Talk:Ebionites/Mediation

Let's use this page for the mediation. To start, could each of you summarize, in one paragraph, what specific content you would like to add to/delete from/modify in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Content to add to/delete from/modify in the article

Michael C. Price

I have no problems with sourcing statements to Tabor or Eisenman. Although some of their views may be questioned, they both have made many original historical contributions which even their detractors acknowledge as invaluable. Carte blanche dismissal as fringe is simplistic and naive at best, POV-pushing at worst. If you look at the discussion which John Carter claims states Tabor is fringe you see nothing of the sort. One editor says the Jesus Dynasty is fringe. Another says it is not fringe, just a minority view (which it is, of course). The general conclusion seems to be that his views should not be presented as mainstream within the article (which I agree with).

Changes needed:

1. remove the unsubtle mainstream Christian bias which views the Ebionites as heretics. E.g retrospective statements such as "Nazarenes/Ebionites were first recognized as a distinct group when some Jewish Christians receded farther from mainstream Christianity" need NPOVing.
2. Restore the deleted John the Baptist section, to accompany the sections on James the Just and Jesus. John the Baptist is mentioned extensively in what remains of the Gospel of the Ebionites (as much or more so than Jesus); that should be reflected here, alongside the claims of John and Jesus' vegetarianism.
3. And of course John's Essene links are widely speculated and commented upon. So we should mention the possible Essene / Ebionite / Dead Sea scrolls linkage, etc.
4. Expand the religious perspectives section, give it subsections.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to try to help with all these issues, but I think it would be easier if we worked on one issue at a time. Would you be willing to start with the James, Bishop of Jerusalem/James Tabor issue listed below? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's start here. I mostly agree with the article at the moment about James. So what are the contested points?

1. that James the Just was the leader of early church, designated by Jesus as his successor?
2. that these early groups (including the Dead Sea scroll authors) all referred to themselves as "the poor" or "Ebionites"?
3. that James and Paul didn't get along very well?

--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm working with John now to try to figure that out. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that John Carter is canvassing editors, such as Nishidani who is indefinitely "prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related" article. This will only make the mediation process more difficult.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

John Carter

• The material to be added is somewhat dependent on the sources I am discovering, which can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites in a still fluid state. I have to say that the obvious fringe theories of Eisenman and Tabor almost certainly require deletion of the non historical source information, possibly preserved as a sentence or so in a different section on recent theories, but probably not even there. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks John. I assume that the crux of the current issue is indeed the material by Eisenman and Tabor. Can you explain specifically and briefly what theory it is of theirs that you consider to be fringe? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I can try. All presented? I don't know either work directly. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Jesus Dynasty indicates that the Tabor book is fringe. Previous discussion indicates the Eisenman work is probably fringe. That being the case, we would probably be better off finding some less fringey source for anything coming from those books.
    • The last paragraph of that section is problematic. "Some scholars argue" sentence and the following "James Tabor" sentence to my eyes, at this point, clearly violate WP:UNDUE.
    • The James vs. Paul issue is a given, as several sources indicate they didn't get along real well. But I don't at this point in the sources I have found see that much direct linkage of the Ebionites to James either, and think that on that basis the remainder of the material might better fit in the parent Jewish Christians article, where it would probably be more appropriate, than this article about only a specific group of Jewish Christians. John Carter (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you again. I'm not looking (at this point) for a discussion of the sources, just an explanation of the crux of the content dispute. Can you try to explain, in your words, what the theory is that you find fringe? The theory that, for example, James was the rightful leader of the church, not Peter? That the Ebionites considered Paul to be a Greek convert? Please be very explicit, here on this page, as to which theories you find fringe. That would be extremely helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
        • "Some scholars argue that the Ebionites regarded James, brother, or cousin of Jesus, the bishop of Jerusalem, the rightful leader of the Church rather than Peter. James Tabor argues that the Ebionites claimed a unique dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus" and accompanying references. Saying that it was just the Ebionites who regarded James as the rightful leader of the church is probably undue (the Symmachians and Nazarenes may well have as well). At this point, I haven't checked on the content there, but the Symmachians can and probably should be included in the article on Symmachus, their nominal leader. And the last sentence about Tabor, frankly, could easily be axed entirely. Is that OK? John Carter (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem Michael still apparently continues to be either unable to see, or, possibly, as per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, ignoring, is that the two sources currently used the Eisenman book on James the Just and The Jesus Dynasty, present information which falls well outside the mainstream, has in the latter case been pretty clearly determined by independent editors on the Fringe theories noticeboard to be fringey, and, thus, as per WP:FRINGE, do not deserve the degree of attention they have in the article. Also, for the record, it seems to me that the article is currently structured to support the contention that the Ebionites of Jewish Christianity were a distinct group about whom conclusions can be reached, and that that contention itself probably at this point qualifies as a fringe theory. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi John. I think I'm a bit confused again. I thought the issue was with the claim that the Ebionites considered James to be the rightful leader of the church, and that they claimed "a unique dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus". Were you not arguing that the material is either incorrect, or not worth mentioning at all? I get the impression that you're now arguing a perhaps different point, that there was no unique group known as "Ebionites". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a right to be confused. I've been busy finding additional sources, and the later comment reflects the material more recently found. Yes, I do believe that the evidence that James the Just was considered the rightful leader of the church is not supported by much if any documentation. This is, at least in part, due to the fact that the reliable sources I have to this date found (encyclopedias and the like) do nothing to indicate that the Judeo-Christian group called Ebionites by Irenaeus can be historically traced beyond Irenaeus. However, having reviewed a larger number of reference sources, those sources are saying that the evidence is less than sufficient to be considered probable cause for anyone to say that the term "Ebionites" can be applied to any specific, distinct, Judeo-Christian group. Sorry, like I said earlier, but I have been reading up on the subject as time goes on, and my own opinions of the current academic consensus is based on a having exposed myself to more of the recent academic material on the subject. Also, unfortunately, if we are going to indicate that it deserves significant mention as a "minority view", then the better reported and thus, probably, more "notable" "minority views" which can be and have been documented that the Ebionites were the Essenes, the Nazoreans, the Qumran Covenanters, the Symmacheans, and whomever else as well, each deserve more material and coverage, because not only are these beliefs currently held, they are also notable as historical theories, as per the encyclopedic sources, which the Tabor/Eisenman theory is not. There is also another book, released earlier this year with an introduction by Tabor, that the Ebionites were the founders of the Freemasons. At some point, the amount of speculation, even if it is by academics, regarding a little-understood subject like this runs a very real chance of overwhelming the other material, and allowing any one minority/fringe theory this much space would more or less obligate us to give at least equal weight to any and all other similar theories, and that would lead to an even greater chaos than we currently face. And it has been admitted by Ovadyah that the Tabor theory is speculation.

Personally, at this point, I could see perhaps a single section to cover all the fringe theories which have been put forward, including Tabor, giving no more or less weight to any which have received substantive academic attention than any other. However, that is speaking only of them as fringe theories. The amount of space they receive based on historical importance and/or amount of discussion would be another matter entirely, and one in which, I daresay, the Eisenman/Tabor theory would be near the bottom of the list of such theories.

Lastly, one of the things indicated in the FTN discussion was an indication that if the academic reviews were negative or nonexistent, that would be an indication that the source would be counted as fringe. I have recently added to the bottom of Talk:Ebionites#Possibility of bringing this article back up to FA the only two academic reviews which I have to date found, both of which indicate that, in effect, this is not an "academic" theory, but the case of an individual pushing a POV. "his "facts" are not facts" is I daresay one of the most critical statements I have ever seen of an allegedly academic work. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying this article shouldn't exist at all? That there's no evidence for Ebionites? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, far from it. The term is definitely notable, and still seems to be primarily used in relation to the patristics and the groups they referred to by that name. However, the article is clearly structured in a way which gives entirely undue weight to the single fringe/minority theory which receives its own section, Eisenman/Tabor, while the other, more mainline theories are comparatively little spoken of. And, as far as I remember, the policy of WP:UNDUE applies to articles at all level of development, including this one at its current level. On that basis, given the current structure of the article with so little attention to the mainstream beliefs, I believe that the Eisenman/Tabor section more or less has to be removed to comply with policy. Also, the section title is probably itself far from appropriate. "Current speculation" seems to me to be a much more appropriate title for the content and nature of that section. And, of course, there is still the unresolved matter of whether the speculation qualifies as WP:FRINGE. Finally, there is the very real fact that the academic world seems to itself not hold with the belief that the Ebionites referred to in the patristics were a single identifiable group about whom information can be concluded based on the available evidence. I am in the process of beginning what I think is a more neutral and more acceptable article in userspace, at User:John Carter/Ebionites. The existing lead of that article gives a rough idea of how I think the final article should be structured. Upon completion, I expect to file for an RfC to determine how the article should be changed and whether or not it should replace the existing article. Is that an acceptable answer? John Carter (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

O.K., just to be clear again, this is the crux of the Eisenman/Tabor material in question:

Some scholars argue that the Ebionites regarded James, brother, or cousin of Jesus, the first patriarch of Jerusalem|bishop of Jerusalem, the rightful leader of the Church rather than Peter. James Tabor argues that the Ebionites claimed a unique dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus.

You think it, and the section around it, should be deleted completely? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, yes. There is more than adequate sourcing in the material I have seen to say that some Ebionites placed a particular emphasis on James and works related to him, and it would be reasonable to have the article indicate that, but there is a very great difference between saying a group emphasizes James and saying that it claims dynastic apostolic succession through him. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that I contacted Nishidani about the article on his user talk page. I did so after I had contacted Ovadyah and others, because his talk page indicated his retirement. I saw a posting of his on one of the noticeboards and on that basis sent him substantially the same message I sent Ovadyah and others. His choosing to post here is entirely his own idea and was in no way directly prompted by me. There are more directly relevant matters which I believe Michael might better spend his time addressing. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe my sources can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites. I also believe that, as per that page, what should be included are the exact quotations of the sources, because there can be and often is a bit of a WP:SYNTH problem with topics such as this. As an example, the Bernheim quote below is in fact not from the book cited, but from an interview about the book, and uses only the word "head", which can be seen as substantively different from the word "patriarch". There have also been difficulties in the past regarding people selectively editing material to appear to support their contentions, when, in fact, the source itself taken in toto did not itself lead one to the conclusions which it is being used to support. I would thus request page citations of the material in question, and exact quotations. Three of the sources listed below have no academic standing whatsoever and are simply popular works. The other, Painter, seems to actively dispute the Eisenmann contention on pages 333-344 of the book cited. I have to question how much emphasis to give sources which are often outdated, non-academic, and even directly criticize the contentions they are cited to support. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani

John Carter asked me to look over this , since I did participate in the earlier editing of that page. I haven't time to do anything substantial here or with that page, but, as a contributor to the earlier page and arguments, I hope my few reflections on the article may help. The whole article should be redacted ex novo, since it is poorly sourced, having (a)far too many primary sources, (b)extensive use of outdated sources, such as Harnack, Schoeps, Wace and Piercy, Brandon, Ramsay, Gibbon, Pines, Adler, or (c) useless sources (Self-Help Guide etc), or (d)extremely controversial fringe sources (Tabor, Eisenman). It seems relatively oblivious of the fact that a paradigm shift has been underway for over a decade, that scholars ranging from Daniel Boyarin and Simon C.Mimouni to Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik have been organizing symposia, publishing comprehensive studies of the vexed Judeo-Christian problemata. There is no evidence of this on the page which is hunkered down in a battle line between encyclopedic tidbits, primary sources uninflected by secondary source filtration, and fringe theories. Tabor and Eisenman (the latter's work fascinates me personally) is fringe, polemical and extremely speculative (outsiders should not touch that kind of extremely intricate or wholly speculative technical literature except through what peer-reviewing scholars say of their work. The risks of misrepresenting, especially Eisenman, are extremely high for anyone not grounded in the several disciplines, semitic philology, history and hermeneutics he works in). Neither Tabor nor Eisenman are mentioned for example in Oskar Skarsaune, Reidar Hvalvik (eds.) Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries, Hendrickson Publishers, 2007 I suggest one look closely at the model provided by Skarsaune's essay in that volume on the Ebionites. See pp. 419-462. The page omits a large amount of background material. There is nothing on the ebionim in the Tanakh, though it occurs there some 47 odd times.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Next step

The crux of the current dispute is the following material:

Some scholars argue that the Ebionites regarded James, brother, or cousin of Jesus, the first patriarch of Jerusalem|bishop of Jerusalem, the rightful leader of the Church rather than Peter. James Tabor argues that the Ebionites claimed a unique dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus.

Having looked at the section it is in, to be frank, most of the rest of it is supporting material to it, often based on primary sources. I think if we can hammer out agreement on these two claims, then the structure of the rest of the section will follow. I'm going to lay out the material below. I'd appreciate it if, to begin with, both people just brought sources which they think support the material. Not arguments yet, just sources. The sources should refer specifically to these claims. If the sources have quotations, that would be better.

"the Ebionites regarded James, brother, or cousin of Jesus, the first patriarch of Jerusalem|

Sources supporting inclusion of this material

1. James, The Brother of Jesus: The key to unlocking the secrets of early Christinaity, Robert Eisenman, ISBN 978 0 14025 77 31
2. James, Brother of Jesus, Pierre -Antoine Bernheim, ISBN 978 0 334026 95 2 "The fact that he became the head of the Jerusalem church is something which is generally accepted." from an ABC interview with author.
3. Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, John Painter, ISBN 1570035237
4. The Birth of Christianity, John Dominic Crossan, ISBN 978 0 060616 601
5. The Jesus Dynasty, James Tabor, ISBN 978 0 7432 8723 4
6. The Story of Civilization:III. Caesar and Christ, Will Durant, 1944. Page 577: James "the Just," "the brother of the Lord," became the head of the now reduced and impoverished church in Jerusalem [...] Thereafter Judaic Christianity waned in number and power, [...] Judaic Christianity survived for five centuries in a little group of Syriac Christians called Ebionim ("the poor"), who practiced Christian poverty and the full Jewish Law. At the end of the second century the Church condemned them as heretics. [1][2]

Sources supporting removal of this material

1. None of the sources at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites support this contention. The Oxford Dictionary saying it is an "open question" whether the group could be seen as descendant from the original church is probably the most directly addressing this issue. However, as said above, there seems to be very little to support as per that page the existence of "Ebionites" in the Christian community that early.

"the Ebionites claimed a unique dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus"

Sources supporting inclusion of this material

1. The Blessings of Africa: The Bible and African Christianity, Keith Augustus Burton, Intervarsity Press 2007 ISBN 978 0 8308 2762 5

Some Jewish Christians also revered the surviving relatives of Jesus who collectively were known as the desposyni ("belonging to the master"). For the Ebionites, the desposyni included the relatives of Mary and Joseph, and the descendants of Jesus' sisters and brothers. Those who accepted Jesus as the actual Son of God only included the relatives of Mary and his siblings, whom they considered his half brothers and sisters. As a result of the elevation of the desposyni, the Ebionites reckoned the apostolic succession through James as opposed to Peter, support for which they gleaned from Galations 2:9 and Acts 15:13-21. Each patriarch in the early comunities was a desposynos who always bore the name of one of Jesus' brothers.

— Chapter 8, The Development of Christianity in Palestine, pp.116,117