Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites

Improvements to reference format

The format of the footnotes and references is being improved to make them compatible with a future featured article. I have added author-links to the references where possible. Ignocrates (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Author-links for Wilhelm Pape and Hans-Joachim Schoeps still need to be linked to an English translation of German Wikipedia. If anyone knows how to do that, please rise to the occasion and improve them. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The footnotes were separated into citations and notes. The old ref format was replaced by the sfn and refn formats for citations and notes, respectively. The notes, citations, and references should now be compatible with an improvement to a featured article. Ignocrates (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Aa77zz

I'm not enamored by the two sets of numbers with the notes and not convinced that introducing the sfn template is really an improvement - the FA criteria do not specify a particular format for the references - you just need to be consistent. As the notes nearly always start with a citation perhaps you could use one of the harv templates like this:
{{refn|group=note|name=note01|{{harvcoltxt|Finley|2009|pp=291-3}} p.291 - "Unfortunately, Epiphanius' reliability ... "}}
Note that you are not required to use templates as all but I find them useful to maintain consistency. Your Citations section will then be very short - but this doesn't matter.
I notice that the punctuation in the notes is not consistent. Sometimes you begin with a dash sometimes a hyphen sometimes nothing. The notes may also be easier to read if you use two columns. Aa77zz (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I will try the harvcoltxt format, but I'm not convinced yet. There is a good chance that what we use here will be adopted for articles under improvement across the entire category, so I want to get input from several editors that regularly contribute to the category before we make a change like that. I hope the punctuation problems are resolved now. If you find any more issues, please detail them here and I will fix them. Thanks for all your help! Ignocrates (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

• First sentence of lead: "Gospel of the Ebionites is the conventional name given to the description by Epiphanius of Salamis of a gospel used by the Ebionites." This seems to verge on the circular - "Gospel of the Ebionites is ... a gospel used by the Ebionites." Is there some source that gives a succinct definition? If not, something that defines the topic more informaitvely seems called for: "The Gospel of the Ebionites is a lost gospel in use during the first few centuries of the Christian era by a Jewish-Christian community (the Ebionites) on the east bank of the Jordan." (Of course, I'm not even sure this is true, just suggesting how a more informative first line might look). The 2nd sentence could then explain how its existence is known only from the fragments quoted by Epiphanius the existing 2nd sentence can do that, just expanding the reference to his name (the full Epiphanius of Salamis, and add his dates to give some context).

• 2nd para of lead: "Epiphanius mistakenly identifies it as the "Hebrew" gospel, believing it to be a truncated and modified version of the Gospel of Matthew." I feel uneasy with saying the good Epiphanius might have made a mistake. He was, however, mistaken. Try combining that sentence with the next: " Epiphanius ... identifies it as the "Hebrew" gospel, believing it to be a truncated and modified version of the Gospel of Matthew, [but] he text is in fact a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, composed in Greek, with various expansions and abridgments reflecting the theology of the writer." (Note the two added commas, too).

• 2nd para: "Distinctive features of the text include..." Stop saying "of the text", it can be taken for granted. Ditto "the practice of vegetarianism" - just "vegetarianism" is enough.

• 2nd para: "The gospel harmony is believed to have been composed sometime during the middle of the 2nd century in or around the region East of the Jordan River.[4] The gospel text was said to be used by "Ebionites" during the time of the Early Church;[note 4] however the identity of the group or groups that used the text remains a matter of conjecture.[note 5]" Presumably "the gospel harmony" is this Gospel of the Ebionites, in which case "it" will do. More importantly, you're talking here about composition (when, where, and by whom); you last talked about composition in the first two sentences (The original title of the gospel is unknown. Epiphanius mistakenly identifies it as the "Hebrew" gospel, believing it to be a truncated and modified version of the Gospel of Matthew. The text is a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels composed in Greek with various expansions and abridgments reflecting the theology of the writer.)" Then you talked about contents; and now you're back to composition. Put composition together, and contents at the end of the para.

• 3rd para: I have doubts about this - confusing to the non-specialist reader?

"The Gospel of the Ebionites is one of the Jewish-Christian Gospels, along with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans, which survive only as fragments in quotations of the Early Church Fathers. Because so little of the text is known, its relationship to the other Jewish-Christian Gospels and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel has been a subject of scholarly investigation. More recently, it has been recognized that the gospel harmony is a distinctive text from the others[note 6] and it has been identified more closely with the lost Gospel of the Twelve.[note 7] A similarity between the Gospel and a source document contained within the Clementine Recognitions (Rec. 1.27–71), conventionally referred to by scholars as the Ascents of James, has also been noted with respect to the command to abolish the Jewish sacrifices.[note 8]"

Keeping the same information, but casting into more user-friendly language:

The Gospel of the Ebionites is one of [SEVERAL] Jewish-Christian Gospels, along with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans,[;] [ALL] survive only as fragments in quotations of the Early Church Fathers [ADD ROUGH PERIOD]. ITS relationship to the other Jewish-Christian Gospels[,] and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel[,] has been a subject of scholarly [DISPUTE?]; More recently, [MORE RECENT THAN WHAT?]it has been recognized that [EBIONITES] is [DISTINCT] from [THESE][note 6][,] and it has been identified more closely with the lost Gospel of the Twelve.[note 7] A similarity to the Ascents of James has also been noted with respect to the command to abolish the Jewish sacrifices.[note 8]

Hope this helps. I'll look in again later. PiCo (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

PiCo, thanks for all of these helpful suggestions to improve the lead. I will take them one paragraph at a time. I'm going to begin with lead paragraph 3 because that one is the easiest to rewrite. Ignocrates (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead paragraph 3

There are five important concepts to get across in this paragraph:

1. The Gospel of the Ebionites is one of what has been classified by scholars as three Jewish-Christian Gospels. Modern scholars are still using the same definition from 100 years ago, so we are too for this article.
2. All of the J-C gospels are fragments consisting of quotations by the early Church Fathers. Therefore, their composition and the relationship between them is uncertain.
3. Despite this, the identity of what constitutes the Gospel of the Ebionites has never seriously been questioned (the conflict is over GHeb vs. GNaz). It has long been recognized that Epiphanius is the sole source and there are seven fragments in his quotations. What I referred to as recent is Klijn's (1992) analysis showing in detail how the Ebionite gospel is different from the others. Ever since Klijn's 1992 book, no one is even asking the question anymore with respect to the other J-C gospels. The consensus is near-universal, and only the lack of a specific scholarly quote prevents me from saying it is universal.
4. Several scholars have speculated that the GEb might be the same as the Gospel of the Twelve mentioned by Origen. Other scholars have pushed back and said we can't know this with any degree of certainty. No other possibilities have been advanced, so it remains a speculation.
5. Similarities have been noted between the GEb and the Ascents of James with respect to abolishing the Jewish sacrifices.

These are the main points I'm trying to get across concisely in paragraph three of the lead. Ignocrates (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead paragraph 2

1. I moved the single sentence about Epiphanius to paragraph 1 of the lead. That will be reworded to fit later. Now paragraph 2 is about the who, what, when, and where of the gospel itself.
2. The remaining content was rearranged so that composition is first followed by content.
3. I made most of the other tweaks you suggested to eliminate redundancies.

I think that about covers it. Now I'm going to rewrite paragraph 1 of the lead using the Mercer dictionary as a guide. Ignocrates (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead paragraph 1

1. The lead for paragraph 1 was reorganized and rewritten so that all the information about Epiphanius is in one place.
2. I changed the wording to say that he "misidentified" the gospel, so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of our readers, unlike the Mercer dictionary which says he "erroneously" identified the gospel.
3. A wiki was added to link to the Jewish Christians page. That was not in the article before.

That completes my rewrite of the lead. I tried to incorporate most of your suggestions, and I think the addition of the Mercer dictionary as a citation in the lead will be helpful to a general reader. Ignocrates (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Simon (1689)

At present Simon (1689) is mentioned in Note 12 but does not have an entry in the Sources. I think it would be neater to delete the Note, add Simon to the Sources and cite using sfn. (I admit I'm swayed by the fact that Google The Internet Archive provide a scan of the original). Here is an entry for the Sources:

• Simon, Richard (1689). A critical history of the text of the New Testament: wherein is firmly established the truth of those acts on which the foundation of Christian religion is laid. R. Taylor. OCLC 228723131..

I've add an oclc number as I've seen reviewers request them, but I'm not convinced that they are useful. Aa77zz (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Swapped to linking to the copy at the Internet Archive. Aa77zz (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Good find! It's done. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Quotes in Notes

There are problems with the double quote marks in Notes 13, 20, 25, 26. Also Note 39 cites Martyn 1978 and gives the title - although book is in the Sources. Aa77zz (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed notes as indicated. Ignocrates (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

First para of lead

The lead should be an overview. Consider removing some of the detail in the first paragraph such as "Chapter 30", and the sentence on the numbering system in Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha. These can be introduced later in the Background section. Aa77zz (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Good points. The explicit numbering system and elaborate testimonials for Vielhauer & Strecker in note 2 are both artifacts of a previous edit war that reduced this article to a smoldering stub. I will move these out of the lead before I rewrite the first paragraph. Ignocrates (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Completed. On to rewriting lead paragraph 1... Ignocrates (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Question of POV

It has been rather belabored by several people that this topic has not gotten much recent attention. In general, when that happens, one of the most common reasons for such a situation is that there is, basically, not much new to say about it. So far as I can tell, the reference source with the longest entry on the subject is the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which also happens to be one of the most highly, if not perhaps the most highly, regarded relatively recent reference book on the subject out there. That article is roughly a full page long, much longer than any others I have seen. The differences between that reference entry and this article are, honestly, nothing less than amazing to me. I believe that the source is also among the most easily accessible, and I am frankly astonished at the remarkably different content of the two pages, including the comparative disregard in this article to several of the major points in the article in that source, which I believe would be all but impossible if that highly reputable reference source had been consulted much, if at all. I also believe that there is more than sufficient cause to believe that the major editor of this article, Ovadyah/Ignocrates, who has both indicated in the first very first surving edit to his user page here indicates a clear interest to "modern Ebionite movements." It is worth noting that none of them, despite several later edits to his talk page about the topic, have ever been demonstrated to have any independent notability, although he apparently took part in an “agreement” in a mediation to create such an article despite lack of notability anyway, as is indicated below. I also believe that Ovadyah/Ignocrates' insistence on the reliability of James Tabor's book The Jesus Dynasty, which the author has admitted was not even submitted for academic review, and his refusal to remove or adjust content based on legitimate concerns about the use of that source was one of the primary reasons that article lost FA status. On the basis of all of this, particularly the remarkable variance from the content of the substantial "Anchor Bible Dictionary", particularly without any apparent reason given that I can see for such differences, I believe that there is sufficient reason to believe that POV concerns may be exhibited here. I very much request that independent editors review the related reference sources, including the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which should be rather easily available to most people, and review the matter for the unexplained and apparently undiscussed differences between them.

I also believe that it might well be extremely useful to have independent editors review all the conduct of all those involved with this topic to see if they believe that there is sufficient basis for a second arbitration hearing, or perhaps a request for administrative action, be started. I am at least temporarily withholding tagging the article for POV, which I believe it clearly deserves, and from nominating it for FAR, which I believe is probably justified, pending some sort of review from other individuals in the near future. Some statements here, for instance, which indicate that Ignocrates/Ovadyah displays an extraordinary degree of knowledge of a subject which had at the time, and still has, little if any independent sourced material, and even seems to indicate that he knows that what independent reliable sources say is wrong, is a particularly troubling matter. I believe that there are sufficient grounds for serious consideration of administrative or arbitrator review of this matter, and would be extremely grateful if any independent individual would review the discussion of the topic, particularly that of Ovadyah/Ignocrates. Regarding my own conduct, I have said from the beginning if an independent admin requested me to withdraw my adminship, and demonstrated to me good reason, I would do so myself voluntarily. I will stand by that principle here as well. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)