about the subject)". Well you are entitled to your views, but don't expect me to take them very seriously until you show signs of a more mature approach. And that's my judgement, here on the talk page.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(A note on what follows. It replies to the following remark by Michael Price which is substantially shorter than the text above, which was reelaborated after my comment below. Unless this is clear, the talk will become nonsensical. He wrote:-

Three points:

You are allowed to say whatever you like on the talk page, but when you suggest removing content from the article based on your judgment, that is where you run afoul of Wikipolicy against judging content. Of which I shall remain critical.

How mainstream Eisenman is in some of his views is entirely irrelevant when the cited views overlap with other scholars. (Which why, Ovadyah, they are only "mentioned in passing".)

--Michael C. Price talk 09:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Nishidani 10:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC) )

No, this wikilawyering won't work either. I am not on the record as advising that 'content be removed' from the article. I am on the record as asking you to get your personal syntheses to respect the evidence and the distinct views of scholars instead of manipulating them in a personal POV of the argument. Tabor and Eisenman of course stay on the page, but not in the way you have engineered their views to appear as identical and thus to create the false impression of a 'consensus' in what are independent fringe theories (the ostensible aim, my inference, being to undermine the prevailing academic consensus).

I am on the record as analysing why that content, as you phrased it, was a personal synthesis (violating wiki policy) you made of two distinct theories, in which you conflated, on the basis of personal inferences or OR (violating wiki policy) books, attributing the views of one scholar, Tabor, to another, Eisenman. At this point, I suggest you just take a deep breath and review the record for the arguments of substance, and not 'frig' about in this pettifogging manner. You have allowed that what what you did was a synthesis based on personal inferences. Now you are trying to invalidate my analysis (on the talk page) and therefore retain on the Ebionism page a conflation you virtually concede was an illegitimate synthesis of the OR variety.

Your second point is incomprehensible.Nishidani 10:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I may chime in on the second point. I do not understand the first part either but I applaud Michael's vocabulary knowledge. Still, I see now relevance to the issues discussed either.

As for the second part, referring to Vermes. Again, Michael is hijacking a scholar. He has done this before, so here we go again. Vermes concedes a possible Essene influence regarding certain elements. Vermes is not per se "the mainstream" but he is a good enough witness that such things are discussed among respectable scholars. Of course, the scholars disagree. OTOH, there are only possible influences from the Essenes to Christianity but also from other groups and, more importantly, there are things in which Essenes and Christians were diametrically opposed. By only highlighting the influence bit (which Vermes worded in such a way as to emphasize that Eisenman is way-out) while staying silent on opposition you try to use Vermes as a ice-breaker for Eisenman, despite their opposition.

Finally, if you think that last remark was in bad faith, I want to tell you that if you only want to ensure a proper coverage of an Essene influence you are trying to break open doors. No one ever objected to this as long as it is on topic on the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 ^(talk) 11:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Michael C Price's second version of his recent post.

This increasingly sounds like washerwomen backbiting over the fence. Your altered post in no way addresses my points. You are attempting to introduce a wider argument I have not commented on, to insinuate I am disputing 'Essene influences on early Christian origins.' The intent, apparently, is to sweep under the carpet and hide from view the argument I made, which you partially accepted, that in the specific passage disputed, you make an OR synthesis. This is not the place for Hyde Park oratorical oneupmanship, but for specific points addressed correctly.

'Vermes whom you so adore'. I don't 'adore' any scholar. I love scholarship, and yes, I dislike blow-ins from pseuds' corner like Keith Akers being smuggled into an article that gives rightful place to scholars of distinguished intellectual accomplishment, like Vermes, and Eisenman. It's like citing Charlie Chaplin's views on de Vere as the author of Shakespeare's works. Nishidani 10:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, please. The "Essene influences" stuff was merely to illustrate the point of what I meant by "tip" (which you keep on bringing up). Note that the "Essene influences" views, which you seem to accept as mainstream (as do I), have been argued against here (by Ovadyah and Loremaster at least) before your time ad nausem; hence my raising it. Probably mostly before Str1977's time here as well (please, Str1977 your complaints that I'm "hijacking" Vermes is silly). --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it "silly"? Why are you then claiming inaccurately that Ovadyah and Loremaster have opposed an "Essene influence" in the sense Vermes uses the term. When you include this bit you rephrased it so that Vermes did partly endorse Eisenman and the two aforementioned editors objected to this (and so did I). And that's what I meant by hijacking. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Objecting to an individual possibly intentionally misrepresenting a source is by no means silly. It is, in fact, almost required if wikipedia is to be at all reliable. Rather than calling it "silly", I think rather calling it our duty would be more appropriate. John Carter 16:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Koshe Atika Me Chadtha.I'm interested only in your use of Eisenman. You admitted to conflating his distinct views with Tabor's, which is in violation of Wiki principles. Look up the diction post hoc ergo propter hoc used to explain common flaws in historical method, before tackling these arguments on the Essenes.Nishidani 14:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The dispute passage and Michael's evidence

(Since we have finally a full house consensus, reflecting both Michael's willingness to post his material, and our readiness to analyse its relation to the disputed section with him, I propose this new section, where, if I am not mistaken, the natural procedure would be to:
(1) paste in the disputed passage
(2) Below, for each footnote to the disputed passage in the Ebionism text, are to be placed the page references to both Tabor and Eisenman, on which each affirmation in the text rests
(3) For each footnote, the relevant text in both authors is to be supplied.
Over to you then Michael.Nishidani 20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The disputed material has already been posted and discussed. If you wish to continue the discussion, please go ahead and pick up the outstanding threads.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh! I am experiencing deja vu. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And whose fault is that? --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoever responds to any query by stating that he has already provided what was asked of him and does so repeatedly. That is not cooperative editing, especially if one first pretends to cooperate and asks questions about the formatting of the information only then to turn around and state that "the disputed material has already been posted and discussed" and that others "should work it out among themselves". Shall we take that to mean that you are longer trying to edit this article? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Whoever responds to any query by stating that he has already provided what was asked of him and does so repeatedly. " I repeat myself because the truth doesn't change: you already had the page numbers and quotes for Tabor's and Eisenman's claims about John the Baptist as messiah. It's not my fault if you are all unwilling or unable to find your way around the talk page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the person whose fault it is is the person who has specifically been told that what were required were page numbers and exact quotations, and who has refused to do what was clearly required. Specifically, the person who is at "fault" can only be presumed to be the person who has failed to do what was required of him, Michael. John Carter 15:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that almost all of the discussion from the talk page section on Mediation to this one was just to get the page numbers for one literature citation. This is what I mean by ceaseless edit-warring and an obdurate refusal to edit consensually. It is a flagrant example of bad faith editing by Michael Price. Now that we finally have the page numbers, I am repeating my request for specific content.

" Now that we finally have the page numbers" - you already had them previously. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, it has been requested repeatedly that you provide the specific text from the source along with the page numbers to support your justification for reintroducing disputed material into the article. Failure to comply is a willful disregard of Wikipedia policy. Either prove on this talk page that Eisenman says John the Baptist is a Messiah or remove your false claim. Ovadyah 19:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ovadyah, that text has been supplied. You should know because you (and others) have already argued about it here, on this talk page. Is it so hard for you to do a search for "messianic leader" (as the cite says) on this page?! --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read over the citations several times and I don't see what is being claimed. Four editors are requesting specific evidence, and you are adamantly unwilling to provide it. Why do you persist in your refusal to provide the evidence needed to verify of your statements? Ovadyah 12:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And whose fault is that? Michael C. Price

Look at the record. There is unanimity on this basic request by

Loremaster

User:Dbachmann

John Carter

Ovadyah

Str1977

Nishidani

My mother had a term for it. 'Everybody's out of step but my Johnny.'

Allow me, ex hypothesi, to make a casual machiavellian conjecture. You initially changed your tone, revealing a certain readiness to come to terms on the matters requested unanimously by others here, when the arbitration request was made.

Is it that you are backtracking and now refuse to go ahead with the evidence required for the text, after calculating that the present request for arbitration will lack the necessary quorum of wiki arbitrators, since only two so far have signed up?Nishidani 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, WP:CSN does not require any more than one admin to make a decision. That option has always remained open. John Carter 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I remind everyone that, based on the rules of WP:CONSENSUS, a reasonable case can already be made that consensus has been reached to remove all the disputed content, based on Michael's failure to produce evidence to support it. After all, consensus does not, acceording to that page, require unanimity, and, in this particular case, the only party who disputes the removal of the content seems to be someone who has, at least unknowingly, very likely violated at least guidelines, and possibly/probably official policy, by the structuring of the content included. On that basis, I believe that it can very reasonably be said that we are all being more than lenient with Michael. He himself set the 24 hour limit, and he has now clearly violated it. The question now becomes, will the rest of us do what I have every reason to believe guidelines and policy permit us to do, or will we continue to be lenient and allow the discputed content to remain. I personally would favor the latter option, provided Michael actually abides by his given word and produces the material he himself had said he would produce in a reasonable period of time. In this case, I would expect to see it in at most two days. After that point, I believe that we would be well within the bounds of policy and guidelines to remove the material until and unless the required evidence to justify its inclusion is presented. I believe that it should also be noted that Michael had specifically indicated he would produce the information within 24 hours, and has now clearly and explicitly gone back on that statement. I have no doubt however that he will attempt to justify his inclusion of only the page numbers as that was all he had said he would do, ignoring the clear statements that both page numbers and exact quotations were what was indicated as required. I have to seriously question whether such behavior is not a further indication of bad faith on that individual's part, making that party's necessary "partcipation" in consensus as per wikipedia policy even more questionable. John Carter 14:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks, I was under the impression that the request was for page numbers and the relevant passages. Thus far I knew that Michael was using pages 62 and 69 for the "Eisenman considers John a Messiah" bit. I saw 69 quoted by Michael (I think on Nishidani's talk page) but it did not support his edits in the least. I never saw 62 quoted so it is of the utmost importance that this one is quoted (or dropped).

Beyond that I was under the impression that we were not just talking about that passage but other passages relating Taborite or Eisenmanish views. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was also under the impression that the passages would be provided here on this talk page and not in footnotes. Longish quotations don't belong in footnotes at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do We Have Consensus to Remove the Inadequately Sourced Material?

The disputed material has not been sourced adequately, as per statements from knowledgeable parties above. On that basis I am now formally requesting that we attempt to determine consensus here. The specific question is whether we have cause to remove the inadequately sourced material from the article to the talk page, until and unless adequate sourcing for that material is provided. Please answer below by affixing your signature to the appropriate section.

Yes, the inadequately sourced material should be removed to the talk page until adequate sourcing is provided

• John Carter 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Ovadyah 15:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Nishidani 15:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Str1977 ^(talk) 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the disputed material should remain

• the material is mostly sourced, and improving. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

As it stands I think John Carter has good grounds for his proposal but I tend to think we should make this move after the arbitration issue is resolved or denied. It means another week, sure. If Michael's bona fides is in serious doubt, I should not like a precipitate measure to be taken that might put out our bona fides in a similar light. If a quorum for arbitration is not reached, then we have no option than to reiterate the consensus, which, if it perdures, allows us to remove the contested material off the page, to this talk page.Nishidani 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani. While we are well within our rights to consensually remove this material, we should give arbitration a chance to resolve the dispute. From practical experience, I can tell you that removing the disputed material will ignite an edit war. Michael will revert your changes and try to trap you in 3RR. I'm not interested in participating in endless 3RR wars, unless we are forced to do it to prevent further deterioration of the article. Ovadyah 15:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is now clear that a recommendation to proceed with arbitration is unlikely to reach a consensus in a reasonable timeframe to prevent demotion in FAR. Therefore, I am changing my recommendation and voting to proceed with removing the disputed material to the talk page. Continuing to argue endlessly is an unproductive waste of time and just fulfills a troll's need to cause further disruption. I think we have no choice at this point other than to just walk away. Ovadyah 15:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You were the instigator of the FAR process. Stop complaining, and don't use it a pretext for further censorship. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani and Ovadyah. There is no need to rush this. In the end material that is unsourced should be removed in general, with the common period of tagging to provide time for finding references. Even more so however should material that is not on topic. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The grace period for adding the required verification ends on Tuesday. Are there any individuals, other than Michael, whose additions are the ones in question, who believes that there is any good cause for not removing any adequately sourced material at that time? John Carter 15:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We should wait to hear from Str1977, but I'm guessing probably not. I still intend to track down some of the page references dab requested, but I won't have access to my library until the weekend. Ovadyah 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Understood, and I appreciate and thank you for the work you are performing. All parties should remember that the procedure which is likely to be followed is that the contested passages would be removed, and placed on the talk page here, until such time as they are adequately sourced or found to not be able to be adequately sourced. Any which cannot be adequately sourced will remain on the talk page, or transferred to the archives upon archiving. So the removal should not be thought to be any sort of "penalty", but rather simply what it is, removing inadequately sourced material for possible later reinclusion. John Carter 15:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that scheme. I do not strike my comment above as it was valid when I typed it but discussion here as moved on. I will place my vote above. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Come Tuesday, only citations that are tagged but unpaginated can be considered inadequately sourced, since we know that Ovadyah and Nishidani have copies of Tabor and Eisenman between them. Since it is possible I may not complete the pagination task by then I suggest that they supply the quotations they demand (from the page numbers supplied), or allow me the time to finish, as a gesture of good will. (I shall be to busy over the weekend to do much.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, please do not continue to presume to dictate to others what they can do. Beyond simple page numbers as per comments left to you on your talk page, your utter failure to have a single reference you cited to Simeon's status as brother of Jesus, from all the pages you cited, makes it quite clear to at least me that you are perhaps less than thorough in determining whether what you claim to be statements in the books you cite actually support your contention. There are several parties more knowledgable about these matters than either you or me, and I am thinking specifically about Dbachmann and several others, who I believe are much better informed, aware, and netural than either of us. Please do not continue to presume to dictate policy, when you have to date, at least once, yourself fallen far short of meeting the obligations dictated by that same policy. Thank you. John Carter 20:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your pagination procedure is useless, see below. Come Tuesday, the contested passages will have to be removed, because the pagination you are slowly supplying is merely copied, without checking, from the indexes of books. You flum about, and we are required to footnoteslog, when we now have several finely analysed examples that your use of sources is veined by misprisions, nonchalant miscitations and specious syntheses of the OR kind.Nishidani 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Michael is (was) busy but that is no reason to make exceptions. He had enough time to provide references and quotes for the claims in question but he started late on that endeavour. Also, unverified claims will only be moved to the talk page and can be moved back to the article IF they are found out to be correct after all. All that quite apart from my confidence in the suitability or reliability of the pagination Michael provides. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Insufficient notations

I have tagged those source citations which are not yet sufficient with the {{page number}}, which is the template which most closely approximates the required information for each citation, which is the specific quote from the relevant text. Better evidence will be produced or the text which these citations support will be eligible for removal. Considering that this information has already been challenged repeatedly, I believe one week is more than sufficient time for the relevant quotations to be produced, or the citations and the content they support will be removed. Also, for what it's worth, the entry from the Encyclopedia of Religion is from the "Ebionites" article. If anyone has a better understanding than I do of reference formatting, they are more than welcome to add that information. John Carter 19:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that any attempt to remove the disputed content will be met with the same response - endless revert-warring and 3RR traps. It won't matter how justified the reason is or if 10 editors are in full agreement. Therefore, you may want to consider a user-conduct RFC as an option before you make your changes. Ovadyah 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I see some of the text / page requests have been placed where there is cited link to online text available. Just what is the point guys? --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I obviously cannot speak for John and do not know what he had in mind but if that is so my speculation is that some of the online content does not actually reference what is claimed (at least in John's opinion). Maybe you, Michael, should clearly point such things out - but also John should explain. still, Michael, there is no reason for you to complain as you have done nothing to reference uncontroversially controversial claims thus far. Maybe you start with that. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

John is just being lazy. He assumes the online text doesn't supply the information. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So much for AGF. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I specifically told you on your user page Michael that what was requested were the specific quotations used to support these statements. I also specifically referred to "quotations" in the original statement of this thread. If somehow these statements were not clear to you then, they should be clear to you know, specifically as other parties have now also specifically requested exact quotations as well. John Carter 15:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

point by point

in my experience, in a deadlock such as this one, there is no way forward except patient addressing of each point separately. Instead of theoretically discussing over the ways of attributing a point, pick the first point treat it as a case study. Thus, I see "page number required" for the claim

"despite possibly being more faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus"

I might add that the "despite" is already a clear attempt at spinning in my view. The author seems to want to convey the opinion that it is somehow ironic that the Ebionites were marginalized because they "possibly" remained closer to the historical teachings of Jesus. Now quite apart from this matter of stylistics (I can see how it could be argued that it is ironic, but this would be due to a lack of understanding of Pauline Christianity and the importance of Pentecost: Pauline Christianity has very little to do with the historical Jesus, and this will only seem "ironical" to Protestants or naive secularists), what are the sources given?

"Maccoby, Hyam (1987). The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. HarperCollins"

"Eisenman, Robert (1997). James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls."

here we have two books, judging from their title one polemic against Paul, and one sensationalist treatise from the height of the hype surrounding the "Dead Sea Scrolls". No page number. I can well believe that these authors make such statements of the Ebionites, but these are evidently authors with an agenda. We can say "some authors" (Maccoby, Eisenman) made the claim. We can even say "some scholars", if these books received scholarly reviews. To hide the polemic behind a mere "possibly", and then not even giving a precise location where the claim was made is unacceptable. My conclusion is, the statement in question as it stands is tendentious and argumentative, and either needs better attribution or needs to go. --dab (⁳) 12:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I happy with the changes made here, especially the removal of "authentic" which I'd removed before but kept reappearing. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

you will note that the {{page number}} tags remain in place. I was acting under the charitable assumption that the claim made indeed appears in the books cited, but I did not verify this, and I cannot be expected to read two whole books if I want to be sure. "authentic" together with "historical" seemed a bit much. It could either be "teachings of the historical Jesus", or "authentic teachings of Jesus": --dab (⁳) 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts about "authentic" vs "historical" entirely. I'm happy with the page number tags remaining to be addressed. As I mentioned on your talk page, supplying page numbers was never an issue with me (despite what others say). It will obviously take awhile to supply them all, so I hope we can all be sensible about this, despite the stated intention of some editors to remove all tagged material as soon as the arbitration process is complete; I do not think this is helpful or reasonable. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly support being "sensible" about this, but you need to understand that tagged statements are left standing as a courtesy. Once they have been left unaddressed for a week or so, they might just be removed. Depending on how far-fetched they appear, they may even be removed until referenced. As it stands, I have no reason to doubt the claim has been made, but I rather doubt whether the claim has scholarly respectability. The sources quoted seem rather dodgy, and I would welcome a reference to a peer-reviewed treatment of the question. --dab (⁳) 12:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dab, the quote you cite above comes right from Maccoby. The book is polemical in tone, but there is nothing wrong with Maccoby's scholarship. I have read books with a polemical tone by conservative Christian scholars attacking the Jesus Seminar too. So what? It doesn't make their scholarship less legitimate. As for Eisenman, I agree with Nishidani, he is a brilliant and idiosyncratic scholar. His hypothesis is fringe and widely discredited, but not his credentials. Therefore, it would be fair to say that Eisenman has a distinctly minority view. Ovadyah 13:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

then it should be attributed, with a page number. It will not do at all to repeat polemical statements in Wikipedia's voice. I do think that a polemical tone diminishes scholarly value, but that's beside the point. If an author has academic credibility, we can reference his views, but we can not parrot it in Wikipedia's voice, especially if he is "brilliant and idiosyncratic". --dab (⁳) 13:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will track down the Maccoby reference, but it may take me a few days. Ovadyah 16:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

googling for five minutes, I find the following: Howard Bream, The Journal of Religion (1952): review of H. J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (1949), p.58:

In the development of Christianity itself, he [Schoeps] believes that they [the Ebionites] were in many respects closer to the teachings of Jesus than were the Gentiles. This is true particularly where the Ebionites differed from normative Judaism, as in rejecting animal sacrifice and in deleting certain passages from Scripture with the claim that they were interpolations.

I present this as an example that one brief google search can replace pages and pages of debate. This establishes that the possibility has been voiced in respectable literature, and the reference I cite is orders of magnitude more useful than just gesturing towards two rather suspect tomes. Now, please do the same for the remaining citation request, or, I suppose, you have to accept their being removed pending attribution. --dab (⁳) 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dab, this is a good case in point. You assumed that Schoeps is a reputable scholar based, I presume, on a publication in peer-reviewed journal. But many of his assertions are even more controversial than Maccoby's. More recent scholars have recognized that Schoeps had a tendency to conflate the Ebionites with more gnostic groups, perhaps due to an over-literal reading of the confused polemics of Epiphanius. Many of Schoeps conclusions have been thrown into doubt by modern scholarship. However, a controversial claim he made at the time, that the origins of Islam were influenced by the Ebionites, is now considered a mainstream view. Ovadyah 13:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

well, whatever. We just report who said what. Ideally, we can arrange the material sensibly, so that different schools of thought and their respective notability becomes clear. We cannot aim at doing more than that. Whatever the fringiness status of Schoeps, he certainly isn't bleeding edge current research. We only ever use him to establish that the idea has indeed been voiced in scholarship (historically, 50 years ago). A claim that this remains a valid view in mainstream opinion would need much better attribution. --dab (⁳) 13:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A niggling point, in support of dab. Might I point out that in the clause,

'despite possibly being more faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus'

'despite' is used incorrectly, or with licentious disregard for English prose style (I could count myself herein guilty on many similar lapses, given the furor scribendi required by the pace of this kind of forum).

Despite in English usage is used of facts, attitudes, objective circumstances, and not, as far as my humble Sprachgefühl for my mothertongue goes, purely hypothetical situations. One can say: 'Despite a strong possibility that the planned operation would fail in its objectives, they decided to give the go-ahead to its execution.' Here the situation is hypothetical, but once effected, may lead to failure, and hence that 'despite'. I could go on, to the boredom of all, but I think J.L.Austin would join me in condemning the phrasing as 'shonky'.

I still don't understand why page numbers shouldn't be required on Wiki, especially for articles with a FA status. To cite a text like Eisenman's, with its 1034 pages, on a controversial point is to make the citation virtually unverifiable for most editors and readers. It seems plain sense and courteous, when using that and similar works of portentious scholarship, to give the page where the idea alluded to is supported. That is what scholarship does, and we, who parasitize scholarship, should justify our mediation between it and the world by the extra 30 seconds of work required to secure the text thus Nishidani 13:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

you are right, I didn't even comment on grammaticality, but lack of such of course further reinforces the impression of a dodgy polemic :) --dab (⁳) 13:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that in some of the instances, there are also citations to reliable sources directly in line, one after another, with the disputed sources. It would be extremely useful if it were pointed out which parts of the preceding statement were supported by the challenged sources, and which were supported by the other, non-challenged, sources. John Carter 14:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For this reason citations should be attached as close as possible to the claim, even if it's in the middle of a sentence. Unfortunately many previous/current editors tended/tend move cites to the end of sentences. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

we have to be reasonable about this. Citations are necessary, but they do not suffice. We have to use common sense to establish what points are disputed and concentrate on those. If there are doubts if a source is represented fairly, we might ask for a verbatim quotation here on talk, rather than slavish attribution of every clause and sub-clause. Afaics, what is under dispute here is not the simple existence of a particular point of view, but its status (mainstream vs. fringe). No amount of attribution to the original author will resolve this. There will need to be intelligent discussion of the idea's reception among reviewers. --dab (⁳) 14:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your point is sensible but, due to the widespread assumption of bad faith here, sourced POV claims are frequently not believed -- even when the quotations are supplied as well. Putting that on one side, my preference would be for placing citations mid-sentence, but I will go along with the consensus. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For bad faith, see above.

They are not believed because all too often you made claims based on references that turned out to say different things. That is why. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Eisenman is a scholar, despite the fringiness of his theory. I do not know the credentials of Maccoby but if he has scholarly credentials, the same applies to him.

However, the claim must be attributed and reported, not introduced by a "despite ... possibly", as this turns the claim into a fact.

I take exception, dab, to your characterisation of "Pauline" Christianity (a construct from the 19th century) having little to do with the "historical" Jesus (by which often actually existing Jesus is meant). But that hardly adds anything to the issue in question. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

well, yes, I suppose there is room for disagreement. When I say "Pauline", I mean Roman Christianity as it emerged from the 4th century. I also replaced "mainstream Christianity" with "Pauline Gentiles", which is itself unhappy, but less so than "mainstream", because during the lifetime of the Ebionite sect there obviously was no such thing as "mainstream Christianity". dab (⁳) 15:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand. But that is no way to go. Paul wasn't around in the 4th century.

I dislike mainstream too but it is better than wrongful identifications (and I believe Pauline Gentiles was a mere typo). Whether there was a mainstream during that time is another issue. There certainly was one later on (2nd-4th century).

"Pauline" was "invented" in the 19th century in the concept that there was Pauline Christianity and Petrine Christianity - that the two parted ways (see Galatians) and were merged together afterwards. The product of the merger was called "early (or proto-) catholicism". The Pauline Christianity should not be used simply as a label for all Christians disgreeing with the, to use the polemical terms "judaizing legalists". Str1977 ^(talk) 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Addressing actual problems recently introduced:

"Pauline Christianity" is not only a in some ways problematic term - in this case it is totally wrong as no one claims that the Ebionites were an offshoot of Pauline Christianity. If one uses the "Pauline et al." scheme they were an offshoot of Jewish Christians re-emphasizing the position of the Law.

"Conversative" not a good choice as the word is more commonly otherwise connotated.

And what are "Pauline Gentiles"? We are never talking here about Gentiles but about Gentile Christians. This is an important distinction. Anyway, the opposition is not Pauline Christianity but developing "mainstream Christianity" (since "orthodox" and (proto-)"catholic" rejected by some editors). Str1977 ^(talk) 16:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

you are right regarding "Pauline" I think, but I fail to see room for misunderstanding regarding use of "conservative" in completely unrelated contexts. Obviously, this is about Gentile Christians, I think this goes without saying. "developing mainstream" sounds better than just "mainstream", but we still need to make clear who the hell falls under this term. Does either Uhlhorn or Cullmann (to whom the claim is attributed) use "mainstream"? dab (⁳) 16:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re "conservative": it nowadays has a political ring to it. There I would suggest avoiding it. It is not necessarily false or bad but we can avoid it. Anyway, those arguing that way depict the Ebionites as "more faithful" and the others as evil evil heretics (of course, they don't put it that way) - just see Eisenman, who has to transform Paul into a spy.

Alternatives I can think of are "developing mainstream", "proto-orthodox", "proto-Catholic. "Pauline" does not work for the reasons above and "gentile" is imprecise as this would again equate the Ebionites with all Jewish Christians.

I couldn't find anythign in Uhlhorn but the original German of Cullmann has the term "Großkirche". I couldn't think of a good translation therefore I left it out of my rough translation above. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Developing mainstream" sounds to me like the best short descriptor around. We would of course come up with a longer phrase, like "the then-prominent position which would later develop into the Catholic-Orthodox tradition", but I don't see that much is added by the greater length of the longer phrase above. John Carter 18:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers

Is anyone else concerned that the page numbers are not being added individually, but are ss often as not rather "bulk" citations. As an example, see footnote 32, which refers to no less than 12 pages, and 31, which appears to only limit the quotation to somewhere in 30 consecutive pages. What was being requested was not only a page number but rather a citation of exactly where in the book the statement upon which the content is based was found. I do not see, unless the writer repeated himself rather a lot, that this necessarily meets the requirements. John Carter 14:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So now you're complaining that there are too many page numbers?  :-)

It's a big book; he repeats himself in different ways. The block quote is an entire chapter on the claim cited. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

well, it's better than nothing. It may still make sense to ask Michael, who seems to have the book in front of him, to quote the crucial passage verbatim. But quoting "pp xxii, 143, 318, 324, 394, 416, 468-9, 607, 767, 779, 782, 843" is indeed pointless. This flurry of pages is supposed to establish that the Ebionites considered Simeon of Jerusalem a brother of Jesus? Looking at Simeon of Jerusalem makes clear that this question was very much debated within mainstream Christianity, and isn't reserved to the Ebionites in particular. If there is any source attributing the belief to the Ebionites in particular, it would be helpful to point to this source specifically, not to a flurry of pages in Eisenman. I must really ask Michael to be responsible in referencing his material adequately, and not just throw page numbers at us "because we asked for it". dab (⁳) 14:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is establishing the Eisenman believes that, yes. As for the number of page numbers, when I supplied just two page numbers people complained that Eisenman had obviously only made the remarks "in passing".--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That could well be true. I'd have to specifically check, but it does however seem a moot point now. However, just a single page number on which he explicitly states that he believes that, with the exact quotation, which now both User:Dbachmann and I have specifically requested, would be much clearer to the reader. John Carter 15:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Take, for example, John the Baptist as vegetarian: on one page Eisenman draws on Slavonic Josephus to make the point, on another a comparison with James and in another from the Gospel of the Ebionites. And so on. They all add to the total picture.--Michael C. Price ^talk 15:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the statement above, I see no evidence supplied that Eisenman specifically states that he believes the contention. While Michael is free to do what he wants to a degree, a direct citation of Eisenman's direct statement, possibly with a quotation included in the footnote, would be the most unambiguous way to go, and probably the most readily understood by the average reader who comes to this page. I believe it makes most sense to specifically indicate Eisenman's statement of his own belief, and then separate out the corroborating citations, as that would be the clearest representation for the general reader, considering that all these articles are intended to be readily understood by the general reader. John Carter 16:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

look: does Eisenman, or does he not, specifically state that he believes the Ebionites held Simeon to be Jesus' brother? If so, on which page? If not, cobbling the conclusion together from a dozen pages is WP:SYN. Now, we may well ask on what grounds Eisenman believes that. Maybe there is an unambiguous statement to the effect in some primary source? If so, quote that. If the argument is synthetic (Eisenman's synthesis, not ours), the details of the argument might go to Simeon of Jerusalem since they are not really relevant here. The same goes for John's vegetarianism. Here, apparently, Eisenman's argument is synthetic. There will still be some specific location where he draws the conclusion. Tracing his argument based on Slavonic Josephus and what not is hardly relevant here, and may find a home on John the Baptist. dab (⁳) 15:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

look: does Eisenman, or does he not, specifically state that he believes the Ebionites held Simeon to be Jesus' brother? - Yes. cobbling the conclusion together from a dozen pages is WP:SYN Yes it is, but that's not what I'm doing. As I said, Eisenman repeats himself, i.e. he makes the same point (Simon as Jesus' brother, John the Baptist as vegetarian, etc) again and again. These are all issues relevant to the Ebionite article, as well the articles you indicate. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

the real question, however, isn't the proper identification of Eisenman's ideas, but what weight they should be given. I seem to pick up the message that Eisenman's is an academic, but clearly a minority view. In this case, references to Eisenman should not permeate the article, but be confined to a single "Eisenman and friends" section. As a reader, I am not primarily interested in 1990s "radical re-interpretations" but in a balanced account of mainstream opinion. For this, we need to turn to standard handbooks and encyclopedic sources, not sensationalist "Unlockings of Secrets". dab (⁳) 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In the cases of both Eisenman and Tabor, though, they are both living persons, and it would very much make sense that we ensure that any statements we attribute to them are statements that they themselves made, as per WP:BLP. John Carter 15:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with BLP. The statements need to be accurate either way. But, John, what is your concern: that Michael mis-represents Eisenman, or that he pushes for undue prominence of Eisenman's views? These are distinct possibilities, which would call for different approaches in dispute resolution. --dab (⁳) 15:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You know BLP better than do I, so my apologies. Regarding Michael's first statement here, all he said was that "Eisenman refers to (a) and (b)", never explicitly saying that "Eisenman himself says (c)". It would be pretty much required to know whether Eisenman himself, in his own voice, directly says that he believes something, or whether he was simply presenting the evidence of one side in support of the possibility that it could be believed by others. Also, it would be a lot easier for a new reader to understand if the footnote were to say "Eisenman says he believes ... and cites (A) on p. X and (B) on p. Y as corroboration" than to simply present what almost appear to be random page numbers and effectively demand that the reader attempt to put together a coherent statement based on them. I'm not sure if that means I'm questoning Michael's assertion of Eisenman's beliefs, but I am questioning the existing layout of the citations. John Carter 16:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is for me to apologize, I believe my take on "BLP" is somewhat out of mainstream (briefly, I think that statements need to be accurate anyway, so there is no reason to lay special emphasis on living people; I resent that "BLP" owes its prominence to circumstance rather than considerations of encyclopedicity).

I am afraid only direct consultation of Eisenman is going to resolve this. For the time being, I have the impression that Michael relies on Eisenman+Tabor altogether too much, and that we need to confine discussion of these authors to a single section. Beyond that, it is fair to ask Michael for verbatim quotes of crucial passages in Eisenman, within reason. My impression is also that Michael's reaction to {{page number}} is straying into WP:POINT territory a little bit ("you want page numbers? Here are page numbers. lots." -- this isn't constructive) dab (⁳) 16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dab, as I explained, when I supplied only two page numbers Ovadyah made a big deal out of it as just a "passing remark" of Eisenman that should be disregarded. Other editors then picked up this hue and cry. I am having a hard time seeing what the problem it. So there are a number of page numbers. Yes, and just what is the problem with that? They are tucked away in the reference section where I doubt one reader in ten (a hundred?) would even look anyway. --Michael C. Price ^talk

Michael, the page number are for those who want to look - whatever their reasons are.

In our case they are also here for us to control whether a reference actually says what is claimed. For the same reason, it was asked of you to ALSO provide THE PASSAGES, NOT JUST PAGE NUMBERS. Are you working on this.

And Eisenman 62/69 is a perfect example: I still haven't seen 62, while 69 (the passing remark) doesn't say what you claimed. Ah, and PS. Please retain the gap after this post if you are responding, will you?!16:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

p69 is a perfect example (62 corroborates it but is not as definite). Not only is the full quote available on this talk page (you supplied it!) it says exactly what I claimed. Feel free to pick up the thread you dropped awhile back. See you up-page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, your uncooperative attitude makes it hard for all. Now I have read both passages (not provided by you of course). Guess what: page 69 is vague and does not confirm your claims. Page 62 is a bit better and totally destroys your claims. So it's actually the complete opposite from what you write above: 62 is not less "definite" - it is clearer than 69. In page 62 Eisenman identifies Messianic leaders with opposition leaders - nothing about a Messiah. It is page 69 that is less definite but even that vaguer passage leaves no impression of Messiah-like figures. Please stop bugging us with this fake reference. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're so sure the p69 supports your view why don't you debate it at the place on this talk page where that debate is still open (and the full quote exists)? I am quite happy to respond there. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is no "my view" here. There is "Eisenman's view" and "your view" and the too don't match. I would never try to seek agreement to my views from Eisenman's book. As you are writing, wyh are you not debate your view on this talk page?

PS. Could you finally stop to remove gaps behind open threads. It makes the talk page unreadable. I have told you this a million times and your failure betrays a lack of courteousy. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

look: does Eisenman, or does he not, specifically state that he believes the Ebionites held Simeon to be Jesus' brother?

Well, that is only one question to be answered.

The other one is: is this really such an important feature of Eisenman's theory that it needs to be included in the presentation of the same here. Remember, this is about the Ebionites in general. Different viewpoints are to be reported in NPOV fashion and with all their central elements. But not with every detail.

What cannot be allowed in particular is that Eisenman's view that Simeon was Jesus' brother and/or his view that the Ebionites saw it that way is to be used as a vehicle to present "Simeon brother of Jesus" as a fact by a passing remark using that designation. Quite generally, he is Simeon of Jerusalem. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The same might be said for the existing quote "Jesus's brother James", considering that the exact meaning of "brother" in this context is widely disputed. John Carter 16:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not completely. No one disputes that James is Jesus' "brother" - this is a fact attested by the sources and actually the most common way of distinguishing him from namesakes - not the modern "James the Just".

In the case of James the issue is what the word "brother" means. The same goes for the other three "brothers" Joses/f, Judas and Simeon.

That the sources use "brother" for the "brothers" is justification that we use that too where necessary - of course keeping in mind the issue of defining brother.

With Simeon Bishop of Jerusalem it is different: he is not always (actually not commonly in early sourcesd) identified with Jesus's "brother" of the same name. That actually was my whole early dispute with Michael, that the article cannot be allowed to identify Simeon the bishop and Simeon the brother. Sure, some views identify them (the traditional Catholic view, Eisenman, Tabor), while others don't (the traditional Eastern view for instance). Str1977 ^(talk) 16:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 ^(talk) 16:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we keep this neat and sequential? We have all had trouble with Michael C. Price's approach to our queries. One of the most experienced editors in Wikipedia's history (not flattery, a matter of record) has come along and, mediating, indicated by a specific example how a line by line analysis of the contested passage should proceed. He can't waste all of his time in here, but I hope he can tarry a day or two and see if Michael can respond adequately, and in sequence, to the conditions User:Dbachmann has set forth, in his successive interventions. Since the rest of us are not considered, by Michael, as being in good faith, but he himself has positively appraised User:Dbachmann's own prior intervention here, I think the proper course would be for the rest of us to suspend our comments for a day or two and see how this new procedure might work?. Below I give one example of Michael's method. I have done his work for him, providing the quotes from Eisenman for his contention that in John Carter's words 'the Ebionites considered Simeon of Jerusalem a brother of Jesus Nishidani 16:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Simeon of Jerusalem, Eisenman's evidence as cited by Michael

'As I said, Eisenman repeats himself, i.e. he makes the same point (Simon as Jesus' brother,' --Michael C. Price

I am afraid only direct consultation of Eisenman is going to resolve this. dab

'pp xxii, 143, 318, 324, 394, 416, 468-9, 607, 767, 779, 782, 843"'

p.xxii =Though Peter’s name has now become powerful, he may not be as historical as we think he is, and the role we attribute to him may possibily be an amalgam of that of several individuals by the same name, one a martyred ‘cousin’ of both Jesus and James and their reputed successor in Palestine, Simeon bar Cleophas.’

p.143‘It is possible that the Cephas being referred to in between the references to ‘Peter’ in Paul’s letters is another ‘Simon’ or ‘Simeon’ – the Simeon bar Cleophas mentioned above as Jesus’ first cousin. Just as Simon Peter in Scripture is represented as being the successor to Jesus, this Simon or Simeon is represented by early Church tradition as being the successor to James. He is also of the family of Jesus, Cleophas being specifically denoted as the uncle of Jesus.’

BUT

p.143 ‘As we proceed, it will probably transpire that this Cleophas is not the uncle of Jesus, but rather his father, and there are traditions that to some degree represent him as such. In John 19:25, for instance, he is represented as the husband of Mary and this is probably true’ etc.

p.318 ‘the picture in early Church sources of the words of James’ successor Simeon bar Cleophas, the ‘Rechabite Priest’, who rebukes those stoning James the Just.'

p.324 ‘the election of Simeon by universal consent as ‘Bishop’ of the Church’ .- the restriction to ‘Jerusalem’ this time dropped.’

p.394 ‘Eusebius . .when discussing the election of Simeon bar Cleophas to succeed James as ‘Bishop of the Jerusalem Community’ or ‘Second Bishop’ of the early Church. Since Jerusalem was by this time in ruins, it is difficult to see Simeon simply as second Bishop of Jerusalem. (Whether Simeon is the cousin germane of Jesus, as Eusebius puts it, or the second or third brother of Jesus – also ‘Simon’ or ‘Simeon’ – will be discussed later.)

p.416 ‘Eusebius retains Hegesippus’ internal references, even though at this point he does not enumerate what these sects were. He does in a later passage where his note about the election of Simeon bar Cleophas to succeed James for some reason triggers a discussion of Hegesippus’ life.’

pp.468-9 (a) ‘Suppose we were to say, as also concluded above, that by ‘Rechabite’ Eusebius was trying to same something similar to ‘Essene’, ‘Nazirite’, or ‘Ebionite’; then out of this band of Essene or Ebionite ‘Priests’, one, James’ ‘cousin’ and successor, Simeon bar Cleophas, emerged as the next ‘Bishop of the Jerusalem Community’ in Palestine (only, after the fall of the Temple and Jerusalem, there clearly was no ‘Jerusalem Community’ any longer to speak of).’

(b) ‘If we now superimpose the story of the stoning of Stephen from Acts upon the story of the stoning of James from Epiphanious and Eusebius, then Simeon Bar Cleophas or the Rechabite Priestly ‘witness’ becomes James’ (and presumably Simeon’s) ideological adversary Paul . . Paul takes the place of his opposite number, James’ successor in Palestine, Simeon bar Cleophas – the only difference being that while one approves the other disapproves of what was done.’

p.607 There is no mention on this page of Simeon bar Cleophas

p. 767 (Road to Emmaeus) ‘A way out of the conundrum is to look at the report that follows the appearance of the two on the Road to Emmaus, of an ‘appearance to Simon’, in a different way. If we take the reference to ‘Simon’ rather to refer to the sighting which has just occurred ‘in the Way’ to ‘Cleopas’ and another, then this ‘Cleopas’ – certainly meant to represent Jesus’ ‘uncle’ but, as usual, not so stated in Luke – can rather and with even more sense be seen as the son of his ‘uncle’, ‘Simon bar Cleophas, Jesus’ ‘cousin’ and second successor in Palestine, and, according to Epiphanius, ‘’witness to the stoning of James’.

p.779 (Trajan’s Executions of Simeon bar Cleophas..) ‘In both Eusebius and Epiphanius, ‘Cleophas’ is identified as the father of Simeon bar Cleophas and the uncle of Jesus. Both are clearly, once again, dependent on Hegesippus. In two separate places Eusebius, in writing about Simeon bar Cleophas, the next to succeed among ‘the Desposyni’, that is, the family of Jesus, informs us that ‘Hegesippus tells us that Cleophas was Joseph's brother’. This he tells us in the same breath as the fact that:-

(a)After the martyrdom of James and the capture of Jerusalem which immediately followed, there is a firm tradition that those of the Apostles and Disciples of the Lord who were still alive, together with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh, assembled from all parts (the ‘Jerusalem Assembly’ or ‘Church’ again) . . to choose a fit person as ‘’successor to James’’. They ‘’unanimously elected Simeon the son of Clopas, mentioned in the Gospel narratives’’ to occupy the Episcopal Throne there, who was, so they say, a cousin of the Saviour.

( b) Nor is it clear whether it is this ‘Simeon’ or his father, the so-called ‘Clopas’, the husband of Mary’s sister Mary in the Gospel of John,/(=p.780) who is the one ‘mentioned in the Gospel narratives’. If Simeon, then we have already described where.’

p.782, (This is a miscitation for what should be pp.781-2 relating to Trajan’s execution of Simeon when he was 120 years old. And was ‘the son of Mary the wife of Clopas’

p.782 ‘It is this information Jerome also uses – this and the Gospel accounts of ‘Mary the wife of Clopas’ being ‘the mother of James, Joses, and Salome’ – to conclude that ‘the brothers of Jesus’ were actually his cousins. At the same time he neglects to point out,as just noted, that this would make Simeon bar Cleophas, the next in the line of these alleged Desposyni, Jesus's second brother ( ‘Clopas’ and ‘Cleophas’ being identical) – probably the one called ‘Simon’ in the Gospels. (something like a family Caliphate’)

p.843 irrelevant. Eusebius talks about Papias in the same breath he does the the succession and martyrdom of Simeon bar Cleophas- whom he actually calls ‘Simeon the son of Cleopas’ in the fragment he preserves from Hegesippus.’

I think the conclusions obvious, but withhold comment Nishidani 16:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I admire the way Nishidani truncates his quotes in an attempt to create a false impression, although perhaps he should have been a bit more selective: even looking at his first negative example (page 143) we see that Cleophas is perhaps Jesus' father. Hence "Simeon bar Cleophas" would be Jesus' brother (as the rest of the non-quoted text makes clear). This, of course affects all subsequent "Simeon bar Cleophas" cites and highlights the need to view them all in context. All the pages appear in the index grouped under "successor/brother of James". The entry in the index for "Simon Jesus's brother" lists some more pages (which I spared you, but perhaps I should included them as well) and then says see "Simeon bar Cleophas"! --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You have completely ignored the conditional terms of Eisenman's language in broaching possible hypotheses that might fit the pieces of the mosaic better than what he regards, to use an idiom from Homeric criticism, the 'übles Flickwerk' (wretched patchwork) of the Gospels. In short, you have taken conditional suggestions as determined conclusions, which constitutes a personal synthesis to back your own OR and POV. Nishidani 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It also includes Saint Peter (=Cephas) into the equation.

Note that not a word about "the Eboionites believe this and that" is present.

Most of the passages quoted are irrelevant to the article in general, less so to the issue of Simeone's identiy (but that is not the topic of this article). Mostly they illustrate the twisted way oin which Eisenman operates (Uand not - that not something I want to include in the article). Str1977 ^(talk) 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it mentioned Peter to dismiss him: "he may not be as historical as we think he is". So what is your point?

Simon's identity (including genealogy) is relevant to the article since he is, according to Eisenman, the leader after James' demise. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you make it a habit to retain the gap, Michael!?!

Now. Eisenman "mentioned Peter to dismiss him". Yes, but actually he dismisses a whole lot of other people and cooks up new ones. Simon's identity may be important to Eisenamn's theory (just may be, but I don't hink so) but to the article on Ebionites in genreal (the actual Ebionites, not figments of a scholar's imagination). Str1977 ^(talk) 06:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

you realize, of course, that it would be up to you to quote the relevant passage? it transpires that you just copied a bunch of pages from the book's index, that even taken together they do not substantiate your claim, that the question addressed by Eisenman is never did the Ebionites believe S. was the brother of J., but whether they were "in fact" brothers. This is obviously a case of misattribution, and I propose that your other claims will be reviewed very carefully in the light of this precedent. Some of the passages quoted may have some relevance to Simeon of Jerusalem, but nothing I see here is relevant to this article, at all. I do hope you take away the lesson that it is your job to present a passage where the author makes the claim you say he makes, and that you cannot expect other editors to do your work for you. dab (⁳) 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what is wrong with pulling page lists from the index, since they are the ones the author deems relevant. My only error was not to pull in enough of them. (Apart sofar, it seems, from p.607, which indeed does not mention Simon by name.)

re misattribution: I think you and I are interpret the "they" in "whom they consider another of Jesus' brothers" differently. Which do you prefer? They="the Ebionites" or they="the authors"?

--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

'I admire the way Nishidani truncates his quotes in an attempt to create a false impression.'

Just that simple check on your behalf, doing work you refuse to do, cost me an hour I could have spent writing up a backlog of work for Wiki, or my own research projects. It shows you truncate, copy from indexes, and cite sources you don't understand. To top it off, the pot now calls the kettle black. It is futile to have this constant harassing atmospheric disturbance to serious work. And if you persist, I for one will press for you to be banned from editing, certainly this page.Nishidani 17:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I started out checking the pages, but the demands of time dictated, coupled with the large number of page requests, a more rapid approach. That said, you did not demonstrate the error the citation, so I regard the process as successful. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Heidegger, who wrote in an 'Heraclitean', i.e., riddling, mode not dissimilar from Eisenman's, with fewer results, once distinguished between 'Rede' and 'Gerede', speech and chat. The latter was just noise bruited about in the infinite circuits of public chitchat, without the authentic impress of an intensely individual reflection, the discourse of 'Rede'. You aim for the former, but only manage, after a flutter at Icarean assumptions, the latter. I don't have to demonstrate the error. It is self-evident, and if you cannot see it staring at you in the face, you shouldn't be editing this page.Nishidani 18:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I regret to say, that, based on the "quality" of referencing and citation that you have displayed to date, Michael, Nishidani's statements above seem all too well verified. You apparently, somehow, thought that each and every page mentioning Simeon basically said the same thing, were proven wrong, and then attempted to defend yourself because of the demands of time. And none of the "sources" you pointed to did anything to demonstrate the accuracy of citation, so, on that basis, I believe unless you can produce something which does demonstrate the accuracy, right now the content under consideration would definitely qualify for removal. John Carter 19:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of substantive response noted. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, the lack of any useful, substantive addition to the quality of references required for the content to be kept has been noted. If your earlier abject failures to provide any verification of the existing content continues, there will seemingly be no reason not to remove the challenged content. John Carter 19:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Simeon article already contains Eisenman's view, albeit not all steps he takes to make his point. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the one examination of his pagination shows Michael C. Price is forging his evidence, and constraining all the other editors to do the work we asked of him (check his pages for the evidence he suggests, in this one example falsely, is on them, evidence he was asked to provide on this page by quoting the relevant material), I suggest his edits on the page be removed, and placed in a separate section here, and not be taken seriously until he himself annotates the page references with the material from them he says exists there to support his (not Eisenman's) theories.

Alternatively, since this last effort to save the sanity of a collaborative endeavour to keep the Ebionism page at FA level seems doomed to failure, as arbitration now seems unlikely, I suggest that, like the aborigines all over the world, when the barbarians arrive, we collectively 'suicide', i.e., copy the last best version, until Price started messing about with the page, into our respective files, and let the wildman run amuck over it for several months, or a year. Let him have his Pyrrhic victory. Working in these conditions, as fine posters like Loremaster and Ovadyah have already said, is impossible. I'm ashamed that Wiki can't fix this patent and flagrant abuse of serious editors' time and wits by a niggling drongo, who insists on posting on a subject whose niceties of learning and diction he knows nothing of, and cares even less for. Regards and best wishes to all, save one Nishidani 20:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Make that two examples, as you meticulously reviewed my previous debunking of the false attribution to Pliny of evidence of Essene vegetarianism in your opening statement to arbitration. We can also debunk together the equally fictitious claim that Eisenman says John the Baptist was a Messiah. So, after all this effort and pages of discussion, are we again back to leaving the carcass to the jackals? Ovadyah 20:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

5th century

The entry in the Encyclopedia of Religion refers to the evidence for the Ebionites being scattered from the middle of the second century to the middle of the fifth. I'm not sure that the last such evidence is directly contemporary, however. John Carter 15:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The current Britannica says 4th. We could settle for "4th or 5th", since it will obviously be impossible to pinpoint when the last Ebionite disappeared from the face of the earth. --dab (⁳) 15:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the solution is this: the E. are last mentioned in a 5th source (Theoderet, I believe) but only to note that they are no longer around. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 is correct. It was Theodoret in the 5th century, who mentions they are no longer around in the Roman Empire. They are clearly still around in the mid-4th century. Epiphanius gives eye-witness testimony to that effect. Ovadyah 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

then we can hardly claim they "lived in and around Judea and Palestine from the 1st to the 5th century". Theodoret in the 430s or so tells us they had disappeared. Obviously, we don't know if that happened before or after AD 400, or even if some of them were still lurking around in AD 450, or AD 500 for that matter, unbeknownst to Theodoret. dab (⁳) 17:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

reception of Eisenman

looking around for scholarly reception of Eisenman, I find his book is called "eccentric" by J. K. Elliott, Novum Testamentum (1999). These reviews [6] [7] are enthusiastic, but also further drive home the eccentric nature of the work. I conclude from this that Eisenman's views should be given due space, but that they need to be treated separate, clearly marked as "Eisenman's eccentric but brilliant revisionism", and not dispersed among the mainstream discussion. dab (⁳) 17:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

dab Just a note. Price, whose review is a good one, is a qualified scholar. The Michael Turton review is written by a Taiwan-based English teacher and blogger and thus meaningless for its notability. No one doubts Eisenman's genius. But the theory, as one can see from studying the passages above, requires extreme caution and is, within mainstream studies, rightly regarded as a 'fringe one'. That doesn't by any means exclude its possibly incisive intuitions from a perspective few have thought of within the mainstream. But, properly speaking, you need talents not too dissimilar to Eisenman's to read it right and not get hopelessly tangled up in its myriad threads of hypothesis. RegardsNishidani 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That answers my earlier question regarding the notability of the book, then. However, considering the less-than-entirely-supportive nature of the reviews, would it be ununreasonable to suggest that perhaps most of the content could be reasonably placed in either an article on the book itself or on the author's individual article, with perhaps one or more links in the current article to the bulk of that content? John Carter 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say, I find Robert M. Price very supportive: Eisenman is like the Renaissance scientists who had to hand-craft all the intricate parts of a planned invention. The book is an ocean of instructive insight and theory, a massive and profound achievement that should open up new lines of New Testament research. -- but an article on the book is certainly in order, so its theses can be treated coherently. It might deserve its own section in this article, with a summary in summary style. My main concern is that Eisenman should not be mixed with the 1894 mainstream account, because that will likely result in a hodge-podge of incompatible assertions. --dab (⁳) 18:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but we cannot use the word "brilliant" as it would sound endorsing.

I always pushed for a seprate presentation. 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For what little it might be worth, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail received several extremely supportive initial initial reviews as well, many of them in the same sort of tone as the once cited above. Unfortunately, the authors had to retract almost the entire theory of the original book for The Messianic Legacy, after an interview with the fellow they basically described as the heir of the Priory of Sion, Pierre Plantard, told them they were, basically, barking up the wrong tree. That particular article could bear substantial improvement, though, so maybe it's not the best comparison. I definitely think that a separate article, allowing direct reference to his theories, and the support or opposition to them, might not be a bad idea, however. John Carter 18:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

true, I too remain sceptical of such groundbreaking feats. But I think we can assume notability for Eisenman sufficient for his own section, where we can present his hypothesis for whatever it is worth. --dab (⁳) 07:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to work on elaborating the Eisenman page for an exposition of his thesis, though three conditions apply in my case. A certain serene competence on the part of those who contribute to that page. A reading of his recent volume (2006) which I have yet to order and acquire. And some patience, as I am under obligation to work up a very complex page on another controversial book, which I have delayed doing because of the problems in here. Eisenman is a very important critic, even if his theory is a fringe one, and the argument here is simply that his views, in so far as they can be ascertained from the complex textual juggling act of his voluminous texts, cannot be subject to a highly synthetic conflation with those of Tabor, especially by Michael who, on at least three distinct occasions, has been shown to abuse normal procedures for verification of the outlandish claims he wrongly makes for Eisenman's position.Nishidani 07:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have created James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (a hasty compilation based on Price's review), and my impression is reinforced that Eisenman is certainly considered worthy of scholarly review, but has clearly failed to convince mainstream scholarship of his more "eccentric" ideas. I do hope that you will find time to contribute to the topic, because you clearly have the expert knowledge required (and which I lack -- I am mostly working by "educated googling" here, and have no background knowledge to speak of). I agree that Eisenman is difficult enough to cover, without further muddying of the issue along the lines of WP:SYN exhibited by Michael. --dab (⁳) 08:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

dab, give me an example of a synthesis of Eisenman in the article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Page citations

Does anyone consider the page citations which have been added to be sufficient, given the failure of the person who added the citations to even include a directly relevant citation in the one instance already examined? If not, what else would need to be done for this content to qualify as verified according to WP:V rules? John Carter 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think them sufficient.

It is good that they are added to the text but they also should be presented here. Most importantly, the quotes passages (all of them) should be put here and certainly NOT in the text. This has the effect of POVing up the article.

Also, since this has been asked before and since Michael is worried that others might think that there now are too many page numbers: Michael, you were not asked to provide each and every page tangentially relevant to your claim - you were asked to BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS by providing the RELEVANT PASSAGES. If Eisenman makes a claim numerous times it is quite enough to quote and reference him ONCE - if he indeed makes the claim that would be enough. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not "worried that others might think that there now are too many page numbers". This is a nonsensical worry (plus the only complaint previously was that there were too few page numbers per citation). The references are to let the reader decide, and to that end the multiple page numbers are an aid to navigating through Eisenman's book (as N has pointed out). Note that most of the Tabor cites are now page numbered as well. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

However, I accept that is it is prudent, for reasons of brevity, to only quote one relevant passage per citation here. To start the ball rolling I thank Ovadyah for copying p.69 into the section below in the next section. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

By definition, we always inherently allow all readers to decide on the quality of verifiable content. However, as has already been stated on this page regarding other similar attempts at sourcing done by this editor, there are serious questions whether this content meets the standards of WP:V. Those concerns have not necessarily been addressed by the addition of page numbers, possibly once again copied from the book's index without any attempt to verify whether the book actually says what the existing content says it does. The first and primary concern here is whether the content is verifiaible according to WP:V standards, and that concern has not necessarily been met by the actions taken. John Carter 15:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

John the Baptist as a Messiah, Eisenman's evidence as cited by Michael

Let's retrieve the relevant quotes from p.62 and p.69 of James the Brother of Jesus and go through the formal excercise of falsifying Michael's conclusions (again). Ovadyah 22:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean verifying that the conclusions are false, right? John Carter 22:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Ovadyah 22:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I reproduce the quote from p.69 again with the relevant clause in bold.

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

Please note the complete context surrounding this phrase. Ovadyah 22:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What relevance or context do the first two sentences offer? --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph and sentence that contains a disputed phrase is always a valid context. Otherwise, it is an isolated fragment devoid of any context. Ovadyah 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I reproduce the quote from p.62 placed by Nishidani, again with the relevant clauses in bold.

Josephus also clarifies the reason for John's execution, as opposed to the more mythologized one encountered in the Gospels. Mark 6:20 even had Herod taking John for a "Righteous Man" (that is a Zaddik)!. . . .Herod, consequently, feared that John would lead an uprising 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 - for instance James and Simon, the two sons of Judas the Galilean - was a preventative one.

This is the demythologized John.

— Eisenman, James the brother of Jesus, p.62

I would appreciate it if someone else would verify from the source document that the quotes I have placed here are accurate and that there is sufficient surrounding context before we begin the analysis. Ovadyah 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If This is the demythologized John. is your editorial footnote, it should not be within the quotes. That is part of your analysis. Ovadyah 11:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If - it is not. Eisenman's words, not mine. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll begin the discussion with the citation on p.62. Eisenman claims that the portrait of John the Baptist we have from the gospels is mythologized. Referring instead to Josephus, he describes John as a righteous Zaddik whom Herod feared would lead an uprising. Eisenman goes on to describe John as one of many Messianic, and clarifying, 'opposition' leaders, along with Jesus, James, and the two sons of Judas the Galilean, who were executed for insurrection. Here, Eisenman is describing John as being one of a class of opposition leaders, that he terms "Messianic leaders", ie. those who led, or the ruling authorities feared would lead, an insurrection. Are we ok so far? Ovadyah 12:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he is saying that the reason for John's execution is mythologized in the Gospels, not necessarily John himself.. Salome and bring me the head of JTB and all that.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The gospel do not "mythologize" John's death but actually agree on this with Josephus. Salome's dance was not the "reason" of John's death but only the occasion. But I digress. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Now for the citation on p.69. Here Eisenman again refers to Josephus, but this time argues that his portrait of Titus and the destruction of the Temple is a mythologized apologetic for the Romans. Referring back to his comments on p.62, he argues that this process of mythologizing is similar to what was done with the "Messianic leaders", such as Jesus and John, in the gospels. He reinforces this point by stating that "all these documents were produced by similar mindsets under similar constraints". Is there anything in dispute about this summary of Eisenman's words in quotes? Ovadyah 12:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That is your synthesis: that Eisenman is "Referring back to his comments on p.62,", especially since he does not use the word "mythologized" on p69, and he is only talking about Titus, Pontius Pilate and Herod in this apologetic tone. Anyway you haven't addressed the central (and only) point that he actually called JTB, along with Jesus, a "Messianic leader". That is all that matters, and that is how we can report it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would actually like to point out that the absolutist statement made directly above, that the passing reference to John the Baptist as a messianic leader, is in fact far from being all that matters. There are substantial other issues, including WP:Undue weight and others, which may be relevant to the inclusion of such a single passing mention of one figure being considered something in an article in which that person is, in fact, probably at best marginally significant to the main subject of the article. John Carter 15:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

These additional matters do no way relate to whether the cite is accurate. The lack of substantive response on this issue indicates acceptance, I take it? --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

They do add to the citation matter. First of all, it is not accurate as John is called a "messianic or opposition leader", not a Messiah-figure. Secondly, we have to consider whether this is so essential to Eisenman's view of the Ebionites that it merits inclusion. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

John is called only a "Messianic leader" on p69. What's up, has their been an outbreak of collective illiteracy? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I will add my own view on the question addressed here when I have a spare moment, hopefully tomorrow. Today, unfortunately, I am very pressed for time. But for the moment, let me clip something from my own notes, obviously Original Research, (and forbidden discussion on source content!!) were it to deserve the name of ‘Research’ instead of being a marginal annotation from my notes to the book. It addressed this gloss on John the Baptist because Eisenman here trips up quite visibly in his technique of analogical de-and reconstruction. The note (perhaps not of much use to anyone, and certainly not to this Ebionism page) runs as follows:-

p.69 (a)Josephus forged the truth about Titus’ decision to burn down the Temple making it appear as though the Jews burnt down their own temple while Titus did his best to quench the flames

(b)the Gospels forge the evidence to make out that Pontius Pilate, like Titus a Roman, was not eager to punish Jesus, indeed wanted to save him, and make it appear instead that the Jews were responsible.

For Eisenman, against Josephus’s evidence, the truth is that Titus burnt the Temple and blamed the Jews

For Eisenman, against the Ntestament evidence, the truth is that Pontius Pilate killed off JC (if, as he appears to doubt, JC existed) and blamed the Jews.

The reason is because, for Eisenman, both Josephus and the Gospel editors, those providing us with primary evidence, are in fact traitors ideologically espousing Rome's imperial ambitions or Pauline Christians in Rome’s pay, doing a whitewash, to make it appear that Rome endeavoured to save Jerusalem, and its religious people, whereas the Jews decided to destroy Jerusalem and have their Messianic leaders killed.

The third element in the analogy is problematical

The above two elements ‘imbricate’ neatly one over the other in terms of structural analogues. The all too brief reference to a third analogy (on p.69), afforded by the narrative of Herod’s treatment of John, simply does not fit the schema. For, were Eisenman’s mythopoetic schematization to apply to this third exemplum, the Gospels would have had to have given a good image of Herod (Rome’s point-man in the suppression the Jews) and a bad image of John the Baptist, as a self-destructive Jew. Instead, the Gospels provide us with an evil ruler (contextually under Rome’s tutelage) and a good Jewish victim of that secular power. Eisenman makes the error because he tends to conflate all evidence within a Roman vs. the Jews framework, which means all non-collaborators fall into a preset pattern of being revolutionaries, sicarii, messiahs, purists for the faith etc

Obviously this has nothing to do with the issue of Eisenman's take on John the Baptist or MIchael C Price's understanding of that.Nishidani 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And since it is your original research it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Please stop cluttering up the talk page with such irrelevant rubbish. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And please do not insult other editors for what was admittedly a "off the record" statement by calling it "rubbish". Str1977 ^(talk) 18:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice that Nishidani would be well advised to follow. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the above presumption that there is no opposition to the claim, I believe that actually reading all the comments above indicate that there is in fact serious opposition on the basis of existing policies, specifically including at least WP:Undue weight. John Carter 17:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the summary given above was accurate and that "John as Messiah figure" is a) not in Eisenman, b) not meriting inclusion. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. What Michael has attempted to do is to selectively isolate the phrase "Messianic leaders such as Jesus and John the Baptist" from it's context to support his Taborite theory that John the Baptist was the Aaronic Messiah of the Essenes. To pull off this magic trick:

1. We must not be allowed to consider any of the surrounding context on p.69, and that Eisenman was comparing Josephus' apologetics about Titus back to the apologetics in the gospels he mentioned on p.62.

2. We must not consider that the term "Messianic leader" was already defined by Eisenman on p.62, as an opposition leader, and that John the Baptist was described as one of many such opposition leaders.

3. We must accept uncritically that Eisenman believes the Ebionites regarded JTB to be a Messiah (I didn't notice the Ebionites mentioned anywhere, did you?)

4. We must accept a priori that John the Baptist was an Essene to tie back to Tabor's theory.

5. We must accept a priori that the Essenes are the same as the Ebionites to tie all of this mumbo jumbo to the Ebionites.

It is a massive web of synthesis and a gross violation of WP:SYN. Michael, you made a stupid mistake because you have no background in or understanding of this literature. Once this mistake was pointed out to you by several editors, you refused to retract your erroneous statement or allow it to be modified. At this point, a mistake that could have been easily corrected became a false statement, just as was the case with Pliny, because you had not decided. When the disputed material was removed by other editors based on WP:SYN and WP:Undue weight, you compounded your violation of Wiki policy by repeatedly adding it back to the article. The problem, as Nishidani pointed out, is that you; the hubris that you are the final arbitrator of truth. Ovadyah 01:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Another long a torturous piece of Ovadyah misdirection, obscuration etc. I merely asked what was the relevance of the first two sentences in the p69 quotation and in Ovadyah's mind's this turns into We must not be allowed to consider any of the surrounding context on p.69,. I could go onto, but I'll stop here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of any substantive response noted. It's not surprising of course, since I have completely debunked the knowingly false content you added back to the article. Ovadyah 15:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole thread is a tortuous exercise in purposeful futility, a war of attrition by Michael C Price on a clearly visible consensus by all other editors. It is clear Michael C.Price does not know what he is talking about since he has a long, by now minutely documented record, for prevarication. You can't get blood out of a stone, nor intrapersonal dialogue from the stone-deaf. The passage conflating Tabor and Eisenman cannot be dealt with in the way it has been, with enormous good will by the editors who object to Price's synthesis, because those two scholars have distinct perspectives that allow of no such unified propositional accord. To provide a jamlog of footnotes saying they do is only to generate, which is what Price wants, another huge and time-consuming discursive war between an incompetent ignoramus and editors who are careful with the evidence. I suggest that shortly one move on, get a majority consensus, of several to one, that the synthesis be removed to this talk page, and dealt with here. Price's habit is to create situations which enable him to grandstand, as righteous victim, on the talk page, while leaving the mess he has made of the disputed passage as it is. I will drop a note on the John the Baptist point later in the day.Nishidani 10:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of any substantive input on the thread's subject noted. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of any substantive understanding of the page's subject duly noted, for the nth time.Nishidani 14:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also should be noted is the lack of any substantive verification of the existing content in the quotation itself, which clearly, at this point, indicates that the existing content cannot be included. Simply expressing disregard for substantive points made regarding the woeful inadequacy of sourcing totally lacks any substance or purpose whatsoever. and, Michael, maybe it would be possible for you to do what is required by policy and guidelines, and actually provide the information required, rather than continue to engage in these presumptuous dismissals of the statements of others. Remember, please, that wikipedia is built on consensus, and the existing consensus is that the content you have added seems to fail to meet just about every guideline and policy regarding content. That would seem to me to be the thing that should receive the bulk of your attention, rather than wasting time making snippy little dismissals of the valid concerns of others. John Carter 14:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions regarding footnoted quotes

Reviewing the recently added quotes, I find the quotation for footnote 29 to lay far less importance on the extant text than the existing content does, and wonder whether the quotation actually is sufficient for inclusion of the extant text, given that apparent overemphasis of a small point. Also, regarding footnote 67, I cannot see how the text of the quotation is even remotely directly relevant to either the article or the text which it appears to be intended to support. The quotation deals purely with the Essenes, and no direct or indirect mention of the Ebionites is to be found in it. Also, I would note that as is both of these citations are poorly constructed, as they do not cite the author, book, or page number of the quotes supplied. John Carter 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

re footnote.29 If I don't include the text in the link I have no doubt someone (who doesn't bother to read links before complaining about them) will shortly be questioning its relevance. If it was such a trivial "small point" in the first place why was it disputed and tagged?

re foot note 67 that you complain doesn't support the sentence: "The Qumran community, for example, referred to themselves by many epithets, including "the poor". [66][67]" ends with "They [the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls] too referred to themselves as the Way, the Poor, the Saints, the New Covenanters, Children of Light, and so forth." --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it not count as WP:OR to say that two groups of people who occasionally refer to themselves by the same term are, on that basis alone, possibly identical? If the source itself does not make that explicit link, I believe it may very well qualify as such, and may very well merit removal on that basis. John Carter 17:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither does the supported sentence make the claim. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, items are disputed if they are suspected to be wrong. One can only dispute items that are included but there is more than one reason for disputing an item: 1. suspecting that it is wrong (either OR, misrepresentation of the source, or POV) 2. thinking that it is non-notable (i.e. receives undue weight) - many of the items disputed here contain both problem.

re note 29: the article text certainly picks one element from the reference passage BUT that is allowed. Whether it is the essential element is of course another question but we cannot say that Tabor (not Eisenman - the two still need to be separated) doesn't say that.

Regarding the text in both footnotes: it should have been posted here on talk and not into the article and in due time the quotation will have to be deleted or rather replaced by the proper bibliographical information.

re note 67: the quote really overdoes it. Only the last sentence is on the mark. The article text needs improvement. But the passage at least implies the point about "the poor". Str1977 ^(talk) 19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And it should be noted that it really is WP:OR to explicitly state that something "implied" is actually "stated". A quotation which more directly links the two would almost certainly qualify for inclusion. This one, however, because it is included based on an interpretation of what it says, however obvious that interpretation is, requires OR to be seen as relevant, and thus probably doesn't qualify for inclusion in the article. This is particularly important given the disparate natures of the English languages and the languages of Israel at the time. We cannot be certain that the term which Eisenman translates as "the poor" is even close to being "Ebionites" unless he explicitly says so, and there is no evidence presented that he does say that. John Carter 22:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right we can't be certain; that's why we report the work of others. Although I don't know any scholar who disputes it. (Tabor BTW, not Eisenman, in this instance.)

This was all discussed awhile back -- which once again illustrates the need for quotations to be embedded in references. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether it was discussed before is irrelevant. What matters is that the quote does not support the statement made. And, in all honesty, your not knowing any scholar who disputes it is also irrelevant. If the statement does not meet the standards of WP:V and WP:OR, it cannot be included. John Carter 14:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Earlier discussions are not irrelevant, especially to a user such as yourself who is clearly ignorant of a lot the details. (Same goes for me, and everybody, BTW. We should all be referring back to earlier discussions, instead of reinventing the wheel. Which is what is a happening.)

I note the issue of judging content (the quality of translation, in this instance) has not been addressed in John Carter's reply. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And I note that the reason I refused to address the frankly unfounded, spurious claim that these matters are simply "judging content" was not addressed because it seems to be only an issue in the mind of MichaelCPrice. And his own statement completely fails to address the requisite matter that the quote as supplied gives no explicit indication that it is remotely relevant to this topic. On that basis, there has yet to be any substantive statement that the content is remotely relevant to the article, and that on that basis, as it currently stands, there is no substantive reason given for its inclusion. John Carter 14:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 disagrees with you "But the passage at least implies the point about "the poor". Str1977 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)". Also note the article has been further improved to bring the statements even more in line. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he actually agrees with me. I do note that the statement implies that. It is perfectly reasonable to note such implications on the talk page. It is quite another matter, and actually an almost certain violation of WP:OR, to add anything that is only implied in the article proper, as it requires drawing a conclusion to decide exactly what is implied, and all such conclusions are pretty much by definition OR. John Carter 16:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the Tabor quote says that the Essenes espoused things like "being the poor" 150 years before Jesus (another contradiction to Eisenman, who disregards the date of the Dead Sea Scrolls and identifies its people with New Testament people). If so, how does that differ from Cullman's view that appellatives like "the poor" was current in pious Jewish circles? If so, how does that make it a direct Essene influence on the Christians/Ebionties? Is Tabor clearer anywhere else? Str1977 ^(talk) 10:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC) BTW, Michael, you do not need to trim the quotes in article (that should have been posted here and not there) as they will be removed in time anyway. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Prejudging the outcome of future debates as usual. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Where am I prejudging a debate? If you can back up your claims they will be included, if you can't they won't. The only think I am "prejudging" is that the footnotes will not contain longish quotes from anyone. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So now you accept the utility of trimming the quotes. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no view on the utility of the trimming. If they were to be parts of the article, trimming would be called for (as before the quotes went way beyond what was called for) but since they will go anyway, trimming them was not needed. But it also doesn't hurt. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani's comments above. This whole exercise with footnotes is a useless waste of time designed to draw other editors into another endless debate while the original problem remains untouched. Nice try Michael, but it won't work. The endless debates leading to nothing are over. The removal of disputed material from the article to the talk page will begin shortly. Ovadyah 13:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually we all agreed that page numbers should be added to the footnotes. You are only judging it "a useless waste of time" because you don't like the statements they support (such as Eisenman describing John the Baptist as a "Messianic leader" p.69). It doesn't matter how often you deny it, black is black and white is white.--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what was asked for was that the page numbers and exact quotations be included in the footnores. I note that to date you have not yet supplied both page numbers and exact quotations. On that basis, I believe that it can reasonably be said you have yet to meet the requirements of adequately sourcing the material you have sought to include in the article. John Carter 14:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have supplied some quotations, along with page numbers. There was no consensus about adding quotations to footnotes. You, dab and myself are in favour. Not sure about the others. Str1977 seems to flip-flop on the issue as a debating tactic. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey, Michael. Never mind AGF. I have always maintained that including quotes in footnotes is in most cases silly - and the sillier the longer the quotes are. I have never changed my mind or "flip-flopped" about this. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If, as stated above, you are in favor of adding both quotations and page numbers, then you can certainly be bold and do so. Changes can be made later if such is requied. However, the lack of an existing consensus in no way can be taken as a justification for not producing such evidence. As noted above, and as others, like myself, have already done, you could also alternately post the quotations on the talk page, and they could be added later. Again, I stress, lack of an existing consensus is not an excuse for providing the verification required for the sourcing of comments. John Carter 14:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Posting the quotes here first seems a waste of time, since we are still squabbling about a black and white case (does Eisenman describe JTB as a Messianic leader? Duh). I shall write them boldly to the article, as you suggest; we can improve/dissect them here afterwards -- although the debate here seems entirely non-productive and indicative of almost complete illiteracy on the part of some editors. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, please cease in making such unfounded insults and personal attacks on those who have legitimate disagreements with you. Continuing in such conduct could be itself sufficient cause for your being blocked or banned. John Carter 15:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not unfounded: we are still arguing about whether Eisenman describes JTB as a messianic leader when that is exactly what he says. Why is that? --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Because you are still slyly misusing the term "Messianic leader" to mean a Messiah. Eisenman clearly used the term to refer to an opposition leader, along with Jesus, James, and the sons of Judas the Galilean. You are also still conflating Eisenman's views with Tabor's to make it seem as though Messianic leader is a synonym for the Aaronic Messiah. This will all be fixed shortly. Ovadyah 21:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Because you are still slyly misusing the term "Messianic leader" to mean a Messiah." I am not. The article and quote match: Eisenman's term is "Messianic leader", and clearly distinguished from Tabor's appellation as "an Aaronic Messiah".--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are, Michael. The "match" is a trivial misdirection. All the other editors agree with me. And it's coming to the talk page to be deconflated and resected. Ovadyah 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed my vote to yes for removing inadequately sourced material to the talk page. I encourage the rest of you to do the same, and let's get on with it. Footnoting, while potentially useful, will not solve the problem of conflation. Ovadyah 15:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I second Ovadyah's opinion above. The passage is so deeply flawed as an OR conflation), that it cannot be adjusted on the page, but must be removed, and rephrased distinguishing Tabor's views from Eisenman's. Nishidani 15:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please change your vote in the proposal section, if that is the case. That is a majority consensus, although we should probably wait awhile longer to hear from Str1977. Ovadyah 15:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Done Nishidani 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If further proof be needed of fraudulent synthesis in this footnote scam

TEXT.

'In one excerpt from the Gospel of the Ebionites quoted by Epiphanius, John the Baptist is portrayed as a vegetarian Nazirite teacher of righteousness.' = note 70

NOTE70
70 Eisenman (1997), pp. 240, 264, 295, 300, 326, 331-2, 367, 403, 619.

All these page numbers repeat the entry under John the Baptist, of food, in Eisenman's index, p.1054 column 1.

Let's scrutinize the first note.

The relevant passage on p.240 runs as follows.

‘Interestingly, when speaking of James as ‘a Nazirite’, Epiphanius gives John the Baptist as another example ‘of these persons consecrated to God,’ In doing so, he cites Luke 1:15 which pictures the Angel predicting that John ‘will drink neither wine nor strong drink’,so pregnant with meaning regarding so-called 'Rechabites' above and which all sources also predicate of James. Epiphanius does not, however, cite Luke 7:33 further to this about John- in contrast to Jesus (thus) –‘neither eating bread not drinking wine,' The issue of Jesus aside, these points are never mentioned in other descriptions of John, not even by Josephus. If we substitute ‘meat’ for ‘bread’ – overlapping terms in Hebrew – then, of course, the resultant meaning is that John (unlike Jesus) was both a ‘Rechabite’ or ‘Nazarite’ and vegetarian, and virtual convergence with known information about James is achieved.’ p.240

Epiphanius speaks of James as a Nazirite. Epiphanius cites John as someone 'consecrated to God' (like James, who was a Nazirite) Epiphanius cites Luke 1:15 that John will abstain from wine and drink'

Thus Epiphanius on that page presented as saying John is consecrated to God, and will abstain from alcohol.

On that page he is not represented as saying John is a (1) vegetarian (2) a Nazirite (3) a teacher of righteousness.'

It is Eisenman, not Epiphanius, on this page, who says, that substituting terms, mutatis mutandis, in a passage of Luke not cited by Epiphanius, the meaning would be that John is 'a Rechabite' (a Nazirite' and 'vegetarian')

The inference Eisenman makes from Epiphanius is that John, (like James who is a Nazirite) may be a Nazirite, but this is not stated, as Eisenman puts it, in Epiphanius.

In short Michael C.Price, is attributing, on this page, views Eisenman reconstructs about John, to Epiphanius. He is engaged in synthesis, confusing primary sources and secondary sources. One can repeat this kind of breakdown infinitely, with the notes he has provided so far. Is there any point in proceding? In old foruming days, when a crank mainlining on a fringe theory threw in bait to get the gudgeons biting, wiser minds would admonish all: Don’t feed the beast, in order to save the forum from degenerating into idiocy.Nishidani 20:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As you correctly say Eisenman says: p240 "John (unlike Jesus) was both a ‘Rechabite’ or ‘Nazarite’ and vegetarian". Case closed. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks indeed for this conclusive piece of evidence, that you cannot distinguish Epiphanius from Eisenman (quod erat demonstrandum).

I suggest that Nishidani reread the sentence from the article the citation supports: "In one excerpt from the Gospel of the Ebionites quoted by Epiphanius, John the Baptist is portrayed as a vegetarian Nazirite teacher of righteousness." Okay? --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Michael should reflect on the distinction between a passage describing Eisenman's view (as in the history section) and a passage simply given information about the Ebionites views on John - a factual report that is. The text currently says that the Epiphanius reports that Ebionites considered John a Nazirite. The fact of the matter however is that Eiseman interprets that Epiphanius reports that the Ebionites considered John a Nazirite. Not that this "John is a Nazirite" is actually outlandish "not drink strong drink" is typical for a Nazirite, but it is still not clearly stated. Rechabites should go, as should Veggies (nothing on that) and especially the teacher of righteousnes - this is the common title of the founder of the Essenes and not some term to throw around with. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(A)TEXT. 'In one excerpt from the Gospel of the Ebionites quoted by Epiphanius, John the Baptist is portrayed as a vegetarian Nazirite teacher of righteousness.' Michael C. Price

(B):As you correctly say Eisenman says: p240 John (unlike Jesus) was both a ‘Rechabite’ or ‘Nazarite’ and vegetarian". Case closed. --Michael C. Price

A re-opened and closed case, a nutcase in fact.Thanks for the self-goal. It is so succinct, it will assist adjudicators in grasping at a glance the problem of your jejune gamesmanship here Nishidani 21:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The citation now reads

"^ Eisenman (1997), pp. 240 "John (unlike Jesus) was both a ‘Rechabite’ or ‘Nazarite’ and vegetarian", 264 "John would have been one of those wilderness-dwelling, vegetable-eating persons", 326 "They [the Nazerini] ate nothing but wild fruit milk and honey - probably the same food that John the Baptist also ate.", 367 "We have already seen how in some traditions "carobs" were said to have been the true composition of John's food.", 403 "his [John's] diet was stems, roots and fruits. Like James and the other Nazirites/Rechabites, he is presented as a vegetarian ..", cf 295, 300, 331-2,."

--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's too late to do that. I showed you the error you had made (typical of everything you touch here), and you reaction was a complacent, and triumphant sneer.

I then showed that you had nothing to sneer about, since you had just proven what my first analysis had shown.

You wiped the sneer off your face, and running for cover, then reworked that one note (you will have hundreds at this rate, ballooning all over the article, so that it will only deal with Eisenman) to cover your tracks. Worse still, you used my correction actually to write what you had been too lazy to check out for yourself, which means, on the level of method, that your approach is

• Write something silly, with back up notes arbitrarily trimmed from Eisenman's index.
• Wait for some boring pedant to sacrifice his time and energy in checking it all out.
• When the twit posts all of his evidence, proving I was wrong, clip the stuff he cites into the text, and claim this is my contribution.

The men of great learning I studied under called that 'parasitic plagiarism', and flunked anyone who dared to pull the wool over their eyes in this shoddy and shameless fashion. You can't even do a competent fudge. It's all up front.Nishidani 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the day of reckoning is fast approaching. Ovadyah 23:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmh, as I wrote above this item is included not in a section split into various views but reports in a factual manner. The question is: does Eisenman deserve a place in this. Also, can someone please point out to me what Epiphanius quote we are talking about. Here is a link to his excerpts from the Gospel of the Ebionites. The only "food-oriented" stuff I found was ", and his food, as it is said, was wild honey, the taste if which was that of manna, as a cake dipped in oil. Thus they were resolved to pervert the truth into a lie and put a cake in the place of locusts.", with the last sentence being Epiphanius' comment. I see nothing about no alcohol etc., let alone Nazirites. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. I now understand the link to vegetarianism as the Ebionites surplanted the locusts (animals) with cake (vegeterian) [8] - the implication is that they portrayed John as a veggie (though that is not clearly stated) but it should be save - if no one objects - to write that much. But as I said, I can see nothing in the Gospel of Ebionites about wine, Nazirites, Rechabites. Vegetarianism has nothing to do with Nazirite vows. Nazirites were free to eat meat. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"I can see nothing in the Gospel of Ebionites about wine, Nazirites, Rechabites." Eisenman and Tabor are drawing on other sources, such as Slavonic Josephus and other church fathers besides Epiphanius.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Then let us see these sources? But keep in mind, Slavonic Josephus has per se nothing to do with the Ebionites. These other church fathers, bring them on.

But we positively cannot make a factual claim about the Ebionites based on Eisenman's excentric book. (And the same goes for Tabor ... ehm ... why do you treat them collectively again?) We cannot even report their view in this way as we currently lack confirmation from a mainstream scholar. If we had one and he agreed then we would be able to include it. If he disagreed we could report Eisenman's and Tabor's disagreement. But we cannot do it like this.

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Let's see this source material from Slavonic Josephus and these unnamed Church Fathers. Let's see the specific references to these sources. In other words, prove it. Set your stopwatch for Monday am. If the source material is not on this page by next Monday, the disputed content goes. Ovadyah 15:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to include the one referenced bit (that they changed John's diet to be veggie) into the practices section where we report their vegetarianism and other dietary issues. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed material section

This section is to be used to remove disputed material from the article for further discussion on the talk page, per majority consensus of the editors. Ovadyah 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The full citation from Hyam Maccoby, "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity", Chp.2, p.17 (proposition 6):

6 The Ebionites were stigmatized by the Church as heretics who failed to understand that Jesus was a divine person and asserted instead that he was a human being who came to inaugurate a new earthly age, as prophesied by the Jewish prophets of the Bible. Moreover, the Ebionites refused to accept the Church doctrine, derived from Paul, that Jesus abolished or abrogated the Torah, the Jewish law. Instead, the Ebionites observed the Jewish law and regarded themselves as Jews. The Ebionites were not heretics, as the Church asserted, nor 're-Judaizers', as modern scholars call them, but the authentic successors of the immediate disciples and followers of Jesus, whose views and doctrines they faithfully transmitted, believing correctly that they were derived from Jesus himself. They were the same group that had earlier been called the Nazarenes, who were led by James and Peter, who had known Jesus during his lifetime, and were in a far better position to know his aims than Paul, who met Jesus only in dreams and visions. Thus the opinion held by the Ebionites about Paul is of extraordinary interest and deserves respectful consideration, instead of dismissal as 'scurrilous' propaganda -- the reaction of Christian scholars from ancient to modern times.

— Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker, Chp.2, p.17

The sentence most relevant to the Lead section of the article is in bold. Ovadyah 17:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what exactly is it "section 6" of? John Carter 18:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 2 - The Standpoint Of This Book, pp.14-18, is where Maccoby lays out his arguments in general terms. What I called section 6 is really the last of 6 propositions. Maybe that's what I should have called it. I'll make it clearer above. I also added page numbers for Chp.15 - The Evidence of the Ebionites, pp.172-183. Ovadyah 20:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I added page numbers for Eisenman, "James the Brother of Jesus", pp.5-6 in the Lead. Eisenman does not put his thesis forward with the clarity of Maccoby, typical of his non-linear writing style, but he argues that the Christianity we have today is the Roman-approved version, in the same way that Rabbinic Judaism was the only form of Judaism the Romans would tolerate. Here are some quotes that outline his thinking:

With the gradual production of rabbinical literature....a new form of Judaism was formulated no longer predicated on the Temple. This became dominant in Palestine only after the Romans imposed it by brute force. Because of its palpably more accomodating attitude toward foreign rule....it was really the only form of Jewish religious expression the Romans were willing to live with. The same was to hold true for the form of Christianity we can refer to as 'Pauline', which was equally submissive or accomodating to Roman power.

This form of Judaism must be distinguished from the more variegated tapestry that characterized Jewish religious expression in Jesus' and James' lifetimes. ...They were written out of Judaism in the same manner that James and Jesus' other brothers were written out of Christianity.

'Christianity', as we know it, developed in the West in contradistinction to the more variegated landscape that continued to characterize the East. It would be more proper to refer to Western Christianity at this point as 'Pauline' or 'Gentile Christian'. ...It's documents and credos were collected and imposed on what is now known as the Christian World at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE and others that followed in the fourth century and beyond.

To put this proposition differently: the fact of the power and brutality of Rome was operating...to drive out and to declare heretical what is now called Jewish Christianity -'Essenism' or 'Ebionitism' would perhaps be a better description of it in Palestine. ...This surgery was necessary if Christianity in the form we know it was to survive, since certain doctrines represented by James, and probably dating back to his Messianic predecessor 'Jesus', were distinctly opposed to those ultimately considered to be Christian.

— Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, Chp.1, pp.5-6

A little long-winded, but Eisenman lays out a proposition that Christianity as we know it was imposed by Roman power and was much different than the Jewish Christianity of Jesus and James. Ovadyah 00:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Eisenman's general use of the terminology The Poor, pp.4,45:

Eusebius contemptuously alluded to the poverty-stricken spirituality of the Ebionites,....He did so in the form of a pun on the Hebrew meaning of their name, 'the Poor',... The euphemism 'the Poor' was already in common use as an honorable form of self-designation in the community responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls - commonly called 'the Qumran Community',....as it was among those in contact with James' Jerusalem Community, most notably Paul. The usage also figures prominently in both the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew and in the Letter attributed to James itself.

— Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, Chp.1, p.4

Not only was the uprising aimed at burning the palaces of the High Priests and the Herodian Kings but the debt records as well, in order, as Josephus makes clear, 'to turn the Poor against the Rich'. Once again, it is the same genre of language evinced in the Letter of James and the Dead Sea Scrolls in their condemnation of 'the Rich'. It is also the language applied to the Movement led by James, by Paul (Gal. 2:10) and to the later Ebionites, so named because of it, as well as the nomenclature used by the Movement represented by the Scrolls to describe its own rank and file - called there as well 'the Ebionim' or 'the Poor'.

— Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, Chp.3, p.45

Eisenman points out that the terminology "The Poor" was used in common by the Essenes, early Christians, and Ebionites. He doesn't make any distinctions between Judaic and more gnostic Ebionites in the pseudo-Clementines. That's enough for tonight. I'm growing weary of digging up page references and citations for content I didn't even add to the article. Ovadyah 01:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Maccoby's use of the term Ebionites:

Various theories have been put forward as to why some Jewish Christian sects were called Nazarenes while others were called Ebionites. The best solution seems to be that the original name was Nazarenes, but at some point they were given the name Ebionites, as a derogatory nickname, which, however, some of them adopted with pride, since its meaning, 'poor men', was a reminder of Jesus' saying, 'Blessed are the poor', and also of his and James's sayings against the rich.

— Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker, Chp.15, p.175

I think that takes care of the page citations in the Lead and the Names section. Ovadyah 15:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone check reference 29 re Eisenman. This looks like a dump from an index. I won't have time to fix it today. Once fixed, that's it for the History section. The request for page numbers for the 1998 Tabor article is ridiculous. Its an online article that would print out on 2 pages. Ovadyah 15:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the time to go through ref 29 that Michael dumped from the index. None of the pages really address the question of the relation of the Essenes to the Ebionites, except p.34. In fact, Eisenman never states it explicitly as a hypothesis. Here are some excerpts that outline his ideas:

The surprising absence to 'Essenes' per se in the New Testament is even more easily explained. The New Testament refers to Pharisees, Sadducees (sometimes 'Scribes'), Herodians, and even to a certain extent Zealots. ...The reason Josephus' Essenes are missing from this list is that this is the group that the New Testament is itself. That said, the New Testament is developing additional terminology to describe itself, that of 'Nazoraeans'/'Nazirites'/'Nazrenes'...

— Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, Chp.3 p.34

Here Eisenman explicitly makes a link between the Essenes and early Christians, who he refers to as Nazoraeans, by saying they are the same. Elsewhere on p.45, already cited, he refers to the Ebionites as being later than James and Paul. Ovadyah 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with Josephus' picture of the sects is that, since he is covering a chronological time frame of some two hundred and fifty years, one does not really know to which period his points apply. ...For instance, his Sadducees bear no relation to the Qumran Sadducees (or 'Essenes') whatsoever. ...I have in previous works referred to the Qumran or 'Purist Sadducees' as 'Messianic Sadducees', taking into account their Messianic tendencies. Others might wish to call them 'Essenes' or 'Zealots'... But they also display characteristics of what in other quarters are being called Nazoraeans/Nazrenes/Jewish Christians or Ebionites.

— Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, Chp.3 pp.35-36

Here Eisenman lumps all these groups together as being somehow related as opposition groups to the Herodian Establishment. Ovadyah 22:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That takes care of the page numbers in the History section other than Tabor. I'm beginning to wonder, based on the Eisenman citations from the index, if Michael has even cracked the book. He may just be looking at the index on Amazon and whatever he can pick up on web searches. That would certainly explain some of the stupid mistakes and taking things out of context. Ovadyah 02:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked the rest of the sections, and the page requests look like they have been met. Maccoby is now sourced with page numbers throughout, and as I said, the 1998 Tabor article is online and all of two pages long. Someone still needs to verify the accuracy of the page numbers for Tabor's Jesus Dynasty. I left all the requests for page numbers in place so someone else can check them. Ovadyah 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know if the literature cites and page numbers for Eisenman are ok by Tuesday. I checked out all of the multiple page references Michael added to the article. Many of them did not support what is being stated in the article or only peripherally. I anyone thinks otherwise, please add them back, but also put the content from those pages here as quotations so it can be verified. Ovadyah 15:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am busy for a day or two, and will attend the matter subsequently. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on Ovadyah's comments, I have no reservations about not adding page numbers to the two-page article. Michael's last comment above, however, coming just before the previously scheduled time for removal of content, strikes me as being perhaps a bit curious. I do not see that his being busy on this matter which he had previously been appraised of some days ago, and which he himself acknowledged above he needed to attend to. should be cause for a delay in acting. John Carter 16:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

John, the Eisenman citations should be ok as is, unless other editors disapprove of the additions and corrections I made above. If Michael wants to add more pages, I have no objection, but I prefer that he bring the additions to the talk page so that everyone can see them. Someone needs to go through the same exercise with the pages for Tabor 2006 (ie. not me again). We need to verify that what Tabor is saying matches the content in the article. Also, it should be understood that none of this verification of sources is a solution to the conflation problem between Eisenman and Tabor. That is a completely separate issue that needs to come to the talk page shortly. However, first we need to verify that the content is accurate. Ovadyah 17:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes 18 and 32 are probably the most problematic, as they don't even indicate which author or book they derive from. Until that happens, I think both qualify for removal as being completely unverifiable. I can check on the weekend regarding the Tabot book. I've requested a local copy and hope that the request is the first in line. Considering the database isn't active over the weekend, though, I can't be sure of that. John Carter 17:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an emergency power outage at the U. North Carolina website. Tabor's 1998 article is also down. I'm pretty sure the two footnotes derive from that article. We need to wait until their website is back up to check. Ovadyah 23:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

When the possibility of those quotes being sourced by that document is determined, I believe we should proceed in removing the dubiously sourced material to the talk page here. John Carter 13:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. The UNC website is back up. Please proceed with moving any sourced material you still consider dubious. Ovadyah 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're more familiar with the earlier discussions of relevant sections than I am, and probably better remember any earlier "challenges" to certain content. Personally, on that basis, I think you're probably the most qualified one to remove citations. John Carter 19:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to move all conflated Eisenman/Tabor material to the talk page. This section has been used so far to discuss disputed references and page numbers. I will create a new section specifically for this conflation problem so we don't mix the two issues. Ovadyah 19:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, as that possible synthesis seems to be the bulk of the current controversy. John Carter 19:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Last paragraph of intro?

I know it's an odd question, but can anyone tell me why the three sentences are structured in the way they are? I might have thought that the source with the most recent citation may have come first, with the other two later. Right now, it is constructed directly opposite of that. Not necessarily arguing the current structure, just curious. John Carter 21:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

John, I think it's because I added the Harnack reference last, ie. not a good reason. The article originally implied as a given that the Nazarenes and Ebionites were distinct groups. I thought it was important to point out that some prominent scholars believe they were the same group referred to by two different names. Ovadyah 22:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO it would be the normal thing to assume that two names make two groups - unless there is a clear scholarly consensus against this of course. There it makes sense to begin a sentence with the distinction and then point out those identifying the two. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Eisenman & Tabor conflated content

This section is for removal of content from Eisenman and Tabor that has been conflated to make it seem that both sources are in agreement. The consensus of a majority of editors is that these two authors have very different POVs that cannot be combined. The article content will be deconflated here into distinct statements that accurately represent the viewpoints of their respective authors. Ovadyah 19:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to move the disputed content from the History section first. I think the Names section is ok, but I will double-check. This shouldn't take too long if we all work on it together. Another related issue is whether specific content is appropriate to the article. I know this has been a big issue for Str1977. I will move possibly inappropriate content of Eisenman and Tabor here too, and make clear that is the reason for removing it. Ovadyah 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have created a copy of the existing draft at User:Warlordjohncarter/Ebionites workpage, which allows all the citations to be seen in situ with the currently existing text. On that basis, I think we can reasonably remove all challenged citations and content directly, as the current draft will be available to be seen there until such time as this discussion is ended. John Carter 20:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. Ovadyah 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Names section

I see no problems with the factual accuracy or references in this section. If everyone else agrees, can someone take a stab at rewriting it? The section is too choppy as is, probably resulting from past edit-wars. One possible concern is that there is more discussion about Christians than Ebionites in places. The main point is that the designation 'the Poor' was common to several groups over time, who were not necessarily related, including lastly the Ebionites. Ovadyah 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

History section

In contrast to the re-judaizing "degeneration" view, scholars James Tabor and Robert Eisenman argue that the Ebionites developed from messianic Essenism, being initially the Jewish followers of John the Baptist, whom they regarded as a priestly Aaronic Messiah or Messianic leader. 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. These scholars relate that, at some point around this time, or slightly later, the movement organized itself into communes in several cities.

Further Eisenman and Tabor closely link the Ebionites with the Jerusalem church under Jesus' brother James the Just, who became leader after Jesus' death. These scholars define the Ebionites by their conflict with Pauline Christianity, under James or later. They identify the Ebionites with the "judaizing teachers" that opposed and were denounced by the Apostle Paul and the men from Judea who according to the Acts of the Apostles insisted that Gentile converts had to be circumcised to attain salvation.

They consider the first bishops of Jerusalem, Jesus' brother James and Simeon of Jerusalem (whom the Ebionites considered another of Jesus' brothers, as heads of the Ebionite movement. After James' martyrdom (62 CE), they record the Ebionites' flight to Pella under Simeon's leadership, which is the last clear historical event before Simeon's martyrdom (107 CE).

Removing E & T conflated content from the History section. It's impossible to sort out what's conflated sentence by sentence, so I copied over the whole sub-section. Ovadyah 21:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The remaining content looks ok to me. There are some one-sentence paragraphs that need fixing or expanding. Ovadyah 22:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Views and Practices section

According to Robert Eisenman, James Tabor, and other scholars, the Ebionites originated with, and drew much of their original inspiration, rules, customs, theology, beliefs and even their name from either the alleged Essene roots of John the Baptizer and James the Just or other Essene sects. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, referred to themselves by many epithets, including "the poor".

Removing conflated E & T content and possibly inappropriate content, including material on the Essenes and John the Baptist. Ovadyah 22:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In one excerpt from the Gospel of the Ebionites quoted by Epiphanius, John the Baptist is portrayed as a vegetarian Nazirite teacher of righteousness. It is a matter of debate whether John was in fact a vegetarian (a notion reinforced by the "Slavonic version" of Josephus) or whether some Ebionites (or the related Elchasaite sect which Epiphanius took for Ebionites) were projecting their vegetarianism onto him.

Removing disputed and possibly inappropriate content to the talk page. Ovadyah 22:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this section should broken up into actual views and practices. Whether the Essene connection belongs in there is also dubious to me. Especially sentences like "Regarding the Ebionites specifically, a number of scholars have different theories on how the Ebionites may have developed from an Essene Jewish messianic sect." and "Hans-Joachim Schoeps argues that the conversion of some Essenes to Jewish Christianity after the Siege ..." looks more like history to me. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Remaining content in the article

Please review the remaining material in the article for stability (1e), neutrality (1d), and factual accuracy (1c). I would like to report to FAR that the remaining content is clean, and we are making progress on the rest. Indicate your agreement or disagreement. If any editors disagree, please give specific comments on the remaining content that needs to be fixed. Ovadyah 01:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

*Agree Ovadyah 01:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Not quite there yet, see below. Ovadyah 14:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have no concerns regarding neutrality, only about organizing the content. Also I am not quite satisfied with the "Judaic and Gnostic section" and also still advocate the creation of a special section for the Church fathers (separate from the history section). I do not think that these concerns are an obstacle however. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Correct myself: there is still a passage in the "other figures" section talking about the alternative High Priest. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work. I'll take a look at it after you are finished. I want to take the tags off today and see if what we have can stand on its own. I left the James material in place because there is a James vs. Paul component that is important to the history. The main thing I want to accomplish today is to address the original objections of 1c, 1d, and 1e, and inform FAR of our progress. Then we can work on fixing up the style and formatting to address the concerns about 1a. Ovadyah 12:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The entire "Legacy" section consists of single sentence paragraphs. One way or another, that probably has to change. John Carter 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I missed the problem with James. There is a conflation problem here too, but I think it's just the one sentence. I will fix it in place today as soon as I have both source documents in front of me. Ovadyah 14:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried, to the best of my knowledge to solve this conflation. But correct me if I am wrong. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine. There may be a few places left with conflations, but I don't think they are false or misleading. I have removed the last of the disputed tags and informed FAR of our progress. Ovadyah 18:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

James

The problem is a conflation of Eisenman & Tabor re the opposition High Priest. The content is technically true in a narrow sense, but not accurate. Both authors do see James as an opposition High Priest, but Eisenman goes further than this. He identifies James specifically as the Teacher of Righteousness. This conjecture has been widely refuted by other scholars, along with the more general conjecture that the Essenes were the early Christians. Therefore, we need to deconflate the two authors and either remove Eisenman or report his views more accurately. Ovadyah 14:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Some scholars argue that the Ebionites regarded James, brother of Jesus, the first bishop of Jerusalem, the rightful leader of the Church rather than Peter. Tabor argues that the Ebionites claimed a unique dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus. Furthermore, Tabor and Eisenman argue that the Ebionites viewed James as the legitimate high priest of Israel, by virtue of his righteousness, in opposition to the officially recognized high priest..

Copied James content to the talk page to deconflate E & T. Ovadyah 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmh, yes Eisenman identifies James with the Teacher of Righteousness (actually the Essene founder 140 BC) - that is one of the most important facts of the Eisenman theory. But is it also relevant to this topic (what the Ebionites thought about James)? Eisenman uses notes from the Church fathers that portray James in a highpriestly position. But they probably spoke on a different level (James was a bishop, which can be seen as high priest) and Eisenman transports this into back into Jewish terms and makes James an opposition High Priest. I guess Tabor follows him in this. What I do not know is whether this is at all "the Ebionites think ..."

I approve of Ovadyah's work in here, and apologize for not helping. A crisis in my hard disk, explained to the Arb Committe on the relevant page. RegardsNishidani 16:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: How much of this content do you all think belongs on this page, and how much might better be placed elsewhere, James the Just, for instance? I note that page has recently had similar problems to this one, but also note that we're not supposed to repeat data already included at length in another article. Which article do you all think this content is more appropriate to? John Carter 16:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. The main thing we need to do for this article is to contrast James vs. Paul. The Jewish Christian groups, Ebionites among them, reviled Paul as an apostate. That is well documented by the Church Fathers in the primary literature. Both E & T make the additional argument that the Ebionites revered James as the head of the Jerusalem Church. That is not mentioned by the Fathers, but it's pretty clear that was the case from the Apocryphon of James, the first and second Apocalypse of James, the Egyptian Gospel of the Hebrews, and Chp.1 of the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions. Therefore, the "priestly" details are unimportant. What is important is the mention of James as their symbolic leader. Ovadyah 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would keep the first two sentences and drop the third. E & T both identify that James was likely regarded by the Ebionites as the direct successor to Jesus vs. the traditional Roman church's claim that Peter was the first head of the church. They also identify the dynastic succession of the Desposyni, which is attested by Hegesippus and Julianus Africanus via Eusebius. These are important points to bring out and relate to why the Ebionites regarded Paul as a false apostle. Ovadyah 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. John Carter 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. BTW, the James as Teacher of Righteousness can be covered in some way in the presentation of the Eisenman theory (history) through Eisenman's main point: Early Christians/Ebionites = Qumranite Essenes. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think one should consider eventually a good extensive synopsis of Eisenman's theory on the Wiki page dedicated to him. It would help simplify the complications that have exploded on this page. Once I've read his second, recent book, I'll help on such a project.Nishidani 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

John, if you are ok with my changes, I will take off the disputed tag and inform FAR of our progress. I could use your help wordsmithing the remaining content. As you pointed out, there are too many isolated sentences. Ovadyah 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The end of the 3rd paragraph of the intro presents problems. Is it sourced, or if not, should it be removed? I personally think paragraphs 3 through 5 could reasonably easily be combined into one. John Carter 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Polishing up the Lead section

The Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι Ebionaioi from Hebrew; אביונים, [Ebyonim] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), "the Poor Ones") were an early Jewish Christian sect that lived in and around Judea and Palestine from the 1st to the 4th century CE.

Modern scholars, aiming at elucidating on the views, practices and history of the Ebionites attempt to reconstruct information from the available sources. Much of what is known about them derives from the Church Fathers, who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, whom they deemed heretical Judaizers.

Some scholars agree with the substance of the traditional portrayal as a re-judaizing offshoot of mainstream Christianity, while others consider them the mainstream of the early Jerusalem church who were gradually marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus.

Some have argued that the Ebionites may have been more conservative of the teachings of Jesus.

Some scholars distinguish the Ebionites from other Jewish Christian groups, e.g. the Nazarenes, while others believe the two names refer to the same sect and that noted disagreements among Jewish Christians to not correspond with these names Still others contend that the term was not used to describe a single group at all, but rather denoted any group of Christians of that time who sought to adhere both to Jesus and the Jewish law.

John, I'm not exactly sure what you mean, so I copied the Lead section here. The current version is much choppier than the FA version. You can link to some previous versions in the FAR comment box or view them at Ebionites/wip. Ovadyah 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The clause starting "...while others consider them the mainstream of the early Jerusalem church who were gradually marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus." is apparently unreferenced. That's the part I'm not sure should stay. That paragraph and the ones following it could be combined potentially into one paragraph, but I'd have to know whether that clause is supposed to stay or not. John Carter 20:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

However, according to some of the modern scholars who have studied the historicity of the Ebionites, they may have been disciples of the early Jerusalem church, who were gradually marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus despite possibly being more faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus.

This was the FA version, so apparently the references became separated from the text during the edit-wars. Ovadyah 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So basically, a paragraph like this might work:

Some scholars agree with the substance of the traditional portrayal as an offshoot of mainstream Christianity attempting to reestablish Jewish Law.. However, some other modern scholars have argued that the Ebionites may have been disciples of the early Jerusalem church, who were gradually marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus despite possibly being more faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus.

Maybe adding whatever references are in place in the current draft not included above as well. John Carter 21:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Let's do it. Leave out the second "some", ie. "However, other scholars...", since the first "Some" means there are some others by definition. Ovadyah 22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The FA version was changed because it was empty words: "disciples of the early Jerusalem church" - no one disputes this. The newer version is the gist of what Eisenman and Tabor are saying. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me take a stab at this and tell me what you think:

Some scholars agree with the substance of the traditional portrayal as an offshoot of mainstream Christianity attempting to reestablish Jewish Law.. However, other modern scholars have argued that the Ebionites were gradually marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus despite being more faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus.

Is that any better? I think there was a leftover fragment from something like "the original disciples of the early Jerusalem church" that we thought was too polemical. I also removed "possibly". This is a weasel-word that Loremaster added to cut down on vandalism of the page. Ovadyah 22:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I decided to be bold and make the change. We now have two Schoeps references. Is that one too many? Ovadyah 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

To speak about their marginalisation only makes sense if they were mainstream before. I really don't see what the problem was with the former version (apart from the small paragraphs). Str1977 ^(talk) 06:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion for what it's worth. Think of the early Christians as being undifferentiated. There were schisms from early on to be sure, but no distinct sects. Even Tabor refers to Ebionites/Nazarenes and early Christians interchangeably for this reason, and Eisenman plays this name game as well. The marginalization happened at Pella after the destruction of the Temple, when some Gentile Christians in Aeolia Capitolina began to derisively refer to Judaic Christians as Ebionites. We know that from Eusebius, and we point it out in the History section. Ovadyah 14:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the undifferentiated stated of early Christians. That is why I opposed Michael's terminology of referring to the early Christians as Ebionites as, at least in the West, Christian is by far the more common and more encompassing term.

With the rest I have to disagree strongly. We don't know that much from Eusebius. Also your scenario is chronologically impossible. Eusebius reports that before the outbreak of the war 66 a number of Christians left Jerusalem and fled to Pella. After the destruction of the temple they returned to Jerusalem (not Aelia) - though of course some probably stayed behin - and at some point elected Simon their bishop. This congregation was crushed by Bar Kochba's persecution and the subsequent Roman onslaught. Then, the city was recreated into the gentile Aelia, which as other gentile cities soon contained a Christian congregation. Ebionites is no derisive term but one that was employed by these Jewish Christians - the derision reported by Eusebius is that some Christians interpreted the poverty in a different way. Nothing indicates that it was Aelia Christians that made such comments - I think it unlikely as they in their city without Jews had no contact with any Jews or Jewish Christians.

The marginalisation did not simply occur at one point but was the result of various historical events detrimental to Jewishness combined with the Ebionites' (as opposed to the Nazarenes, if we may for the moment link these names to the distinctions drawn by Justin Martyr) insistence of forcing the Law upon gentile Christians as well. Of course, the more open mainstream Christianity was more attractive.

To return to the initial issue: Tabor and Eisenman consider the bulk of Jerusalem Christians (including James) to be what was later called legalists and judaizers. They consider Paul and those who did not insist on observance of the Mosaic law as aberring from the original doctrine. The traditional view however is that during the process of spelling out the relationship of Gospel and Law some hardened their insistence on the Law (possibly because of their background before accepting Christ) and they eventually developed into the Ebionite sect. There is actually no dispute that the Ebionites were margialized - they sure where and opinions differ on the reason. The dispute is about the place of the (later) Ebionite position in that early, pre-differentiated Christianity. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note to dab re CE This is the result of an old problem. There was a raging edit war well over a year ago about the use of CE vs. AD. Some religious-minded folks contended that BC and AD was the only way to go. Anyway, we resolved during Peer review last year to go with BCE and CE to put the matter to rest. It didn't stay that way. On the day the article was featured on the Main page (July 9th), the same issue came back again. We re-established CE as a precedent during the clean-up so that we don't have to keep revisiting this. Ovadyah 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • our guidelines are to use neither for dates in the common era. "4th century" is completely sufficient: nothing in this article concerns the BC(E) period. But I was wondering why CE linked to Common Era. If for some reason you want to state CE, make it 4th century CE, not 4th century CE. dab (⁳) 15:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

'Much of what is known about them derives from the Church Fathers, who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, whom they deemed heretical Judaizers. '

Perhaps this note could add the list of the principle sources themselves? I.e., Irenaeus,(i.62,2); Hippolytus (7.34:10.22); Tertullian (De Praescr.,33); Origen (Contra Celsum,5:61) (De Principiis, 4:22); Eusebius (iii.27), Epiphanius (Haer., 30) ?

The article had many references to primary sources at one time. Many of them were stripped out during the ugly edit-warring by guess-who over the use of primary sources. I'll see what I can find from previous versions. Ovadyah 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone (besides me) think the Lead is still too sparse? It used to say a lot more about scholar's views of specific Ebionite beliefs and practices. It also had their views of Paul as an apostate from the Law. We could say something like, "Some modern scholars believe that the Ebionites revered James the Just as their spiritual leader and rejected Paul as an apostate from the Law." Ovadyah 17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But that exactly would be a bad addition as it highlight a third rate issue to define the Ebionites. If we want to be more descriptive, we should write something about their position on the law, not personalities. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, are the editors aware that it is not a requirement to add references to the Lead, as long as they are somewhere in the body of the article? We put them in anyway because of frequent challenges to the content by drive-by editors. Ovadyah 17:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it may be too thin, but to add what some scholars think is tantamount to opening up a can of worms, since it leaves the door wide open to the problems we have encountered hitherto. Perhaps the safest procedure is to stick to the bare bones, and reconsider after the whole text has been thoroughly reviewed. If, on review, points of particular salience receive greater elaboration in the body of the text, then a note to that could be, retrospectively, incorporated into the intro. Just my reflection on your suggestion?Nishidani 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

According to biased accounts by those who regarded them as "heretics", Ebionites believed that Jesus was merely a mortal human being, who by virtue of his righteousness, was chosen by God to be the prophet of the Messianic Age — in contrast to the current mainstream Christian position, and that of their early critics, that Jesus is the incarnation of God the Son and the savior of mankind. Ebionites are also said to have believed in the necessity of following Jewish religious law and rites, and therefore tried to be strict adherents to what they understood to be Jesus' expounding of the Law of Moses, while rejecting the writings of Paul of Tarsus as heretical. They called themselves "the Poor Ones" because they regarded a vow of poverty as a path to social justice in order to act as if the "kingdom of God" was already on Earth. Accordingly, they dispossessed themselves of all their goods and lived in religious communistic societies.

Here's a paragraph from the Lead in January to illustrate what I mean. The FA version is more stripped down because a "certain-someone" insisted on adding material about the Essenes and JTB. The compromise to make that go away was to remove a good deal of the content. Ovadyah 17:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can't say 'biased' (they were, all: particularly ancient sources, are). Something like 'accounts by Church historians who retroactively interpreted what evidence they had about Ebionites in terms of later doctrines on heresy' etc.Nishidani 17:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And please do not reintroduce the "Ante-Nicene Fathers" remark. Everyone is free to look up Justin whereever he pleases. THe ANF is just a collection and the term is actually not helpful for someone who doesn't know anything more about the collection. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's what Weiss has to say about the designation 'the Poor'

'Beyond doubt (Ebionism) goes back to a self-designation of this group, rather than to the two Pauline passages in which the Apostle chances to speak of the 'poor' in the primitive Church (Gal.2:10; Rom.15:26). Nor is it to be understood as a representation of the actual state of their fortunes, but as a religious confession: 'Despite our poverty, nay on account of our very poverty, God has chosen us.' They connect the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20f) with themselves, consider themselves the brothers of poor Lazarus, above all they appropriate the numerous passages of the Old Testament in which 'the poor' is a designation either of the people of Israel as a whole or of the true Israel, the pious among the people, and consider it their right to designate themselves thus as being the truly righteous and beloved of God, as the elect who are certain of a glorious future (ref Count von Baudissin). Thus there is present here, as in the name Nazarene, a relic of the earlier period, which was not washed away by the development in the empire. How perplexed the men of the great Church were made by this name is shown by their attempt at its explanation. Besides relating it to the mythical Ebion, they speak of the 'poor' mode of thought of these people, especially the poor Christology; but they no longer understand its original meaning. So much the more evident is the connection of heretical Christianity with the primitive Church on this point' Johannes Weiss, Earliest Christianity: A History of the Period A.D.30-150, vol.2 (1937)1965 Harper Torchbook ed.New York p731Nishidani 17:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So, should we work on this and add some of this content back to the article? Ovadyah 19:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the page is in excellent hands, and when I find that is the case, as with the Mircea Eliade page, I prefer not to touch it personally, but, if I do have something in mind, put it on the talk page so the experts can handle it, or discard it, as they think appropriate.Nishidani 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being AWOL here for a while. Things come up, and seem to take priority for a while. I personally think returning the earlier paragraph cited above as is would be a welcome addition. Regarding the early church fathers, Maybe just a statement to the effect of "Much of the information available to us come from the early church Fathers, who generally had a very harsh view of the Ebionites." Regarding the quote from Weiss above regarding the lack of connection of the name to the biblical quotes , I have to take him at his word, although I wonder why the more recent Encyclopedia of Religion indicated there might be a connection there. John Carter 19:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would be good. Consider that generally the Ebionites had a very "harsh" view of everyone else too. Can we please desist from villainizing the Church Fathers. Their remarks are polemical and apologetical of course but that's about it. I really don't see a problem with the current wording. I still suggest separating the Church Fathers in a separate section. Any replies? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to do do so, actually. And my apologies if I chose the wrong word. Regarding separating the church fathers out, considering that they are pretty much the primary source in a lot of ways, I wouldn't myself object to that. And I was just trying to indicate, badly it seems, that the CF had an agenda, and that there opinions colored their statements. That might best be amplified in a separate section. John Carter 21:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

With all respect Str1977, I think it would be useful to add back some of the specific content to describe their beliefs and practices more clearly. This was done in a compare and contrast way to mainstream Christianity because that was suggested by our content RFC, Alec McConroy. It doesn't have to be a contrast, however, and can simply state Ebionite beliefs and practices as best as scholars can recover them. I don't want this to sound like a polemic against the Church Fathers, but I don't want to recreate the Catholic Encyclopedia either. Ovadyah 22:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, absolutely. We need to describe the E's views and practices as best as we can. And I do not object to contrasting with (mainstream) Christianity. The only thing I objected to is a villainzing of the Church fathers, which John has by now denounced as well. And of course, no imitation of the CathEn is intented. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. Let's give it a go. I pasted it in and made a few changes. The references are a mess because we changed the formatting in March for FA. I will convert them to the present format. We used to have separate Notes and References sections, but Raul654 required us to change to this format in FAC. Ovadyah 00:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ovadyah, we agree in principle but I can only reject this version.

Sure we need to reference it somehow but must we take Maccoby as the main source? I specifically reject the passage "was chosen by God to be the prophet of the Messianic Age" - surely the Ebionites did not believe in concepts of modern liberal Judaism (which subistituted a supposed Messianic Age for an actual Mesiah). Similar concenerns I have about "social justice" (another modern concept). The whole paragraph is too long and doesn't just outline the broad strokes. Finally, the references are no good. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. And some things were blantantly misquoted. Compare "

• "The Ebionites ...They called themselves "the Poor Ones" because they regarded a vow of poverty as a path to social justice in order to act as if the "kingdom of God" was already on Earth. Accordingly, they dispossessed themselves of all their goods and lived in religious communistic societies.

with what the Jewish Encyclopedia actually says

• The early Christians called themselves preferably "Ebionim" (...) because they regarded self-imposed poverty as a meritorious method of preparation for the Messianic kingdom ... Accordingly they dispossessed themselves of all their goods and lived in communistic societies.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, thanks for reworking this material. It is much improved. Ovadyah 15:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jan. 12, 2007 version references

Link to the January 12, 2007 version [9]. Ovadyah 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Adler, Marcus N. The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela: Critical Text, Translation and Commentary. Phillip Feldheim, NY, pp 70-72, 1907. [10]
• Ante-Nicene Fathers, Hippolytus, "Refutation of All Heresies" 7.22 [11]
• Ante-Nicene Fathers, Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 1.26.2 [12].
• Ante-Nicene Fathers, Jerome, "Epistle to Augustine" 112.13 [13].
• Ante-Nicene Fathers, Justin Martyr, "Dialogue With Trypho The Jew" 47.4, 48 [14].
• Ante-Nicene Fathers, Origen, "De Principiis" 4.3.8 [15]
• Ante-Nicene Fathers, Origen, "Homily on Luke" 17.
• Blackhirst, R. Barnabas and the Gospels: Was There an Early Gospel of Barnabas?. J. Higher Criticism, 7/1, pp 1-22, Spring 2000. [16]
• Catholic Encyclopedia, Ebionites, 1908. [17]
• Eisenman, Robert & Wise, Michael. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. 1992, ISBN 1852303689
• Eisenman, Robert. James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Viking, 1997, ISBN 1842930265.
• Epiphanius of Salamis. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Book I (Sects 1-46), translated by Frank Williams, Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden, 1987 [18]
• Jewish Encyclopedia, Ebionites. [19]
• Klijn A.F.J.; Reinink, G.J. Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects. 1973.
• Koch, Glenn Alan. A Critical Investigation of Epiphanius' Knowdedge of the Ebionites: A Translation and Critical Discussion of 'Panarion' 30. University of Pennsylvania, 1976.
• Maccoby, Hyam. The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. [20]
• Nicene Fathers, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Chp. 27 [21]
• Nicene Fathers, The Translator Symmachus, Chp. 17 [22]
• Pines, Shlomo. The Jewish Christians Of The Early Centuries Of Christianity According To A New Source. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities II, No. 13, 1966.
• Pixner, Bargil. Church of the Apostles found on Mt. Zion. Biblical Archaeological Review. May/June 1990
• Phillips, Shemayah. Messianic Jews: Jewish Idolatry Revisited. Our Liberation Magazine, Issue Five, August /September 2006 [23]
• Rabinowitz, Jacob. Buried Angels. Invisible Books, 2004. [24]
• Schoeps, Hans-Joachim. Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church. Trans. Douglas R. A. Hare. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.
• Self Help Guide / Jesus Christ, 2006. [25]
• Shand, Richard. The Ministry of Jesus. Illuminations: The Real Jesus?, 19 December 2006, 16:00, [26] [accessed 19 December 2006]
• Shahrastani, Muhammad. The Book of Religious and Philosphical Sects, p. 167. London, 1842. Reprinted by Gorgias Press, William Cureton ed., 2002
• Tabor, James D. The Jesus Dynasty: A New Historical Investigation of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity, Simon & Schuster, 2006, ISBN 0743287231 & ISBN 0007220588 [27])
• Tabor, James D. Ancient Judaism: Nazarenes and Ebionites. The Jewish Roman World of Jesus, 31 August 2006, 20:02, [28] [accessed 31 August 2006]
• Toland, John. Nazarenus, or Jewish, Gentile and Mahometan Christianity (1718)
• Van Voorst, Robert E. The Ascents of James: History and Theology of a Jewish-Christian Community. Scholars Press, Atlanta, GA, 1989.
• Viljoen, Francois. Jesus' Teaching on the Torah in the Sermon on the Mount. Neotestamenica 40.1, 135-155, 2006. [29]

Pasted references here to make it easier to update them in the current article. Ovadyah 00:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My take on this:

• Source texts should be separated into another subsection. They should never ever ever contain the Ante-Nicene/Nicene Fathers appelation.
• Of course, in this section family names should come first (for reasons of alphabetical sorting). In footnotes names however should be put in the natural order.
• If we create this section, should we simplify the bibliographical info in the footnotes?

Str1977 ^(talk) 07:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bibliographical information

There are three bibliographical issues:

• Lindsay Jones (ed.) Encyclopedia of Religion, Detroit: Thomason-Gale, 2005, p. 2595-2596. ISBN 0-02-865997-X.
  Is this the article called "Ebionites"? This should be indicated.
• There are several authors who only have an initial as their first name. This should be changed in due course.
• The literature section is currently badly out of balance as it includes only one encyclopedic entry and two fringe books.

These issues certainly are not very pressing but I wanted to raise them nonetheless. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One other question. Should we perhaps retitle the section of notes "Notes" and make the "Literature" section "References", including all the sources listed as references in that section, or should we leave it as is? John Carter 14:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not grasping why we even need two sections. Isn't that just another way of creating a See Also section, which we resolved not to do during Peer review. That's why we left that decision posted on the talk page, which was recently archived. I am opposed See Also and External Resources sections because they have been used by New Wave and Veggi fringe groups to post their literature and link to their websites. Ovadyah 14:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, using encyclopedias as sources is discouraged by Wikipedia because they are considered tertiary sources. I would avoid it in an FA if possible, unless we tried and can't get the info any other way. Ovadyah 14:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Particulary with eight reference citations to encyclopedias. That does make sense. It might take awhile, though. I think they might be acceptable if the encyclopedia in question were referring to sources available only in other languages otherwise, but would like to see some sort of statement from someone more knowledgable on the subject on that. John Carter 15:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

John, you added the citation from the Encyclopedia of Religion. Do you still want this material to stay in the Lead section? If so, we need clarification as requested above. Thanks. Ovadyah 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I only put it specifically there for reasons which now seem to be otherwise resolved. I honestly don't know where it should be placed. By the way, I noted most of the references there were in languages other than English, which is why I asked the question above. John Carter 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The encyclopediae are important as references (whatever nonsensical words like "tertiary sources" are supposed to mean) because in this small field contemporary monographies are quite dominated by fringe pseudo-scientific crap like Tabor-man. And that was the issue I wanted to raise: do we really want to send readers away with the suggestion to educate themselves on the Ebionites by reading these?

Regarding the sections: The reference section should be better called notes as footnotes do not only contain references but also explanations not includable in the main text. The literature section should keep that name as that is exactly what it is. Of course, we could fill it with all the books cited above.

May I draw everyone's attention to my first two issues who can be solved easily if they don't buried in the rubble. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(Delurk) About the issue of citing encyclopedias. If I may put in my two cents, is the article in question signed? And if so, is the author an authority on the matter? Encyclopedias -- especially technical ones -- often ask experts to write on subject that they know well. If it can be shown that this is the case, there shouldn't be any reason not to include the citation; if it's an anonymous article, then it shouldn't be included. -- llywrch 22:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, even if the article is not signed but published in a reputable encyopedia it is istill includable. But of course we should provide the author when possible and we should also provide the full name. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am bending over backwards to be a nice guy, so please stop insulting my intelligence. If you think tertiary sources are nonsensical, then read about them and how they should be used here WP:OR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. Ovadyah 22:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you responding to me. Maybe the historian in me went off but to me sources are sources and these are Eusebius, Epiphanius etc. The rest is literature and not source. Certainly I didn't mean to be insulting. In any case, I am note prepared to let fringe literature dominate an article just because mainstream scholars find nothing new to discover in this area and hence don't put out new monographies. That is the problem in our case, especially nowadays where everything has to be new and outrageous. So no offense intended. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to you in frustration. No offense taken. We need to hash out the proper relationship between traditional sources and "fringe literature" in a separate section. Now we can finally have that conversation without an edit war. Ovadyah 15:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that. I must admit that I was too careless with my words given the fact that you had to misunderstand me. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I will add that a very large number of Wiki pages on religion start off as paste-ins of material, now in the public domain, of the Catholic or the Jewish Encyclopedias of the early 1900s. I personally find nothing reprehensible in this, and have difficulty fathoming why challenges might be made to the use of encyclopedias of standing. Their editorial control over quality is usually far higher than what on average, contributors in Wikipedia expect.Nishidani 09:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And while you are at it, please review the restrictions on the use of foreign language sources here WP:V#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. Ovadyah 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I will not accept the rejection of a "source" because of the language (especially if it is an easily accessible language ... we are not talking Arabic here). BTW, we do not have that many non-English books cited anyway. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreign-language sources are not forbidden. They are just not preferred if an equally good English language source is available. I don't think we have a problem, but I wanted everyone to be aware of this guideline. Ovadyah 15:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I do not propose to introduce more. I only want to ensure that the one German source I provided, which was a big help at the time, agrees with the English source and is from a standard reference work also found in some English university libraries. But I am glad that we agree that there is no problem. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Before we go any farther on creating separate Notes and References sections, I want editors to be aware that we had that before (see link above to Jan. 12 2007 version), and we had to change the whole reference structure. I will try to locate the diff where FAC told us to change it. Ovadyah 15:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Polishing up the Name section

The term Ebionites derives from the Hebrew Evyonim, meaning "the Poor Ones".

Because of their poverty, the early Christians of Jerusalem were in contempt called "the poor" by Pagans and Jews. Christians however adopted the term as a reference to religious poverty, in line with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount

The Greek equivalent (Greek: πτωχοί) ptōkhoi appears in the New Testament, possibly as an honorary title of the Jerusalem church. The term also has parallels the Psalms and the self-given term of pious Jewish circles

The term "the poor" was at first a common designation for all Christians. Following schisms within the early Church, the graecized Hebrew term "Ebionite" was applied exclusively to Jewish Christians separated from the developing Pauline Christianity, and later in the fourth century a specific group of Jewish Christians or to a Jewish Christian sect distinct from the Nazarenes. All the while, the designation "the Poor" in other languages was still used in its original, more general sense.

The divergent application of "Ebionite" persists today, as some authors choose to label all Jewish Christians, even before the mentioned schism, as Ebionites, while others, though agreeing about the historical events, use it in a more restricted sense.Mainstream scholarship commonly uses the term in the restricted sense.

Origen reinterpreted the name Ebionites as a reference to "their low views of Christ". Another inaccurate explanation was put forth by Tertullian, who derived the name from a fictional heresiarch called Ebion.

This section is way too choppy in terms of writing style. All the single-sentence paragraphs simply will not do for a FA. Also, two sections are about early Christians rather than Ebionites. I'm going to do some cutting to eliminate the isolated fragments. They either need to be expanded, consolidated, or stay eliminated. Ovadyah 02:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• (1a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.

I think the article is somewhat improved in terms of sytle, but it could use another going over. However, keep in mind that a lot more noodling on the article's content will defeat the claim that the article is stable. Ovadyah 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think contentwise everything is fine, i.e. that there is no problem about the inclusion of two sentences about Early Christians as they are obviously related to Ebionites and needed to give a full picture of the name issue

Stylistically of course an improvement is in order. My first suggestion would be to merge the two Early Christians paragraph. Go ahead if you have an idea. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I now see that you have already done your overhaul. I am okay in principle but restore some information deleted, without upsetting the structure of your changes. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Ovadyah 22:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Finishing up

The article is much closer now to addressing the issue of (1a). Loremaster indicated he might stop by, if things are quiet, to polish up the writing a bit more. After that, I would be fine with telling FAR we are finished with our changes and asking for a revote. However, before that happens, we need to address a few issues related to content:

1. The structure of the article.

Str1977 has indicated a preference to add back a section on Patristic Fathers that was created from the History section and later removed. I would like all the editors to weigh in on this idea.

The Views and Practices section used to have separate sub-sections for Judaic and Gnostic Ebionites (a third section on the Essenes has been removed). Should we go back to separate subsections or leave them combined?

The editors are vacillating between the single Reference section we have currently and going back to separate Notes and References sections. This should be discussed among all the editors, and I would like to get an opinion from FAR before we change anything.

2. Disputed content

Should we make it a priority to deconflate the disputed content and restore some of it to the article? This relates to a more general discussion, long overdue, about weighting the traditional/mainstream view vs. the Eisenman/Maccoby/Tabor alternative views.

If we are going to make changes to the structure and content of the article, I suggest that now is the time or hold your peace. Noodling on the article is, in part, why we are in this mess. It creates the impression that the article is unstable and invites further changes. Ovadyah 22:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since attempts to represent the Maccoby/Eisenman and Tabor positions as unitary (hence not a fringe view) proved disastrous, great caution is needed. Technically, one might resolve this by writing a section on the development of Maccoby's arguments (which have precedents in the literature of course) from Eisenman to Tabor, to give an overview of the way the minority interpretation developed over two decades, then briefly list their differences over what is otherwise common ground between all three. But that looks like a major job, and rushing it would be unwise. Perhaps it is better reserved to the Talk Page?Nishidani 07:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The arguments should all be laid out on the talk page before allowing any disputed material back into the article. I also agree that this is likely to be a major job, and it should not be rushed for purposes of FAR. The conversation I would like to have, in a separate section, is a more general one about the traditional view vs. these other views and how they should be weighted. Any decisions about the disputed content will likely follow from that conversation. Therefore, let's move discussions about 2. Disputed content to that section and focus on 1. The structure of the article here. Ovadyah 14:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Another option would be to create at least one separate article, or maybe one for each book and/or author, going into detail on that page regarding the specifics of that individual's theory, with maybe a link or "see also" on this page. Also, I have one minor reservation to some of the existing text, which I honestly don't know how or whether to resolve. The article as it stands contains a number of sentences saying something like "The Ebionites believed ...", at least indicating that they were in fact a single, unitary group over time, when there does seem to be at least some question about that. But like I said, I'm not sure how or whether to address that, and certainly not which specific statements in the text specifically present that problem. John Carter 14:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

John Carter Yes, John, the idea of distinct pages is a good one, and should be in the works as a long term project. I say long term because reducing, to take but the most difficult case, Eisenman's 2000 pages of intricate and often confounding conjecture down to a reasonable scale will require a notable collective effort. I'd be happy to pitch in for what that's worth, but it is rather a daunting prospect as a short-term alternative. My own copy of his second tome (2006) does not look like arriving for another month or so. I think that operationally, for the moment, there's little alternative than that of pursuing the idea of a short synthesis of each here (perhaps Maccoby and Tabor could be accommodated to separate pages, as you suggest though).P.s. I did intend posting my notes on the issue before the Arbitrators, but being wholly unused to litigation, and to the technical side of making such things as diffs, have hesitated to put in my two cents worth, since it would only be, at my present state of lawyering innocence, little more than a set of summary judgements on the difficulties we have encountered. If there is some urgency in the matter, I hope someone can clarify to me what might be done in the circumstances. Regards Nishidani 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objection to separate articles about the various books BUT I don't think that this concerns this article much. Sure, having a separate article helps in leaving out minor stuff here but the main effort is still to be concise here and one say the essential things, regardless of the existence of other articles.

I argue for a separate Sources section because the content of these (as opposed to history or beliefs) is uncontroversial.

The history section in the end should be a presentation of the mainstream and then various "alternative" views, e.g. Maccoby, Eisenman, Tabor - each on his own (but because one builds on the other, we do not need to state everything but go "Maccoby says, Eisenman agrees here/disagrees there and adds X, while Tabor agrees here/disagrees there and adds Y.

The views section should be better prefaced with something like "scholars have deduced from the sources ...", with disagreements noted. (That they were not unified can be noted but is no fundamental problem as the article already assumes the existence of an entity called Ebionites.)The section right now also suffers from a peculiar structure. We should organize it item by item according what the Ebionites believed - law, diet incl. veggie (John fits here) and not so much about speculations where they got these from (that should be in history). Str1977 ^(talk) 14:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Weighting the Traditional view vs. Alternative views

One of the things that has concerned me for a long time about the "traditional" view is that the sources are 70-plus years old. The assumption is that this view continues to be the "mainstream" view, and it is not reported because there is nothing more to be said. However, that is an argument from silence. Loremaster and I diligently searched the literature going back 30 years, and we found nothing mainstream on the Ebionites. We were criticized as being biased for the lack of sources in the article. A new exhaustive search was done going back 100-plus years resulting in much of the new material added to the article. The question I still have is, what is the current mainstream view? I contacted several academics, including Mark Goodacre, James Tabor, Bart Ehrman, and Ed Sanders, in an attempt to get at the answer. What am I missing? Ovadyah 14:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It could be argued that Maccoby started a new quest for the history of the Ebionites by making six propositions in his book "The Mythmaker" that are not unlike Luther nailing his theses to the church door. That would be a good place to start a discussion about alternative views. Ovadyah 14:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't criticize you for the lack of sources. I would only criticize you for giving fringe works the coverage due to the mainstream.

If Maccoby started "a new quest" he might be the father of today's fringies. But that doesn't make him or his predecessors the mainstream, just as Luther's thesis did not make him the mainstream.

But I applauded your attempt to find out about actual acceptance of this or that view among scholars. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that the article will fail in FAR (see FAR comments). No matter how hard we work to fix it, new reasons will appear to take their place. Therefore, I am finished editing this article. Ovadyah 01:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm deeply disappointed to hear this Ovadyah. This is not an article of low importance because, despite the recondite character, it deals with one of the most recondite broken tessera of historical evidence bearing on the life of Christ, and thus on the origins and nature of Christianity. To dismiss it, r not recognize the great labour devoted to making it a scholarly contribution of advanced quality, is to remove one of the seminal elements for our understanding of what has been a major force in Western history.

I have been caught up in a rather extraordinary futile piece of accusatory litigation elsewhere and keeping my record free of taint has taken my time away from this page. I can't find the page where the FAR comments you allude to are. Could I ask you to do me the courtesy to specify where I can find it, so I can examine it? Thanks, and best wishes Nishidani 09:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the original complaints that brought the FAR have all been addressed. See the top box on this page under Add a comment. Good luck. Ovadyah 11:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC Comments

I'm not sure that the three links to note 12 are necessarily required for the article. As they are from a personal webpage, I was wondering if there would be any objection to removing them. That might call for a change in the image, though. John Carter 14:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

John, some of these comments are nitpicky to the point of being ridiculous. Note 12 is an online posting of a published journal article. It was included to make it easier for editors to access the article. Feel free to insert the published citation for the article instead of or in addition to the online version. If by image you mean the images in the article, they are free use, and I will go to AN/I to challenge FAR on that if necessary. I am working on the arbitration case, so I will be around if you want an opinion. Ovadyah 15:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the published journal citation. The online link is to the journal's homepage, shown here. They now publish online as well as a hard copy. Frankly, it concerns me that you were willing to remove content from three places in the article, and the main image, rather than spend the 10 minutes it took me to find this reference with a web search and place it in the article. Ovadyah 08:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

John, I asked Sandy to help you get the article up to FA quality level. The content is now fine, and it is a matter of writing style and having all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. Sandy has extensive experience working on featured articles, and she will be a great resource to get this one to that level too. Ovadyah 19:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I did some further investigation into Sandy's contributions to Wikipedia featured articles, and I must say, I understated her capabilities. She is an awesome and highly acknowledged copy-editor. If she agrees to help, I believe the article can be saved from the jaws of FARC. I will do what I can to support that effort as my time and personal circumstances permit. Ovadyah 12:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Style

After reading the FAR, I thought I might look at the remarks regarding style and examine the text from that angle. I immediately noticed, 'elucidating on' in an awkward sentence, and emended. But I do not want to proceed off my own bat. I can understand this side merits attention because of the enormous amount of hard labour on the content that recent disputes have engendered.

So I will make my suggestions here:-

To throw light on the views, practices and history of the Ebionites, modern scholars attempt to reconstruct information from the available sources. Much of what is known about them derives from the Church Fathers, who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, whom they deemed heretical Judaizers.[1][2] Some scholars agree with the substance of the traditional portrayal as an offshoot of mainstream Christianity attempting to reestablish Jewish Law,[3][4] while others have argued that the Ebionites were more faithful to the authentic teachings of Jesus and constituted the mainstream of the Jerusalem church before being gradually marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus.[5][6][7][8][9][10]

Apropos. 'Church Fathers, who . .whom,'

To throw light on the views, practices and history of the Ebionites, modern scholars attempt to reconstruct information from the writings of the Church Fathers, which provide most of what little is known of the movement. These patristic sources are, in the main, polemical, since this early ecclesiastical tradition considered the Ebionites to be heretical Judaizers. [1][2] Scholarly opinion is divided between those who concur with the traditional portrayal of the Ebionite sect as an offshoot of mainstream Christianity that endeavoured to reinstate Jewish Law [3][4], and those who argue that the Ebionites were more faithful to the authentic teachings of Jesus, and indeed constituted the mainstream of the Jerusalem Church. In the latter case, their later marginalization is attributed to the followers of Paul of Tarsus.[5][6][7][8][9][10]'

If this approach to style disturbs the sense of the text, or is inferior, let me know. It is only a quick suggestion, nothing more.Nishidani 16:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor note: per the MoS, notes come after punctuation marks, and there is no space added between them and the word they refer to (your suggestion has "heretical Judaizers [1][2]." and the incomprehensible "Jewish Law,[3][4],"). Please bear in mind such details when editing here and elsewhere. Thank you. Dahn 06:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer Dahn. I wasn't looking at punctuation (irresponsibly) but modifying the language. The devil is in the details, indeed. Mea culpa Nishidani 10:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandy's initial comments / criticisms

Remove. There are still a lot of issues. I just fixed the footnote punctuation per WP:FN (haven't had to do that in a very long time, so just noting it so that regular editors will be aware).

I assume footnote punctuation will be a continuing issue until we have a final set of footnotes. I'll leave this alone until Sandy returns. Ovadyah 23:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:MOS regarding use of e.g. There is a likely copyvio citation to a geocities personal website, not a reliable source. Many publishers aren't identified on sources, making it difficult to evaluate reliability of sources without clicking on each source.

Done. I added the journal citation for ref 12. The online link is to the journal's homepage, not a personal website. Ovadyah 23:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(ah, and I see I asked for this to be attended to during the FAC, and apparently it never was.) For example, one sources is selfhelp-guide.com; is that a reliable source?

Self Help Guide is an online magazine published by Greg Vanden Berge. Here are the terms and conditions for use of the material [30]. The site has self-help and motivational articles on a wide variety of subjects, similar to Tony Robbins. Ovadyah 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Is hebrew4christians.com a reliable source?

Checking on it. Ovadyah 00:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

John Parsons is an instructor in Hebrew. His book is available on Amazon, so I think he is notable enough to be a reliable source. For purposes of the article, what matters is not any claims Parsons is making about himself. His polemical commentary is providing evidence of the notability of modern Ebionites as a perceived threat to Messianic Judaism. Ovadyah 01:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There are still citation needs, samples only:

• Most historians place the end of the Ebionites during this time.

Removed editorial comment. However, it is a true statement. Ovadyah 00:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding the Ebionites specifically, a number of scholars have different theories on how the Ebionites may have developed from an Essene Jewish messianic sect.

Fixed it. This is supposed to be the intro to the next sentence, which has the references. "Hans-Joachim Schoeps argues that the conversion of some Essenes to Jewish Christianity after the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE may be the source of some Ebionites adopting Essene views and practices; while some conclude that the Essenes did not become Jewish Christians but still had an influence on the Ebionites." Ovadyah 00:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There are still copyedit needs and redundant prose, samples only:

• The question remains whether or not Epiphanius was able to make a genuine distinction distinguish between Nazarenes and Ebionites.

Fixed it. Ovadyah 23:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone check if this is correct? "Origen in c. 212 remarks that ... " in circa together?

It's correct, and I fixed (c. 212). Ovadyah 23:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Why is the Poor Ones capitalized? ... from the Hebrew Evyonim, meaning "the Poor Ones" ...

Poor Ones is capitalized because that the the English translation of the name of the group. Ebionites is the name in Greek. Ovadyah 23:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know what this sentence is saying: The actual scope of the term Ebionites is difficult to ascertain, as the contradictory patristic accounts in their attempt to distinguish various sects, sometimes confuse them with each other. Ah, then as I read further along, I find a redirect link to patristic; first occurrences should be linked. Anyway, I still can't understand the sentence.

I fixed the link to patristic and reworded the sentence to clarify. "The actual number of groups described as Ebionites is difficult to ascertain," Ovadyah 00:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Then further on again, we find Church Fathers linked.

Fixed it so only first one is linked. Ovadyah 00:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Is this correct punctuation? This article is just hard to read: The Ebionites believed that all Jews and Gentiles must observe the commandments in the Law of Moses, in order to become righteous and seek communion with God; but that these commandments must be understood in the light of Jesus' expounding of the Law, revealed during his sermon on the mount.

Fixed punctuation. It now reads, "The Ebionites believed that all Jews and Gentiles must observe the commandments in the Law of Moses, in order to become righteous and seek communion with God, but these commandments must be understood in the light of Jesus' expounding of the Law, revealed during his sermon on the mount.". Ovadyah 00:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved Sandy's FARC comments to the talk page so they can be addressed more easily. I will work on these as I have time, since it seems clear by now that no one else will. Ovadyah 22:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I think I have addressed all of your initial comments. Ovadyah 01:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

RelHistBuff's comments / criticisms

• Comment: After reading the current version, I am afraid that I must reaffirm my vote to Remove. The Ebionites of which we have so little in terms of extant writings are used by modern scholars to push interesting, if not controversial views. For this reason, I believe the article really needs more depth in the History, Views and practices, and Writings sections. I write below some criticisms which I hope will help in improving the article.

• In the lead, mention is made of two opposing views, the traditional view that the Ebionites were offshoots of mainstream Christianity and a modern view that the Ebionites were “more faithful to the authentic teachings of Jesus” and that they were “marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus”. The latter modern view which is presumably more controversial is not explained at all in the article. Why were Ebionites considered more faithful to the teachings of Jesus? What is considered the “authentic” teachings? What group were the “followers of Paul”?
• The lead mentions that they regarded James as the head of the church, while the article only says some scholars claim this. The rejection of Paul comes from Patristic sources. Putting the two together appears like a synthesis which is WP:OR. The text in the lead needs to be rephrased and cited.
• The assertion that the earliest reference of the group uses a cite to Justin Martyr’s writing, a primary source. But surely it wasn’t Martyr who said that this is the earliest reference! Some scholar must have said that. Who? Please cite the secondary source.
• Similarly, Irenaeus supposedly was the first to used the term “Ebionites”. But the cite is again to the primary source of Irenaeus. Who made the assertion that Irenaeus was the first to use the term? The secondary source cite is missing.
• In a previous version of this article, there were more explanations on why Epiphanius’ account was questionable. I would suggest putting this back in or expanding the current text (and again giving the cite to the secondary source).
• Related to all this is that there is a heavy use of primary source citations and use of tertiary sources such as Schaff and other encyclopaedias and websites. Secondary sources should be mainly used especially for featured articles. And for articles on the history of religion, preferably printed books or journals.
• The line "Many scholars link the origin…" should be cited.
• One paragraphs starts with “According to these scholars…”. It is not clear which scholars. Is it the “Many scholars…” from the previous paragraph?
• Under the writings section, the definition of the grouping of writings is from the Catholic Encyclopedia which is again only a tertiary source and one that has a certain POV on the Ebionites. Probably a better source should be used. Again, the cites tend to use primary sources that does not really cite the assertions made in the text. There is a mention of Ebed Jesu. Who is he? Without the explanation, that line adds little value.
• If the Ebionites reject the gnostic doctrines within the Book of Elchesai, then why is the book considered part of Ebionite writings?

With some work, I am sure this can be brought back to FAC. --RelHistBuff 14:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I copied RelHistBuff's comments from FARC to the talkpage to preserve them for future editors. Whoever takes over editing the article would do well to take them seriously, or they will be back in future reviews. Particularly relevant to any cleanup are the misuse of primary and tertiary sources and his comments relating to WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Ovadyah 13:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)