Talk:Ebionites

Eusebius and the Gospel of Matthew

On the article, it makes reference to how Eusebius spoke of the Gospel of the Hebrews. I was reading Ecclesiastical History, and came across this reference: As to these translators it should be stated that symmachus was an Ebionite... Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he appears to support this heresy by attacking the Gospel of Matthew. (Ecc. Hist. Book VI. Ch. XVII.) Use this reference you see best.24.125.102.206 (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2010 (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)

I reapplied the expert-verify tag that I had placed in August. That is certainly appropriate for an article that has been demoted from FA to B status. I'll leave it to others to decide about cleanup. That's it. Good luck. Ovadyah 13:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Question. I believe the one encyclopedia entry I used cited primarily non-English sources. Would it be preferable to try to find the non-English sources, even if they would be less easily understood by the average reader? John Carter 17:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee found that MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring and is subject to an editing restriction for one year, he is limited to one revert per page per week and must discuss any content changes on the article's talk page. Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 04:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

traditional portrayal

If we have to go back 50 0r 100 years to find a scholar that supports the traditional view, can we just cut it as not contemporary?

Some scholars agree with the substance of the traditional portrayal as an offshoot of mainstream Christianity attempting to reestablish [[Halakha|Jewish Law]],<ref name="Uhlhorn">G. Uhlhorn, "Ebionites", in: Philip Schaff (ed.), ''A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology'', 3rd ed. (1894), p. 684–685 (vol. 2).</ref><ref name="RGG">O. Cullmann, "Ebioniten", in: ''Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart'', 1958. p. 7435 (vol. 2).</ref>

Leadwind (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A White European Jesus?

The Ebionites REJECTED the works of Paul surely this image is the ulitmate in mockey...

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Wace 1911" :
  • {{cite book | author = Henry Wace & William Piercy | title = A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography | year = 1911 | url = http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Ebionism%20and%20Ebionites| accessdate = 2007-08-01}}
  • {{cite book | author = Wace, Henry & Piercy, William | title = A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography | year = 1911 | url = http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Ebionism%20and%20Ebionites| accessdate = 2007-08-01}}
• "Maccoby 1987" :
  • {{cite book| author = [[Hyam Maccoby]]| title = The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity| pages = p. 172-183.| publisher = HarperCollins | year = 1987 | id = ISBN 0062505858}}
  • {{cite book| author = [[Hyam Maccoby]]| title = The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity| publisher = HarperCollins | year = 1987 | id = ISBN 0062505858}}
• "RGG" :
  • [[Oscar Cullmann]], "Ebioniten", in: ''Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart'', 1958. p. 7435 (vol. 2).
  • O. Cullmann, "Ebioniten", in: ''Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart'', p. 7435 (vol. 2).
• "Arendzen 1909" :
  • [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm "Ebionites"], ''[[Catholic Encyclopedia]]'', vol. V (1909).
  • {{cite book| author = Arendzen, J.P. | title = Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V.: Ebionites | publisher = Robert Appleton Company | year = 1904}}
• "Uhlhorn" :
  • G. Uhlhorn, "Ebionites", in: [[Philip Schaff]] (ed.), ''A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology'', 3rd ed. (1894), p. 684–685 (vol. 2).
  • G. Uhlhorn, "Ebionites", in: ''A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology'', 3rd ed. (edited by Philip Schaff), p. 684–685 (vol. 2).

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision Needed

This article needs a lot of work! - Ret.Prof (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

Yes, and it needs even more work now that the lead section has been demolished! --Ovadyah (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ebionites and Jewish Christians and early Christians

How do Ebionites compare to Jewish Christians in general and (prior to Paul) to Christians in general? Were all Christians prior to Paul also Jewish? Were all Jewish Christians Ebionites? If not, how did Ebionites compare to other Jewish Christians? Leadwind (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed ad nauseum on this talk page. Check the archives for well-documented primary and secondary sources, now blown away by clumsy editing. --Ovadyah (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to Neo-Ebionite groups

Look, I have no problem with neo-ebionite groups. The problem is a lack of notability and verifiability. The editors that put much time and effort into this article have been through this many times before. If you add content to the article or an external link that advertises your group then the burden is on you to prove it should remain. --Ovadyah (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed Neo-Ebionite bit

There was no attempt to show significance. Look, on the internet it is simple to find a group of people that profess to believe just about anything you can think of, and they often like to use ancient names. So, I've got to say "so what?" You need to show why a group rises to the level of significance to be worthy of note. If we let every half-baked internet religious group have space, we may as well let every garage band have a page.Ekwos (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ebionite Jewish Community

When I click on the ebionite jewish community mentioned in the article it redirects me to the Ebionite page. Why is it even mentioned if it does not have a page itself? Maybe this EJC mention and redrect should be removed like the other neo-ebionite advertisments have been?

The debate on the nomination for deletion of the EJC article resulted in a consensus to merge. The EJC article was merged with a redirect to the Ebionites article (see top of talk page). The merged section was subsequently deleted anyway. --Ovadyah (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is blantantly unfair. The consensus was merge, not delete, yet now they have been deleted.--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the deletion was a well-intentioned mistake. An inexperienced editor, happening by, responded to what they thought was an advertisement placed in the article by a fringe group. --Ovadyah (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA

Basically, it seems to me that maybe the best way to go to bring the article up to FA again might be to at least consult the sources cited in the more recent reference works regarding the topic, maybe add citations from them if desirable, and then maybe citations or content from any demonstrably relevant works which have appeared since those articles were written. More or less, I think most of us would agree that content in other current encyclopedia articles probably should be here as well, and, although I am in no way saying we should specifically adjust the content to reflect those other sources, checking to see what they have gotten from their own sources would clearly make sense. And if, of course, the other encyclopedia article contains some information which can't be found in their own cited English sources, then I think it would be considered acceptable to cite an encyclopedia as a source, as the possibly only really useful English language source for that information. Would that make sense to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You might start by contacting the two reviewers that picked the article to pieces during FAR. Maybe they are also capable of doing something constructive. I doubt that the original contributors would be willing to waste more time on it. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I consulted the Encyclopedia of Religion (2005), The Early Church by Thomas Robbins (1993), Encyclopedia of Early Christianity edited by Everett Ferguson, 2nd ed., (1997), The Early Christian World by Philip Esler (2000), Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana, and Man, Myth, and Magic (1995), all of which are in the reference section of the local Catholic university. With the exception of World Book Encyclopedia, which had no article on the Ebionites, they were all the sources which it seemed likely to me might have separate articles on that group. I found a total of eleven English language sources referenced in all of them. MMM has a rather complicated topical bibliography at the beginning of the first volume, whose "Religion" section does not include Eisenman. He is included in none of the other bibliographies either. The MMM article, which reads more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia in general, refers extensively to a theory involving James, Saint Stephen, and Paul, but seems to have a definite axe to grind. I am asking Dab, who had been previously involved, for any input he might have, including specifically information on the reception of the Tabor book. However, based on what I have seen, any reference to Eisenman is based solely on the Tabor source. There are some other matters raised by the sources in the bibliography, regarding the objectivity of the church fathers, the possibility of the Nazorene/Ebionites possibly being interchangable names among the church fathers, and possibly even the adherents, etc., but I intend to consult the cited sources before going to greater depth regarding those matters. Otherwise, the sources consulted above tend to say, like in the Encyclopedia of Religion article referenced some time ago by me, that the various references to "Ebionites" are likely/probably to groups unrelated except for the name, and that on that basis there is at best a weak claim to use them collectively to assert any alleged commonalities. I find 6 reviews of The Jesus Dynasty, and am in the process of consulting them to see how the work was received. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Of the six reviews of Tabor's book, I have not yet gotten to those in the Literary Review of Canada, the Biblical Archaeology Review, or Library Journal. However, based on the three I have seen, there is very serious question whether this book itself might not itself qualify as putting forward, as it were, "Fringe theories."

• The review in "Choice", pp. 662-663 of December 2006, indicates the book "recalls" The DaVinci Code. The book "hypotheses deserves scholarly debate, yet it sidesteps scholar and appeals directly to the nonspeciailist public with a style often recalling Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code and that it's strategy "guarantees this volume both general interest and scholarly frustration, being simultaneously the cause and symptom of the book's inconsistencies." "Tabor practices the uncritical act of assuming the complementary intertextuality of gospel birth narratives", while, without explanation, assumes the critical consensus in grounding his characterization of Jesus in the Q sources. Scholars will likely conclude that ... convenience alone motivates the book's acceptance of the traditional attribution of the former and rejection of authority of the latter."
• Booklist on page 4 of the 4/15/06 edition remarks on the book's "startling claims", comments that it's "structure ... seems scattered," and that "Tabor begins with several exciting archaeological finds [including a cave which may have been used by John the Baptist and some ossuaries which might be related to Jesus' family] but remarks on its having problems, one of which is "his emphasis on the genealogies of Jesus presented in Matthew and Luke, which are discounted by many scholars.
• Publishers Weekly, March 13 2006, p. 63, indicates "Tabor not only challenges Christian dogma, he also makes some assumptions with which not all scholars will agree: he places a great deal of emphasis on the hypothetical text Q, calling it "our most authentic early Christian document." It goes on to say that the book is "accessible and sure to be highly controversial."

In light of the above, a cynic might see that the book might be an attempt by an academic to cash in on a popular phenomenon. The claim that the Q source, whose very existence is a matter of deep conjecture, is "our most authentic early Christian document" can hardly be said to indicate that this source reflects anything like current scholarly consensus. I have not been able to consult the book itself, because the library here at Saint Louis University, which Gordon Melton counted on of the best religion archives in the United States, does not have a copy, indicating that they never bought it in the first place, which itself can be seen as being another strike against its reflecting anything like consensus.

On the basis of all the above, I have to say that, at least in my opinion, that even a brief mention of this book in this article might be too much of a promotion of a fringe theory, certainly in light of the statements in other, more highly regarded sources, which seemingly ignore the claims of Eisenman and Tabor and advocate options which seem contrary to them. This includes, by the way, Brill's Religion Past and Present, 2007, Volume 4 p. 252, which makes no mention in either text or bibliography of either book, and concludes with "So "Ebionites" cannot be further historically specified than being one name, among others, for ancient Jewish Christians."

I very definitely believe that the present academic view of the archaeological sites Tabor was involved in, which seem to be involved in the formulation of his theories, is relevant to this article. I would check myself, but this library, evidently, didn't think the book worth purchasing. I have also contacted the Fringe Theories Noticeboard for any input the editors who frequent it might be interested in making. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll offer my two cents then stay out of it. Play it safe and leave Tabor out. Achieving NPOV is not possible on a topic like this. However, please don't use the tired argument that these are "fringe theories" being peddled by a "fringe scholar". Tabor is the department chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC-Charlotte. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, no one is saying Tabor is a fringe scholar. There is a difference, however, between a "fringe scholar" (which he definitely is not) and a fringe theory as per WP:FRINGE, specifically including this direct quote from the "identifying fringe theories" section: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." The reviews I have seen indicate that this book could be reasonably described as a collection of at times contradictory opinions, based on at times beliefs which are definitely not part of mainstream thinking, like the belief that a theoretical document no one has ever seen, and whose very existence has been seriously disputed, is somehow the most reliable source on early Christianity. Also, I have to belief that theories which are not even mentioned in the standard reference works on a topic, and which seem to, at times, be based on ideas which are directly contradictory to those supported in such reference works, pretty much by definition qualify as at least contrary to the mainstream, and very likely as "fringe" as per wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your "standard texts" are all from "the reference section of the local Catholic university", right? That's called confirmation bias.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Such off-topic responses are of no use whatsoever. And if the above editor believes there are any similarly reliable sources independent of Eisenman and Tabor themselves which support their beliefs, I believe we would all welcome seeing them. And if the above editor considers any of the sources cited above inherently biased, including the three independent reviews which have indicated that the book is very likely "fringe" as per wikipedia guidelines, I would once again request he produce such information, which is much more useful than simply refering to pages unrelated to any wikipedia policies or guidelines. Frankly, I have seen no "independent confirmation" of those theories being mainstream at all, "biased" or not. Discussion which would be useful would be discussion which indicates that the theories fall within the accepted mainstream. I have seen absolutely no evidence to indicate that these theories do, and a good deal of evidence in reference works like Encyclopedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia of Religion, etc., which indicates that the theories do not. I sincerely hope that in the future responses deal with the substantive questions asked, regarding the mainstream acceptance of the theories in these books or lack of same, rather than in off-topic commentary. Independent sources indicating the opinions are within the academic mainstream, as per wikipedia guidelines, is what is sought, not arguing over semantics. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If my response is so "blatantly off-topic" then why not just ignore it and let it speak for itself? I don't believe it was off-topic but highlights the problem here; everyone, it seems, has an axe to grind on this subject - there is no single mainstream. I wonder if a unitarian library would yield a different assortment of reviews? --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, please read WP:FRINGE, which is a content guideline. It is a standard for all content. It seems I must once again ask the above editor to actually address any of the reasonable concerns raised above, rather than indulge in rhetoric. Several encyclopedic sources have been referenced, and as I have indicated none of them refer directly to Tabor or Eisenman. Instead of indulging in rhetoric, maybe the above editor could actually try to find some sources such as those he hypothesizes? John Carter (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Raising the possibility of confirmation bias is not rhetoric. Interesting that you should characterise it as such, though. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Even more interesting is your refusal to provide the requested sourcing, and apparently trying to deflect attention from this failure on your part. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also for what it's worth, the editor's task is not to decide on what is "mainstream" but to ensure that articles are balanced and maintain NPOV. Achieving NPOV is a difficult task on controversial topics and content disputes should be resolved by community consensus. The main problem with Tabor's book is that many of his conclusions are speculative. Is an author entitled to speculate beyond what can be learned from his primary sources? I would say that is what constitutes scholarship, beyond merely citing primary sources or reporting what others have said. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - sourced speculation is not a problem. We just report it here. I also agree we shouldn't be wasting time on trying to decide on all the wrinkles of what is mainstream (which doesn't exist here anyway).--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The main problem with Tabor's book, as indicated in the reviews, includes the fact that his conclusions are speculative, but is not limited to that. It also includes that his sourcing for such speculation, as indicated in at least one of the reviews, seems to be based on how convenient those sources are to him in substantiating his theories.

I also think that there is a mainstream opinion regarding this subject, if only one of a negative kind. Specifically, several of the encyclopedias consulted have indicated that any attempt to draw clear distinctions between the Ebionites, Nazoreans, Elkeasites, and Symmachians (I hope I spelled them all correctly) will be challenged, and that based on the likely bias of the historical sources, the comparatively few references to any of them in literature, and the often large physical and cultural distances between them.

In any event, I stand by my previous statements. It is, as I'm sure Michael will remember, the task of the person who seeks to include or keep in material to provide sources which indicate that the material falls within the mainstream of academic opinion. I have seen no such sources identified yet. As per wikipedia policies and guidelines including WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, content which has not yet indicated it either falls within the mainstream or deserves the weight it receives can be challenged, and that challenge is now here explicitly made. I repeat my request that the sources required to indicate that this source falls within the mainstream be produced, as I explicitly have the right to do. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

the task of the person who seeks to include or keep in material to provide sources which indicate that the material falls within the mainstream of academic opinion. No, since there is no mainstream consensus about Ebionites. I agree with Ovadyah's statement on his talk page that "The article as it stands is very biased toward a conservative Catholic point of view.". That is something you can't or won't see. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your statement takes as an implicit fact that there is no of general mainstream consensus about the Ebionites, which, of course, has itself not yet been demonstrated by any citations. I note you have still completely failed to cite any sources other than Tabor to support the inclusion of Eisenman. In fact, your own comments over all the time you have been pushing that opinion have rarely if ever displayed any real knowledge of the subject beyond that book, and, later Tabor. And, as demonstrated, there is apparent academic consensus, based on the silence of encyclopediac references on Eisenman and the commentary yet found on Tabor's book that, at least, there is some consensus that certainly Eisenman, and possibly Tabor book, fall outside the area of consensus as well. You have demonstrated a great fondest for engaging in all sorts of commentary which completely and utterly fail to address the matter of finding additional sources to support the inclusion of Eisenman. As per that guideline you yourself cited, I think it can, demonstrably, be stated that Eisenman has not been demonstrated to be in the acadmic mainstream. I am bringing questions regarding The Jesus Dynasty on the RSN as well. In any event, the challenge remains in place, and the continuing refusal to find any other sources is itself a serious question. Regarding the allegations of Catholic bias, I have to question why Ovadyah, who has historically been one of the greatest contributors to this article, apparently never raised the issue of Catholic bias before, and that I, as an individual with an alleged Catholic bias, have rarely if ever edited the article at all. In any event, still waiting for other sources regarding either Eisenman and Tabor to confirm that they do not fall outside the mainstream.

And, for what it's worth, these are the sources indicated in the encyclopedias found to date, followed by the name of the source citing them:

• Bethune-Baker, J. F. - An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine to the Time of the Council of Chalcedon (The Early Church)
• Beveridge, H. - Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. Hastings, 5:139-45 (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
• Crehan, J. H. - "Ebionites," Catholic Dictionary of Theology (Encyclopedia of Christianity)
• Elliott, James Keith - The Apocryphal New Testament (The Early Christian World; Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls)
• Fitzmyer, J. A. - "The Qumran Scrolls, the Ebionites and Their Literature,' Theological Studies 16 (1955)
• Gorenson, S. - "Ebionites", Anchor Bible Dictionary (Encyclopedia of Christianity)
• Goulder, Michael - "A Poor Man's Christology," New Testament Studies 1999 (Encyclopedia of Religion)
• Hort, F. J. A. - Judaistic Christianity (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
• Howard, George - "The Gospel of the Ebionites" in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen welt (The Early Christian World; Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
• Keck, L. E. - "The Poor Among the Saints in the New Testament," Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 56 (1965)
• Keck. L. E. - "The Poor Among the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran," Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 57 (1968)
• Klijn, A. F. J. - Jewish-Chrsitian Gospel Tradition (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
• Klijn, A. F. J. & G. J. Reinink - Patristic Evidence for Jesish Christian Sects (Encyclopedia of Christianity; Encyclopedia of Early Christianity; Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
• Neander, A. - Christian Church (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
• Neve, J. L. - History of Christian Thought (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
• Pritz, Ray A. - Nazarene Jewish Christianity (The Early Church; The Early Christian World)
• Schaff, P. - Christian CHurch (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
• Schoeps, H. J. - Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church (Encyclopedia of Christianity; Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
• Schoeps, H. J. - "Ebionite Christianity", Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 4 (1953) (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
• Streckerg - "On the Problem of Jewish Christianity," in Walter Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (The Early Church; Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
• Teicher, J. L. - "The Dead Sea Scrolls - Documents of the Jewish Christian Sect of Ebionites," Journal of Jewish Studies 2 (1951)
• Teicher, J. L. - "The Teaching of the Pre-Pauline CHurch in the Dead Sea Scrolls," Journal of Jewish Studies 3 (1952) & 4 (1953) (Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls)
• Vielhauer, P. - "The Gospel of the Ebionites", New Testament Apocrypha by Hennecke
• Wilson, Stephen G. - Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 CE (The Early Christian World) John Carter (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm only going to say this once. Stop linking to or lifting comments from my talk page and pasting them on article talk pages. My comments there were copied selectively and then taken completely out of context. If you read the full text of my remarks, you will see that I said the article is not deliberately biased. However, there is a bias that results from incorporating the material of certain editors (completely appropriate) while removing the contributions of others (a matter yet to be resolved). The version of the article that was promoted to FA, and featured one day on the Wiki homepage, was more NPOV than the current version. The problem with that version was factual accuracy - incorrectly reporting or conflating material from secondary sources. --Ovadyah (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I shall copy what I like, when I like, where I like.

I did not take your comments out of context - not did I imply that the bias was deliberate, as you seem to be implying with your response here. Most biases are unconscious. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have found two academic reviews of the Tabor book, although I cannot provide links to them from this location. The first is from the Review of Biblical Literature, V10, 2008, pp. 352-355. To quote, "In his "The Jesus Dynasty' James Tabor presents a reconstruction of the Jesus movement from a perspective that purports to be a neutral view of facts. Unfortunately, Tabor's views are not neutral and his "facts" are not facts." This is a rather extreme statement to be found in an academic review. Also, Robert M. Price, apparently on his page, has stated regarding this book, from his page, "As it is, Tabor's case is a chain of weak links soldered together by supposition, possibility, and "what ifs." Tabor often simply asserts "I believe that". That is a matter of hunches, not evidence.... Everything is wrong with this." These are the only two academic reviews I have yet found, and both give the impression that this is in fact, not an "academic" view per se, but the opinion of a biased party. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight to Fringe theories

According to the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Jesus Dynasty, it seems fairly obvious that the consensus of uninvolved editors consider this work to be a work putting forward a fringe theory. On that basis, given wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, without additional substantial support from other academics, there is insufficient cause for Tabor's book, which is apparently regarded as "fringey", to receive substantive discussion in this or any article. Eisenman's book, which had previously been determined to be "fringey", seems to be only supported by Tabor's fringey source, and two fringe sources do not make something non-fringe. I am therefore being bold and removing text and citations relative to these books in articles where it seems to be the above policies and guidelines apply. I believe any attempt to restore more content to those articles, without explicit consensus from editors, would likely qualify as edit warring, and will be responded to as such. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A minority view doesn't make it inadmissable. I'm reverting. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between a "minority" view and a fringe view, as the above editor well knows. These sources have both been indicated to be "fringey" as per WP:FRINGE. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. An editor cannot unilaterally decide what is "mainstream" and then use this self-designated authority to delete whole paragraphs of sourced content while suppressing any disagreement by flogging it as edit warring. This is POV-pushing at its worst. The paragraph in question is supported by multiple sources. I have requested informal mediation to get some oversight for this process and try to calm things down (see below). If that fails or is rejected, I think a trip to AN/I is warranted. Ovadyah (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I call to the attention of any outside intereted parties that there has been a request for input at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories noticeboard, that both of the above parties had indicated that their own biases toward including this information earlier, without providing any valid reasons to support its inclusion, and that at no point did either party do anything to assert or even indicate that there was any evidence to indicate that the Tabor/Eisenman theory is not fringe, and that previous discussion indicated the Eisenman theory, on its own, counted as fringe. I would welcome a review of the entire history of this matter, including possible indications of conflict of interest on the part of one or both of the above parties regarding this subject. I also call to the attention of any interested outsider that both of the above seem to be well aware of the requirement that they produce substantial evidence that the material does in fact fall within the mainstream for it to be included, and that despite being aware of that obligation, no such evidence has been forthcoming from either party. The above declaration that the material is supported by multiple sources seems to be specifically ignoring the fact that both of the current sources have been apparently determined to be fringe. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for informal mediation

I contacted Jayjg to request informal mediation for restoring this article to FA quality. I considered an RfC, but this effort may require more intervention than just commentary. Jayjg is one of the most experienced admins on Wikipedia, and I will leave it to his judgment to find neutral mediators with enough background in this subject to be constructive. Ovadyah (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The majority of the available evidence calls into question the existence of Ebion, and he seems to be exclusively mentioned in some of the early patristics. I cannot see any reason the information in the Ebion article should not be merged into this one. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It is already covered in this article. Ovadyah (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.Glorthac (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

restoration of Content

I believe that the "James Vs. Paul" section including the Eisenman/Tabor material is a clear, explicit, and blatant violation of our policy WP:VALID. There is comparatively little material discussing what seems to me to be the majority views that these conjectures have apparently no outside standing in the academic community. Unless both this section is substantiated by any sources independent of Tabor and Eisenman within seven days, and sufficient material regarding the opposing viewpoints is added, I believe I will be completely justified by the policy indicated above to reduce the content, possibly even outright removal. Particularly considering these work's relevance has been under serious discussion for three years now, and the individuals who added the content still haven't apparently found independent acadmic sources who give the proposal much credit as per the above referenced policy, given that they haven't indicated any during the time these sources have most recently been in discussion, I have every reason to believe that there is a very serious possibility that these works have received no particular support in the academic community. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A new source has been added to the disputed section, John Painter (1999) "Just James - The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition", therefore, this section is substantiated by a source independent of Tabor and Eisenman. In fact, Painter is critical of Eisenman's methods and gives a detailed rebuttal of his work. This scholarly publication was well received in the academic community. Ovadyah (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you only seem capable of providing reviews written by religious dogmatists, here's an academic review to get you started [1]. This review appeared in Heythrop Journal 40, (1999), pp.481-482. Ovadyah (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ovadyah, thank you for finally, after three years of support for this sourcd, finally providing an independent source. Would that you had bothered to do so earlier. And your above statement seems to ignore the fact that I have provided several sources, based on academic sources, above.

And, if you are going to violate talk page guidelines by impugning others, in the future please do so when there is not clear evidence on the page on which you make your accusation which proves it to be inaccurate. It makes you look very, very silly, and raises all sorts of questions regarding your own motivations, some of which have already been asked on your talk page and ignored by you.

And, as I'm sure you know, that single source you have thankfully finally provided still does not necessarily provide sufficient information to believe that that section deserves such a disproportionately long section comparable to other sources, which have specifically ignored Eisenman/Tabor and/or made statements which indicate that, for instance, the Ebionites cannot by sources be effectively differentiated from the Nazoreans (or maybe even the Essenes, who called themselves "evyonites") and that any attempts to differentiate them are often found by other academics to be insufficiently founded on fact. I hope everyone knows that the only way to prove a negative is by quoting the entirety of the source, which would be a violation of copyright. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My own motivation is that I left this article behind in October 2007, until you recently contacted me about bringing the article back up to FA quality. I tried to make it clear to you that I have moved on to other things, and I am no longer interested. If I have been slow to respond to your repeated and insistent requests, it is because I have a busy professional life outside of Wikipedia, and I am not that interested. I am also not interested in colluding with you in any schemes to provoke Michael C Price into an edit war that you can then bring to AN/I, so please stop sending me emails to that effect. Frankly, I am sick of your behavior, and I would never collaborate with you on this or any other project again, unless I felt that you were doing something completely inappropriate and I had no other choice. Ovadyah (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, for all the comments you have made, it would have been quite easy for you to actually follow any of your previous "final comments". If this time you actually intend to abide by your word, I think it would be welcome. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, John Carter. You may strike out my remarks but you cannot delete them. Here, I'll do it for you. Ovadyah (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments which clearly violate WP:NPA, as yours did, do deserve striking. And, I wonder, considering you have made "final comments" at least thrice now which were proven to not be such, I wonder why you persist in claiming that they will be. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

At last John Carter's true colours are exposed, trying to provoke an edit war to get me blocked at AN/I, just as he did the previous time. No surprises there, however it ain't going to work. Admins take note of his nefarious emailing. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And the above editors true colors have been exposed by his previous ban from the topic for one year, his refusal to address the issues of sourcing and WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and other long-term misconduct. And, of course, there is the still the question of whether one, single, well-received work is sufficient to address matters of WP:UNDUE, WP:VALID, etc. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As usual, John, your facts are not straight; I was not topic banned. But good luck with your usual strategy of fling dirt around as a smokescreen to cover your own unethical behaviour. Not very subtle. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I learned it from you. I cannot imagine ever encountering anyone who was as full of words which have little if any relation to policies, guidelines, and actually useful conversation than you. And, frankly, others noted that well before I myself did. 96.35.141.2 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring

To my eyes, given that this is an article based, primarily, on a small number of early sources, all of whose objectivity has been apparently questioned, it strikes me as being, maybe with Donatism, a similar article about a group about whom we know, basically, bloody little from few sources, as being one of the easier articles to bring up to FA. Logically, given the nature of the content, I would suggest the following format for the article:

• 1) Discussion of early sources - including the Pauline references, the "evyonites" mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls not currently mentioned in the article, and the 3 earlier extant references
• 2) the later extant early references
  • references to books which have been attributed to the Ebionites would be mentioned in conjunction with the extant sources mentioning those books, particularly in relation to the Ebionites, and/or included in the relevant chronological section
• 3) discussion of the theories relating to the Ebionites prior to the more recent advance and development of archaeology and scholarship (the past few hundred years)
• 4) more current discussions.

As I have indicated above, the majority of the academic sources I have found, including at least one Jewish encyclopedia, have indicated that, in the eyes of modern scholarship, there is insufficient reliable discernible difference between the Ebionites, Elkeasites, and Nazoreans for anyone to be able to really make any differentiations. Basically, the references from the so-called "church fathers" are so short, so distant from the sources they were describing physically and temporally, and written by clearly biased individuals, that their reliability is open to serious question. However, that does not mean that academics will not continue to refer to these groups by their historic names, and I found in an academic journal of the past year or two an article about the Ebionites and the pseudo-Clementines to prove that. Therefore, I think it might make sense to include in the Jewish Christianity article, which might be more clearly renamed Early Jewish Christianity, a brief discussion of the various relevant groups/names involved, summary sections about each which "see also" headers to the relevant articles, and a short discussion of the academic view that differentiation of them is difficult and that a substantive number of scholars dispute any such differentiation. And, yes, I found at least one Jewish encyclopedia of recent years which said at the article title "Ebionites (also known as Nazoreans)". If it isn't in use, I should be able to find it in the next few days at request, and I imagine there will be such a request. And, although it still isn't finished, and I can't swear I actually have access to all the sources listed, I think in conjunction with the comparatively few journal articles about the Ebionites under that name, the books now and yet to be listed at Bibliography of Jewish Christians (like I said, it ain't done yet) should be sufficient, particularly those which are referenced in current encyclopedias, which are listed by me above. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It is The New Encyclopedia of Judaism (2002) edited by Wigoler, p. 223, where the entry starts "Ebionites (also known as Nazarenes). It is I believe also worth noting that the featured article version of this article seems to basically ignore the fact that the name "evyonim" is used frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls, seemingly potentilly identifying them with the Dead Sea Sect, despite the fact that such sources as The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (1997) edited by Werblowsky and Wigoler, on page 213 explicitly refers to the numerous references in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The fact that what may be the only documents which may include self-identification of "evyonim" was apparently ignored by the writers of the article is I believe disturbing and cannot help but to call into question the nature of the article as they prepared it. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant to add some pointers to this discussion a few days ago, but my off-Wiki life (e.g., going swimming with my wife & daughter, working in the yard where I am learning in great detail the meaning of the term "virgin soil") distracted me from doing so. I'd like to do so now.

First, Elkeasites are clearly a different Jewish-Christian sect from the Ebionites, for they included a number of gnostic beliefs, whereas the sources I have at hand -- Fred Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha; Jeffrey J. Bütz, The Brother of Jesus; Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities -- assume that the Ebionites are a group who self-identify as Jews, yet embrace an adoptionist Christology. (The Nazoreans, considering their name alone, most likely self-identified as Christians, but otherwise were very similar to the Ebionites. Another Jewish Christian sect would be the Johannine community proposed by the research of the late Raymond E. Brown. However, two other sects mentioned in the current version of this article -- the Carpocratians & the Cerinthians -- are commonly thought of as purely gnostic sects.)

Second, I agree that in restructuring this article there needs to be a careful distinction made between what the primary sources say & what more contemporary scholars state. For example, the etymology of "Ebionites" which derives their name from a Hebrew word is modern; one of the earliest attestations of the Ebionites, by Tertullian, derives their name from their supposed founder, one Ebion. Bart Ehrman writes that Origen is "probably closer to the mark" by linking it to the Hebrew word for "poor" -- but only after admitting that no one knows "for certain where the name comes from". (p. 98) Thirdly, any mention of James the Just in connection with the Ebionites -- or any Jewish Christian sect -- must needs explain why contemporary scholars associate him with this branch of Christianity: in such anomalous & pseudographical works as the Clementine writings, James is portrayed as the hero opposed to a vilified Paul of Tarsus. James is only relevant if the theory that only Jewish Christians held to this history of Christianity is valid -- which may not be the case. Pre-Constantinian Christianity was made up of countless contradictory traditions, only a few of which are preserved in the historical record, & it is possible that Christians who weren't of the Jewish-Christian spectrum may have believed this, & at least Jewish Christians didn't.

Lastly, the importance of the Ebionites is that they were the best known Jewish Christian group: not the largest, the most influential, or the most long-lived; the ancient heresiologists seem to have stuck the label "Ebionite" on any Jewish Christian group for which they lacked a better name. As Lapham notes in his book I mention above, "Epiphanius's belief that the Ebionite sect arose form the Nazaraeans is generally rejected today, because, apart form their common attitude to the law, there is little to link the two groups. That the Ebionites appeared considerably later than the Nazaraeans is not often questioned; but few would now claim that the one group was an offshoot of the other, or that the Ebionites represent a continuous development from Jerusalem or Pella Christianity." (p. 86)

It is regrettable that progress on this article was blocked for so long due to the use of two controversial authors, when a fresh approach based on other modern students of the early Christian church would kept this article at FA level. -- llywrch (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

These are all very good sources, and I for one, wish you would stick around to add them and improve the article. The article needs new blood. Not just new people, but editors that actually know something about the subject matter beyond what they can glean from online literature reviews. Eisenman's first book is useless. "James The Brother of Jesus" has a lot of controversial things to say about James The Just, but practically nothing about the Ebionites, that is unless you are into the conspiracy theory that Essenes = Nazarenes = Ebionites. We hashed this out on the article talk page long ago. Eisenman's second book "The New Testament Code", however, while an equally difficult read, has some important things to say about the Flight to Pella. As you probably know, Aristo of Pella and Julianus Africanus are the second century witnesses to the Desposyni. Eisenman covers them in his second book. The more secondary sources you can muster to establish this the better. I also agree with you that the pseudo-Clementines are a bit late (probably third century), and Epiphanius' fourth century testimony, which relies on the Homilies, has internal contradictions, so that it's hard to know which group or groups of "Ebionites" are in view here. However, the primary source for the testimony about the Ebionites regarding Paul to be an apostate from the Law is Irenaeus in the second century. That is a piece of hard data that is covered by multiple secondary sources. Anyway, I hope you choose to stay. I have already done my penance on this article. Ovadyah (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ehrman is a wonderful source, by any standard. Some of the other questions I agree with as well. My own approach, still in the offing, is to find all the "reference" works which discuss the subject in any depth, and I am starting with those which give the subject its own article. The Encyclopedia Judaica does not give it its own article. Anyway, so far, the sources I've accumulated can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites. It is my intention to use the "main" page User:John Carter/Ebionites as the draft form of an article based on those sources. Anyway, I acknowledge up front that I haven't gone through all the sources yet, but if anyone knows of any other highly regarded sources, like textbooks or Ehrman for example, feel free to add them, preferably in something like the existing format. I might of course remove them anyway, because, for instance, I am less than sure that The Complete Idiot's Guide to Christianity is necessarily a really great source, even if you disagree. Something like Bob's Guide to the Ultimate Nature of Reality would, of course, have an even smaller chance of being kept. I very much would welcome if anyone can get ahold of the doctoral thesis by G. Koch which apparently challenges the accuracy of much of Epiphanius' material. It is referenced by several encyclopedias, including some I haven't added to the page yet, and seems to be essential to F. Stanley Jones' contention that the church fathers, apparently particularly Epiphanius, are not particularly deserving of trust. Both Koch and Jones's material are I believe directly relevant, particularly given the number of encyclopedia articles Jones has written recently. Encyclopedias tend to try to get articles written by experts in the field, and if Jones is the writer of some of the more recent ones, that is a very strong indication that he is one of the leading experts in this area.

The one question which I still haven't found any sourcing for is what, if any, relationship may have existed between the Ebionites (whoever they were) and the Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, and/or Assyrian Churches. I would assume that material relating to the Eastern Catholic churches would be covered by material from Catholic sources, but the other three groups are comparatively little spoken of in English, and tend to be lumped together into journals without any real distinction. This would, of course, tend to give even less attention to the lesser known Syriac and Assyrian Churches. I find this particularly unfortunate because, at least to me, the fact that the Assyrian Church was outside the Roman Empire (maybe the Syriac Orthodox was too, I dunno) would make it a place Christians seeking to flee the Roman Empire might run to. If anyone has any sources relating to these bodies, they would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My own proposal, for what it might be worth, would be as follows. The one thing that is agreed on, even if it is an absurdly simple statement, is that the name Ebionites was used by early Jewish Christians. That probably should be the basis of the article. The first section(s) would mention in passing the places and ways the name was used through the time it was associated with Jewish Christians. The next sections would discuss the various academic opinions regarding the sources, and the conclusions which had been arrived at. Given the number of quotations, I think a Wikiquote page might be the best place to put them all. If anyone knows of a way to link to Wikiquote like some articles do to other sites containing Biblical verses, I think that would wonderfully ease the situation. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I definitely do think that we need to establish some article as being the central article for the topic. Jewish Christianity seems to me to be the least objectionable central article. One additional reason for moving much of the content to a central article is a statement from David A. Rausch's book Messianic Judaism: Its History, Theology and Polity, on page 39. It refers to a group of Jewish Christians which existed in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. This group is described as being similar to the "Nazarenes" which refused to be assimilated into mainstream Christianity, instead choosing to keep the name and customs of their race. This group, which is described as being similar to the Nazarenes, was, according to the footnote on page 48, referred to at various missionary conferences in the early 20th century by the name "Ebionites." It is somewhat hard to see how any material regarding this apparently notable group would fit easily in either the Nazarene or Ebionite article, but would make sense in a more neutrally titled main article. The name "Messianic Judaism" seems to be most frequently used to describe the current group(s) which use that name, so "Jewish Christianity" would seem to be the preferable default name for the main article on the topic. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

POV template

Given that the article has been plagued for years by individuals who have, possibly, had COI problems, and have sought to add and keep material which even noticeboards seem to indicate qualifies as fringe as per WP:FRINGE, and the long-term failure to include information regarding what may well be the only documents which deal with individuals who seem to have refered to themselves as "ebionites", there is more than enough reason to believe that this article has been, to some degree, been plagued with problems as identified by WP:PLAGUE. On that basis, I have added the POV tag to the article, and, given the fact that the article has apparently almost always possibly deliberately omitted references to the Dead Sea Scroll "ebionites", I have reason to believe the article is far less than complete or balanced and have downgraded its assessment rating to C on that basis. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it seems likely that a total rewrite would be preferable. When real historical sources are apparently abused to support fringe theories which have clearly been recognized as fringe theories, and still argued for inclusion by apparently non-neutral editors anyway, when clearly relevant information is apparently excluded, and when the article contains what are at least apparent softening of criticism (sources have clearly stated the Ebionites and Nazarenes are the same, not just attempted to identify them), the article would apparently need a total rewrite. Frankly, I think it probably should qualify as "Start" class, but am willing to give a little benefit of the doubt. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

New Ebionites

I very much get the impression that this article has been altered for the worse by the intention of trying to introduce material related to Modern Ebionism or whatever it is called. Personally, I would have to think that it would benefit if reliable sources for such material were to be found, and either a separate section, or, preferably, a separate article on Modern Ebionism or whatever created. Has anyone found sources which would meet WP:RS standards and might help create such an article meeting WP:NOTABILITY? It would not have to be about any particular church, but could rather deal with the "movement" or whatever the name might be, basing itself on, at least initially, only what independent reliable sources say. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"The poor" in Judaism

I have found a very good encyclopedic source regarding this subject which has a 30 page article on "the poor", the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Perhaps understandably, I have not attempted to summarize a 30-page summary of a subject in a similar work at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, like I have with the other reference works I have found. However, it does seem to me that there is sufficient basis to think that the content presented in this source, in some form, could be included perhaps in some other article. I am contacting the the Judaism and Jewish history WikiProjects on their talk pages to ask them for any input they may have on this matter, as well as any other input they might have on the recent, acknowledgedly one-sided, discussions. I do get a definite impression that this particular period of history, when Jews and Christians were not as theologically "divided" as they are today, might be one more Jews than Christians are knowledgable about, and that their input would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Christian Jewish Ebionites?

Several sources support the contention that the name "Ebionite" was one which was going to be used by Christian groups, giving the theological underpinnings of the word. Oskar Skarsaune indicates that the word was used in a similarly "theologically loaded" way in the Hebrew Bible, and on that basis asserts that the name may likely have been used by pre-Christian Jews as well. Should the lead of the article be changed to indicate this as well? Also, there is, unfortunately, a question regarding the potential historical order of the use of the word (Jews, Dead Sea sect, Christian) and the way that the history of the concept seems to have developed (Christian, Dead Sea sect, Jews). Would the article better be structured according to the first or the second orders listed above? Personally, I would favor the first, because the background in Judaism and the Dead Sea sect seems to not necessarily directly have any independent subsequent history, and it is useful in establishing the possible background for the Christian usage. I would however welcome other opinions as well. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the first usage. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Qumran sectarians used evyoni in the first person singular - The Poor One - to refer to a specific person, presumably the Righteous Teacher. This is true in the Thanksgiving Hymns, which were composed in the first person, as well as the Barki Nafshi. Ultimately, all of this goes back to Jeremiah who used the self-designation Poor One. This was all discussed ad nauseum on the Talk page. Check the archives for well-documented secondary and primary sources. Ovadyah (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

First, no one was discussing the Qumran Covenanters, despite the obvious assumption to that effect, but rather the Oskar Skarsaune source indicated, published in 2007, which doesn't seem to be be mentioned in the archives. I realize some people "don't have time" to read things before they respond, and I acknowledge I didn't specificy where the sourced material is to be found, but the Skarsaune source is included in User talk:John Carter/Ebionites and specifically refers to the numerous times the word in all its forms is used in the Hebrew Bible, roughly 50, and, allegedly, never to refer specifically to the economically disadvantaged other than the Books of Moses. Skarsaune, writing in 2007, basically said that the comment found in other extant encyclopedic sources, also on that page, said that if it was inevitable that Christians refer to themselves as Ebionites, then it was probably just as likely that the term would be used by other pre-Christian Jews. And, frankly, the "discussion" of a limited number of people, some of whom may have serious POV or COI problems, is not sufficient cause to say that it cannot be revisited again. John Carter (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ireaneus, heresy and gospels

Two points, basically dealing with the word "heresy" and the claim to use of only one gospel.

First, I think we are more or less obliged to use the word "heresy", even if I personally don't like the word much myself. The word is an explicit part of the titles of some of the relevant works, and having the word at least twice in the article, once in the lead (preferably in a subordinate position to a less objectionable word, maybe like "unorthodox beliefs, which some have called heretical") and once in the later part of the article seems to me indicated. But that should be enough use of the term outside of titles and maybe quotations. In addition to something like the proposal above, the other use might be at the start of the section dealing with the patristics and say something like "Irenaeus's book Against Hereies includes in its catalog of what Irenaeus calls heresies a description of the Ebionites". And, of course, if the word is present in titles or quotes, those we more or less have to take. But the sources I find, even academic ones, use words like "heresiologists" and "heresiology", to my surprise actually, so I assume that loaded as the word is, it is still considered an academically acceptable term. Part of this might be because using "orthodox" or similar words might be misleading, given the existence of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, while no groups call themselves "heretics" in their name. At least, none I know of. Anyway, I think two uses, along the lines I indicate above, would probably be best for the clarity of text and ease of understanding.

Also, several of the sources indicate Irenaeus in his book is the first known source to say that all four gospels should be used. Considering he wrote around 150 CE, only about 80 years after the first gospel was written, it probably was not unusual for not all four gospels to have been even obtained everywhere, let alone accepted and used. That being the case, using less than all four may have been rather common, even for at least a few "mainstream" groupings, and it could be a bit misrepresentative to say that "(X) doesn't do this, and that makes them heretics" when at least a few people other than X did the same, but weren't necessarily seen as "heretics". John Carter (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

James paragraph

Michael, feel free to add the consensus wording for the James paragraph that we worked out on the mediation page. We should also incorporate the additional references. Let me know when you are ready to get started on JTB. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph of James vs. Paul is all based on primary sources. We have to either remove it or add references to secondary sources and reword it. Any thoughts on how to proceed? Ovadyah (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

My preference is to retain the primary sources provided we add secondary sources. My main problem with the paragraph and the rest of the section is the chronological sequence. I considered swapping the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs but that doesn't completely work. I think we have to carefully merge without losing any information (including sources). --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue of the observance of Mosaic law by Gentile converts remained unresolved (Acts 21:21), with Paul agreeing to James' request to lead a group of Greeks in carrying out Nazarite vows in order to for Paul to prove his adherence to the law. James reiterated (Acts 21:25) the four points of the earlier council, saying that Gentiles were not required to perform the Nazarite vows. The uproar that followed ended with Paul being rescued from the people of Jerusalem by Roman centurions (Acts 21:30–35).

I copied it over to the talk page. I don't see what Paul taking a Nazarite vow has to do with the Ebionites. This seems more relevant to the article on the Council of Jerusalem. Ovadyah (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Where possible we should hive stuff off to other articles. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph for a lack of reliable sources. Once this material is properly sourced, it can be moved to the Council of Jerusalem article. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the James section is entirely dependent on the Oxford Dictionary. This paragraph needs more and better sources. The content is fine, but reliance on tertiary encyclopedic sources only weakens an article. I will do some digging. Ovadyah (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

JTB section

I will have to look in the archives to find the disputed material I copied to the talk page. We should also look at the FA version as of the day it appeared on the Main Page. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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".

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.

These are the two disputed sections I moved to the talk page that relate to JTB. The first is about the relation of JTB to the Essenes. The second is mostly about the Gospel of the Ebionites. I noted at the time that there were conflation problems, but I don't remember the specifics after almost three years. The part about Slavonic Josephus is really interesting, but it might be OR. We have to carefully go through all of this. Ovadyah (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In one excerpt from the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites collected by Epiphanius, John the Baptizer is portrayed as a vegetarian Nazirite teacher and a forerunner to Jesus. Scholars argue that Jewish Christians viewed the ministry of John as an alternative to what they perceived to be the culture of corruption surrounding the Temple in Jerusalem.

This is the version from the JTB section of the featured article. I think we can live without Larson as a reference. There has been a lot of research done on JTB since 2007 which we can use to update this section. Ovadyah (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Slavonic Josephus was not OR, IIRC. Easy enough to check, anyway. I'll add a reflist to the talk page to make this easier. Why exclude Larson as a source? --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as the secondary source for Slavonic Josephus is reliable and not a vanity publication, I'm fine with the content. Nishidani made a good case for Larson being an amateur as I recall. Again, I'm fine with the content. I just don't want to include vanity publications when there are plenty of reliable sources like Ehrman that say the same thing. It invites having the whole section picked apart later as being unreliable. Why don't we table a decision about Larson until we update the list of sources? Ovadyah (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything about JTB in Jesus Dynasty on pp. 118-119. Maybe I have a different edition. Would you mind adding a quotation from Tabor below similar to what you did for Eisenman? Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are different editions. But rather than quote out of context, you'll find the discussion of JTB and vegetarianism (with ref to Slavonic Josephus and the GotE) in the last paragraph of The "Lost Years" of John in the A Great Revival.. chapter.

As an aside, do you mind if we standardise on "John the Baptist" not "John the Baptizer"? 99.9% of the world knows him as "the Baptist" and it looks strange and quirky for us to call him otherwise. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with John the Baptist. Ovadyah (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I found it on p.134 in my edition. Tabor quotes from parallel passages in Matthew and Luke (referenced in the footnotes) about John coming "neither eating nor drinking" or "neither eating bread nor drinking wine" and states that these phrases mean that John was a strict vegetarian. The meaning is arguable of course - ascetic doesn't have to mean vegetarian - but that's what Tabor says it means. He also gives a reference to the Gospel of the Ebionites in the footnotes, about which he says "The Gospel of the Ebionites as quoted by the 4th-century Christian writer Epiphanius. The Greek word for locusts (akris) is very similar to the Greek word for "honey cake" (egkris) that is used for the "manna" that the Israelites ate in the desert in the days of Moses (Exodus 16:31)". None of this is particularly controversial and many secondary sources have written about this. However, I don't see anything about Josephus, Slavonic or otherwise, proximal to this discussion, so we don't want to imply a linkage where there isn't one. If Tabor talks about Slavonic Josephus elsewhere we should reference that separately.Ovadyah (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it back. Slavonic Josephus is also referenced in the footnotes as follows: "There is an Old Russian (Slavic) version of Josephus's Antiquities that describes John the Baptizer as living on "roots and fruits of the tree" and insists that he never touches bread, even at Passover". Very good. Ovadyah (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The second reference is to Tabor's website, and it is more like a vanity publication. I realize this has been in the article for years (since before I started working on it), but I think we can do better. Ovadyah (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Then let's do better, of course (such as by adding Ehrman, as you mention below), but that doesn't mean removing the Tabor link; I don't accept it as a vanity publication. If Tabor had no academic credentials then yes, but he has many, therefore his blogs are not worthless. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree his blogs are not worthless, but I'm reasonably sure Wiki doesn't except blogs as reliable sources. We can table this for now, but it will come back again at some point. Please understand that I'm only trying to upgrade the reliable sources so that they can withstand what I expect will be a ferocious assault by the dogma police. Ovadyah (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I see two problems with the GotE section that can be fixed pretty easily. #1 the section is not balanced. If we add a reliable secondary source that restates what Epiphanius said - that the Ebionites corrupted their text by changing locusts to "honey cake" - that will make the section more NPOV, and #2 the section is light on references, again being overly reliant on Eisenman and Tabor. We can add Ehrman as a reference to fix this as well as look for publications that have come out since 2007. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have serious concerns that, depending on the way this section is made, it may well violate WP:UNDUE and very possibly WP:SYNTH. According to so far as I can tell the majority of current scholarship, at least some of which (I have a lot yet to go) can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, there is no consensus who "the Ebionites" were, and, in fact, a substantial agreement that they were not a single group. As such, it would be a very possible violation of policy to declare that they were in a main section of the article. Now, there is of course a possibility of having a separate main section of the article dealing with those scholars and others who have decided, in their own works, to content that some of these groups dissociated by others were the same, and subsections on the basis and conclusions of those works. That is another matter. However, even there, I think it would make sense to have the sections titles reflect what references to the Ebionites are being "merged" by the scholars in question. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a fact that Epiphanius had personal knowledge of a specific group that lived on Cyprus, which he refers to as Ebionites. He mentions speaking with a man from this group. Epiphanius also relied on historical sources, among them the Clementine Homilies, to supplement his polemic in the Panarion, and that may have resulted in some inconsistencies in his account. However, it's not our job to determine if there was one or several groups known by the pejorative "Ebionites" in the 4th century. We report what the secondary sources have to say on the subject. We would benefit greatly from more contributions of specific content and sources and less Wiki-lawyering. Ovadyah (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

We could also do without people making conclusions. No one said the term was "perjorative" in the fourth century other than you. And, while I agree it is "not our job to determine" if there were one or more groups, it very much is our job to reflect the existing majority academic opinion, which, in this case, seems to be that the term was applied to more than one group. In fact, it would probably be a fairly clear violation if we were to be seen as almost ignoring differences which academics indicate they believe exist. While I can rather pointedly say we would also benefit from direct responses to comments, which the above clearly is not, I do believe that we are bound by policy and guidelines to reflect the existing academic consensus. If the consensus is that there is no clear relationship between groups, that is something we are honor bound to reflect. When I finish going through the sources including in the encyclopedia bibliographies and other more recent sources, if the current objection to reflecting majority acadmic views remains, I am more than willing to file an RfC to determine what the broader wikipedia community thinks. By the way, according to Skarsaune's book, although I can't find the citation right now, three out of four of the last academic studies of the Gospel of the Ebionites, one of which is included by another author in that book, say that the Ebionite gospel is not Ebionite. Like I said, I have lots of notes still on paper, not including the quotations already added, and that makes it a bit harder to find page numbers quickly. John Carter (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Correcting own earlier mistake: I had previously said that three out of four sources have rejected the "Ebionite" status of the Gospel of the Ebionites, and was mistaken in that. The book cited indicates that three out of four sources, specifically on pages 318 and 324, reject the Pseudo-Clementines as being of Ebionite origin. On page 461, it is said "Epiphanius may have obtained his "Ebionite" gospel from someone on the island of Cyprus, and may have concluded from this it should be reckoned as one of the sources of Ebionite doctrine. It seems clear, however, that he was quite mistaken identifying the group authoring or using this Gospel with the Irenaean Ebionites. The prophet-Christology of the Gospel would rather point to the group behind the Pseudo-Clementine Grundschrift as their nearest theological relatives." So, while it does state that the Gospel of the Ebionites is not "Ebionite", or at least related to Irenaeus's Ebionites, the three out of four sources indicate rather that the group it is most closely linked to, the original writers of the Pseudo-Clementines, should not be counted as Ebionite. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael, I think this sub-section on the Gospel of the Ebionites and the vegetarianism of JTB is ready to go back into the Ebionites article. There is nothing conflated here and it is properly sourced. This begs the larger question of whether the article should have a separate JTB section again or if this content fits better in the GoE or JTB articles with a link to this article. Ovadyah (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and (re)insert the material; I'm not entirely sure which version you're referring to, but insertion should clear that up. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I added the material back to the article under a separate John The Baptist section. We had it this way in the FA version. The larger question is still whether it belongs in this article, the GoE article, or the JTB article. It seems like an isolated fragment at the moment (though well-sourced). Is there a better place to put this? Opinions please. Ovadyah (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be in this article, since there will be other material which will need adding eventually, which is not based primarily on the GoE. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. I can see three ways to expand this section. 1. A short paragraph on the GoE that explains how it is identified with the Ebionites (current scholarship and historical account) and a link to the GoE article. 2. An expanded section on JTB that identifies possible pre-Christian connections to JTB, perhaps as an inspirational founder figure that influenced their beliefs and practices. 3. A sub-section of this larger section on vegetarianism. All of this should be backed up by secondary sources with page numbers and quotations. I would avoid the Keith Akers material, which has a modern Christian overlay mixed in with vegetarianism, or else put it in the modern practices section. Ovadyah (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Tabor

I find that the Ebionites per se are mentioned in the index on only twice in Tabor's book on The Dynasty of Jesus, pp. 302-303 and 316. In the first, it indicates that the early Christian community in Jerusalem "were known subsequently as Ebionites", and the second, page 316, mentions Mohammed may have been influenced by them. The term Nazarene is used throughout the book to describe the early Jerusalem community, but there is already a separate page for that subject and it would very likely be placing far too much emphasis on the single phrase "were known subsequently" to say that any doctrinal or procedural points necessarily continued to the Ebionites. I therefore find it very very questionable whether the book should be referenced for anything other than the assertion that the Ebionites were early known as Nazarenes, and that Mohammed may have been influenced by them. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations in finally getting the book. Tabor's websites and his media appearences reference the Ebionites much more.--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The conjecture regarding Ebionite influence on early Islam was put forward long ago by Schoeps, see Hans-Joachim Schoeps (1969), Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church. This has been accepted by most scholars since the 1970s (but apparently not by some theologians). Ovadyah (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No one challegnes the Muslim linkage, which Danielou also mentioned. However, at present, that leaves open at least refernce to citation 26, which has no page indication. I will also, of course, verify the existing page citations for the other references to the book. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, none of the page citations for references 61 and 66 pan out either. I used the hardcover edition, no printing is indicated, it appears to be a US library edition, ISBN 0-7432-8723-1. Page 4 does include discussion of the "dynasty" but the closest quote I can find is "James became the uncontested head of the early Christian movement." Considering elsewhere in the book Tabor indicates that the Ebionites came after the early Christian movement, it doesn't support reference to the Ebionites. Page 74, the second page of the "Children of a Lesser Father" chapter, mentions neither the Ebionites nor the dynasty. Neither does page 222. Page 226 is about the crucifixion, and contains no reference to either the Ebionites or succession. Regarding the other citation, which starts with page 222, as has already been mentioned, it mentions neither the James nor his status as leader. Page 223, the first page of "Dead But Twice Buried", mentions neither James nor succession/dynasty either. The last citation, page 231, mentions James once: "According to Paul, Jesus appeared first to Cephas or Peter, then to the Twelve, then to five hundred disciples at one time, then to James brother of Jesus, then to all the apostles, and finally -- 'last of all he appeared to me.'" I would be very, very interested in seeing the actual quotations which are supposed to support these reference citations. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of these "discrepancies" can be resolved by explicitly expanding the "Ebionite" label to include all "Jewish Christians" - but since this mentioned in the lead and Name section, do we need to be pedantically redundant everywhere? And yes, there are different Tabor editions with different page numbers, as you will have seen from my conversation with Ovadyah. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I also own the hard copy if anyone needs a look-up to check page numbers. The hard copy page numbers come up on a web search, so we should probably standardize the numbers in the article to this version. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've spent my weekend spare time reading large chunks of Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty (which John Carter got wrong above), & pedantic quibblings or not I don't feel it is relevant to this article. While on the one hand he presents a number of provocative readings of the evidence worth considering for mention in the relevant articles (an example would be his suggestion that the leaders of the Jerusalem church between Simon & Marcus were a council of 12 who governed simultaneously), or led me to some notable topics like Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera (where I removed an example of crypto-fascist propaganda that had snuck in under the radar), the focus of his book is on the early Church in the first century AD, long before the first mention of the Ebionites. The two mentions of the Ebionites which John Carter cites above are little more than by-the-way mentions of this group, & almost unimportant to the work. More importantly, Tabor bases his opinion about the relationship of the early Jerusalem Christians to the Ebionites on pp. 302f to Hans-Joachim Schoeps' Jewish Christianity, so that citation should be more properly replaced with a citation to Schoeps -- whom it appears everyone here accepts as a reliable source.

One other observation I'd like to make about the article is about the end of the first paragraph of the "History" section, where a sentence has six footnotes; I find multiple footnotes mars the appearance of an article, & from my long experience have found this to be a symptom of a bitter -- & unnecessary -- content war. The obvious point of these footnotes is to provide the names of those who "have argued that the Ebionites were more faithful to the authentic teachings of Jesus". Whether or not the Ebionites were in fact more faithful (which I assume everyone here would accept is a controversial assertion), I believe a better way to present these multiple authors is to either (1) select one author as an example & thinning out this blight of footnotes, or (2) discuss each one of these authorities separately. Choosing between these two possibilities would depend, largely, in how much attention should properly be given to this point -- which needs to be considered since the amount of what we now know for certain about the Ebionites is so small. -- llywrch (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no merit in removing sources just for aesthetic reasons. Sources are useful for inquistive readers; the more the better, IMO. If necessary they can be bundled together. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see no merit in piling on sources because "the more the better". We should show editorial judgment in selecting sources to use. Taken to its logical extreme, your approach would then replace every footnote with, "See your local public library." -- llywrch (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already said why I think more is better here - they're pointers to specific sources that readers find helpful. Your last comment about the library is not very helpful; indeed quite ridiculous, since, by the same token, I could take your argument to its logical extreme as implying we need no references at all. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, I think we provide citations for statements far too often in Wikipedia articles, & sometimes it would be nice if we didn't need citations at all. Most of the time multiple citations appear at the end of a sentence for no other reason than one group wants to push its own fringe belief into the mainstream, as if -- to quote Ovadyah -- half a dozen sources of mediocre quality will make up for one source of good or better quality. If the other sources will be eventually cited in the article, let them wait their turn. Otherwise, they can be put in the "Further reading" section. -- llywrch(talk) 21:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we shall have to disagree about the usefulness of citations. As for dumping everything in the "Further reading" section, that is also a favorite target of the POV warriors to remove mateial from. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of preventing yet another edit war, I feel compelled to advise Llywrch that it's useless to get into these tit-for-tat exchanges with Michael. I mean no disrespect to either editor in saying this. It would be better to hold off for now and try to resolve these relatively minor matters in mediation. Just a suggestion. Ovadyah (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My reply is in three parts. 1. I agree about Schoeps. It's better to reference Schoeps directly than have Tabor referencing Schoeps indirectly. That said, we put out a request for page numbers on Schoeps three times and no one responded. If someone has library access to this book, please fill in the page numbers. 2. Six references is a lot and a recipe for synthesis (implying that all the references say the same thing by grouping them together when they really don't). We should consider removing any tertiary encyclopedic references for starters anywhere secondary sources are available. 3. I agree that Tabor mentions the Ebionites in a rather by-the-way manner. After all, the book is primarily about the Desposyni, not the Ebionites. However, Tabor argues for a linkage between the Desposyni and the Ebionites (as well as Jewish Christians in general) based on the available primary sources. That is the main reason the book is relevant to the article. One can argue that such a linkage is tenuous, and if we can find secondary sources that advocate the linkage is tenuous we should include them, but it is bordering on OR for the editors to make judgments about whether the linkage is too tenuous to merit inclusion. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just one query: why do you say We should consider removing any tertiary encyclopedic references for starters anywhere secondary sources are available. I thought tertiary sources were preferred by policy. Anyway, I object to playing perpetual merry-go-round with the sources; if relevant include them all. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines on Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources were updated since last time I looked, and the policies have been made more explicit. The guidelines mention that most articles rely on secondary sources, and say that tertiary sources may be based on unreliable sources (ie. it's impossible to independently verify). It doesn't say that you can't use them, but it doesn't say they are preferred either. My point about using tertiary sources is that they don't add much weight when a section of the article is already referenced by several reliable secondary sources. In essence, I'm advocating for quality over quantity. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the guidelines have changed, you're right. Okay, it doesn't say they are preferred, but my vote is still for inclusion, since they are drawing on other secondary sources that we may not have available. As it says, commonsense it required. E.g. we can use the catholic encyclopedia for data, but be wary about repeating their asserton that the Ebionites are heretics. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to Ovadyah: 1. Although you stated that no one wants to help with Schoep, I did a quick search on Worldcat, which returned 338 libraries around the world which has this book. I don't know how this appeal for help was worded, but at this point do you have a good reason not to introduce yourself to the InterLibrary Loan department of your local public library & ask them to help you borrow this book & add the material yourself?
2. Summarizing the positions of six individuals is not original research. However since to provide this summary would require a sizable paragraph to cover, & the point is tangential to this article -- it's about the Ebionites, not whether modern Christianity is correct -- one authority is all that is needed to make this point.
3. Since you admit that Tabor's book is about the desposyni, not Jewish Christianity or the Ebionites, then it should be removed from this list & not used at all in this article because it is irrelevant. If Michael Price is correct, that there are other works of Tabor which directly deal with the Ebionites, then use them instead. -- llywrch (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Your tone seems to be rather hostile and I'm wondering why. Maybe I'm still recovering from my previous editorial beating. So, let me try to provide an answer your response. 1. The person that added this reference is long gone, and I am not the custodian of this article. That said, I will attempt to access it through InterLibrary Loan. 2. No comment other than to say that one or two outstanding sources are better to make a point than 5 mediocre sources. The article tends to suffer from source creep because it has been repeatedly attacked by religious "enthusiasts" of all types. 3. Not sure what you mean by "admit", but I favor a middle ground between unconditional acceptance and unconditional rejection. For instance, where Tabor directly cites primary sources, as I showed on the mediation page, they should be added to the article. This was accepted as valid by the mediator. If you strongly disagree then maybe you should be a party to the ongoing mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Llywrch: Tabor's book is about the desposyni, Jewish Christianity and the Ebionites. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Price, I've read the book. Tabor discusses the beginnings of Jewish Christianity in the fifth part of his book; the Ebionites are only one part of Jewish Christianity, & their role in that larger movement is unknown & most probably unknowable. Tabor only mentions the Ebionites themselves in the conclusion of the book. -- llywrch (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ovadyah, I didn't mean to sound hostile in my response. I will admit I was rather amazed & somewhat disappointed in your response -- & Michael Price's follow-up -- because my initial comments were intended not to propose any significant changes in this article, but simply stylistic changes; in encountering such resistance, I couldn't help but respond in kind. I'm sorry to come across so brusquely. But to the rest of your response: #2, "No comment other than to say that one or two outstanding sources are better to make a point than 5 mediocre sources. The article tends to suffer from source creep because it has been repeatedly attacked by religious "enthusiasts" of all types" -- I agree. Which was why I wanted to prune the number of these references back. #3 Your appeal to what "the mediator" decided really doesn't answer my objection; it's an appeal to authority, not to reason. Tabor's book doesn't seem relevant here to me, for reasons I've set out. If you can provide an argument to keep his book -- or to replace it with another one of his works -- then we can go from there. -- llywrch (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I'm a lot more agnostic about Tabor than it probably appears from my above comments. My only reason for keeping Tabor is his citation of relevant primary sources. For instance, Tabor's citation of the Ebionite gospel and Slavonic Josephus to point out that "honey cake" is probably a reference to the manna of Exodus is a very good piece of scholarship, and the Gospel of the Ebionites is certainly relevant to an article on the Ebionites. That is why I would choose to use Tabor selectively rather than eliminate him as a source. My appeal to the mediator was not intended to be an appeal to authority over reason, although I see how it could be taken that way. The point was that there are many sources that support the inclusion of the James material, Tabor among them, and no sources were brought forward to oppose this inclusion (after a month of waiting). I believe the mediator made a rational choice in saying go ahead and retain the material with slightly revised wording. Tabor's contribution to the James section is that he cites three very different primary sources that say James was widely recognized as the head of the Jerusalem Church. Removing Tabor as a reference results in the suppression of the analysis of these primary sources. Finally, I apologize for being brusque myself. We need more editors with good ideas working on the article. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Bart Ehrman Lost Christianities makes a reference to John the Baptist's vegetarian diet: "Probably the most interesting of the changes from the familiar New Testament accounts of Jesus comes in the Gospel of the Ebionites description of John the Baptist, who, evidently, like his successor Jesus maintained a strictly vegetarian cuisine. In this Gospel, with the change of just one letter of the relevant Greek word, the diet of John the Baptist was said to have consisted not of locusts (meat!) and wild honey (cf. Mark 1:6) but of pancakes and wild honey. It was a switch that may have been preferable on other grounds as well." (pp. 102f) I think there are other sources available not only to replace Tabor, but would likely improve on him. (Not to say he's a bad source, but we all know that there are good, better, & best sources out there.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I just found the excerpt from the Gospel of the Ebionites which explains the "locusts" vs. "pancakes" difference -- especially since I would expect anyone reading Wikipedia to be surprised ate the image that people ate flapjacks in the 1st century AD -- even without maple syrup. As M.R. James, the translator, explains, "A locust in Greek is akris, and the word they used for cake is enkris, so the change is slight." -- llywrch (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you find the subject of locusts interesting (no, I'm not being sarcastic). This used to explained (as you have above) in the article but was deleted in a POV jihad. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You might also be interested in a collection of citations relating to the Gospel of the Ebionites by the early Church Fathers and other sources in the original language and English translation here. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am frankly astonished that individuals above seem to be indicating that "all we have to do is ignore policy and guidelines, like WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, among others, and everything is fine." We don't ignore policies and guidelines like that; they exist as policies and guidelines for a reason. Regarding the vegetarianism issue, I believe it is probably discussed much more thoroughly by other sources, such as, maybe, the Skarsaune/Hvalvik collection of essays, the Jackson McCabe book, and others. There may also be material in the book "Holy Cow!", the subject of a review entitled "Revenge of the Ebionites," relevant to that material as well. In general, however, considering that Gospel of the Ebionites is the only separate "group" (OK, it's writers were a group, the book itself not so), I have to think that that article on the gospel itself should contain most of the information which relates to that gospel, particularly considering there is question about whether it actually was "Ebionite". The group that seems by modern academics to be most closely associated with it seems to be the original writers of 1.27-71 of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions. (Of course, by the "every Jewish Christian was an Ebionite" proposal, they would be Ebionites too.) I have no clear idea why that association is made, because I've been treating the Gospel as a separate entity for quotation purposes, and not including it in my page of quotations from sources except as it is discussed in those sources in direct and obvious relationship to the Ebionites themselves. I know I have read and made notes of quite a bit of discussion on the subject, even though I don't know what all has or has not been added to my sources page at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites yet. Among the matters I remember were that it was evidently more Pythagorean than Jewish vegetarianism, about not eating "meat with soul in it," that Epiphanius himself didn't seem to mention vegetarianism in his ample discussion of the Ebionites, calling into question whether or not he saw that as important, and, somewhere, that it might have been some sort of midrash, and perhaps not to be taken literarlly. I think the Schoeps book might be available as well, but, as it stands, I've got six pages of handwritten notes that I haven't added to that page yet, from sources like Klijn & Reinink, whcih seems to be the one most frequently indicated by encyclopedias as one of their sources, and others. And it should be noted that some individuals with a "sense of humor" have called my handwritten notes arthritic chicken scratchings from someone who obviously loves his microscope. Believe it or not, there is only so much one person can accomplish quickly, particularly with the number of sources around and trying to keep up with other extant discussions. And I've found at least one source listed in an encyclopedia which was translated, although not indicated as such there, indicating I'll have to check on the others as well. I did not necessarily mean by making the comment that immediate action was required, although, if others wish to do so, they are free to do so. But some of the questions which arise over existing text seem to me to be more relevant than simply adding quotations and comments to the sources page, and this is one of those instances. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Llywrch, thanks for taking the time to look up the JTB material in Lost Christianities. I will read through that chapter and then add this reference to the JTB section of the article. Cheers. :0) Ovadyah (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As the material referenced above which apparently does not pass verifiability requirements has not been substantively imporved on, I have removed it. I would have no objections to seeing material which is actually verifiable added, however, given the rather extreme defenses which have been made, many of which are contrary to policy, I think that it would be a very good idea to have any such changes discussed and agreed to on the talk page before implementation. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to you to unilaterally decide what meets verifiability requirements during the ongoing mediation of a content dispute. Another example of your abuse of power as an admin. Ovadyah (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right. This section, however, made it clear that an uninvolved administrator agreed that it failed to meet even the most basic policy requirements some time ago. It is not an abuse of power to ensure content adheres to policy, although making unfounded accusations about the actions of another in an insulting fashion as has been done is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:TPG. John Carter (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is an Ebionite?

The above question seems to me to be the most essential aspect of the current discussion. We have a large number of patristic sources which refer to groups by this name, and give at least one book this name. However, there seems to be a very large disagreement in the academic community about whether, for instance, Epiphanius' Ebionites and Irenaeus's Ebionites could even possibly be the same group, given the huge differences between them. Some even say Epiphanius's Nazoreans were Irenaeus's Ebionites. And one Eastern Orthodox dictionary, published by the church itself, has separate entries on "Ebionites" and "Ebionite gnostics", the only such encyclopediac source I have yet found which itself clearly discriminates between the two. This isn't counting the later academic views that all Jewish Christians were Ebionites or that Ebionites was a name which might have been used pretty much by anybody of a Jewish Christian leaning for any reason.

I do think that the most reasonable and encyclopedic structure of the article would be to first, (1) discuss the patristic sources in depth individually, perhaps with material from Klijn & Reinink and the like about how they are or are not any new pieces of information in them, then (2) going into the academic discussions about which ones seem to be most clearly and frequently regarded as separate entities and why, including the "all Jewish Christians were Ebionites" and "any Jewish Christian might have called themselves Ebionite" theories. This would give the reader a solid understanding of the current consensus academic opinion. At this point, we are, basically, finished with discussing the patristics per se and to an extent their times, and are now discussing the academic views and subsequent developments. Then, (3) we could discuss specific proposals of how one or more given citation of Ebionites have been linked by others and, maybe, some of the conclusions they've drawn, and (4) theological and other points of interest somewhat based on these associations. Finally, (5) the historical influence all the alleged Ebionites had on other groups would be discussed. Butz is another source I've written out and not yet added, but he points out direct and "grandfatherly" relationships to a number of groups. It is, I hope, understood that this is just a preliminary proposal, and that there probably would be some deviation from it in practice.

One last comment. Stupid as it seems, I seem to be having difficulty getting ahold of a copy of Irenaeus. This could be important, particularly in relation to (5) above. I know he faults the Ebionites for not viewing Jesus as divine, but don't know if any of the other groups he mentioned held the same sort of opinion. If none of the others did, then I think that we might be able to say that the Ebionites may be the first Christian group specifically noted for not seeing Jesus as divine, acknowledging that there is no clear and unarguable evidence about what the opinions of the apostles and their contemporaries were. If such were the case, I have to think that that distinction would be itself worthwhile of notice. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you have a look at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library website? A quick Google search brought me to here -- scroll down to the bottom, past several other translations of his contemporaries. While it's an older translation, it will give a reader enough of an idea of what Irenaeus thinks about what. Another useful tool -- which I have found almost misses as often as it yields a result -- is the collection of etexts at archive.org; if it's not on their website, but its available online, their search engine will have a link to it. -- llywrch (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That would probably work. I should clarify that the book is available, in Latin (which I don't read) in several copies here, but the full English translation is only available here on a subscription database and a single book which seems to not be in the stacks where its call number would indicate it should be.

To clarify my comments above in this section, I have to say that I think the Ebionites of Irenaeus, Eusebius, and the "main" Ebionites of Epiphanius should be discussed primarily in this article, because at present this is the obvious main article for that content. However, the comments about the Nazoreans and the Gospel of the Ebionites could easily be primarily included in those articles. This is not to say that these two entities/groups should not be discussed at least in summaries here, because I think it is partially on the basis of them that some recent scholars have concluded what they have about the word Ebionite being used to describe all Jewish Christians or any Jewish Christians. Having a section discussing the patristic citations, including these two named entities, would be reasonable. However, in a "Beliefs and Practices" section, I think it would be best to just have separate short summary sections of the beliefs and practices of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites, with links to the main articles on the subjects. The later part of the article could reasonably discuss all the beliefs and practices which are today called "Ebionite" in some way, but, as some of the sources themselves indicate, it should be made clear that these are not necessarily referring to any specific acknowledged "Ebionite" groups but based on comments and/or theories about "Ebionitism" in general. I hope that makes some sense, anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Potential connection between the Qumran community and the Ebionites

It seems to me likely that the supposed connection between the Ebionites and the Qumran community does deserve mention in this article. It has been raised, almost from the beginning, by Teicher, and Eisenman more recently has put forward a remarkably different theory which still postulates some sort of link. The question which would arise would be how much material to give to the theoretical connection, what the content of that material should be, and so on. And, it seems to me that there is very likely a good chance that there are a number of editors who will know something about the topic, that being the editors who deal with the articles on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Eisenman seems to have been championing James as the Teacher of Righteouness since at least 1977, according to a reference to a paper he wrote then he made in one of his books. On that basis, I assume that the editors who have worked with the material regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls will likely have some degree of knowledge of the subject. I myself think that perhaps starting an RfC on the matter, and adding links to the discussion on the talk pages of the relevant Qumran related articles, would probably get at least some editors who have some acquaintance with the subject. Also, I think that there is almost certainly more material being published on Qumran than on the Ebionites per se now. That being the case, and academic consensus being what it generally is, I would also assume that if there is a clear consensus academic opinion of the Ebionite/Qumran theory in the Dead Sea Scrolls academic community, that same view would almost certainly be held as the consensus view of the Ebionite academic community. If there is no clear consensus academic opinion, that might make it harder. But there does seem to be, according to what I've seen, "little support" for Teicher's theory when it was first put forward, and I think that should be indicated in the article in reference to Teicher's theory. I myself at this point am not familiar enough with the state of the academic consensus regarding Qumran today, but will try to find materials.

In any event, I think an RfC on the subject may very well be the best way to get informed, previously uninvolved, input on the subject, which is more or less what we seek. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

An error I found on the Article

The article says: "Epiphanius of Salamis is the only Church Father who describes some Ebionites as departing from traditional Jewish principles of faith". That is absolutely false. St. Methodius of Olympus wrote: "With regard to the Spirit, such as the Ebionites, who contend that the prophets spoke only by their own power." (Symposium 8.10).

Since St. Methodius died in 311 AD, and St. Epiphanius was born in 311 AD, St. Methodius is just as reliable of a witness as St. Epiphanius is, so saying St. Epiphanius is the only Church Father who says the Ebionites weren't typical Jews is false. I will update the wikipedia page as I see fit. Thanks.Glorthac (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a bit of an over-interpretation of St. Methodius of Olympus. Is there a secondary source that supports this interpretation? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. While this is interesting content, we need a report by a reliable secondary source of what St. Methodius had to say. Otherwise, this is just one more OR citation of primary sources in an article that has too many already. Ovadyah (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to say, that this seems to document their differences with Christian belief (Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity), not Judaism, but an anon has beaten me to it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC

This request is being filed to determine two things:

• 1) How much space the article should give to the theories of J. L. Teicher and Robert Eisenman, which link the Dead Sea Scrolls community to the Ebionites.
• 2) The external links, including particulary that to a non-notable neo-Ebionite group's page which says comparatively little, if anything, related to the current content of the article. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Background for newcomers: The word "Ebionite" has been used over the years to describe various groups which all have in common the belief that Jesus was some form of prophet, but less than divine. Such use of the name of one group to describe another is relatively common among "heresY' battlers, as it gives them a chance to make one, central, response to a theory they consider heretical which they can quickly refer to when dealing specifically with the individual forms thereof.

In any event, the term has been used so broadly and regularly that, despite the comparative lack of information about the group(s) mentioned by the church fathers, the term has been regularly used in a broad, non-specific way to describe any number of groups, and the topic has become one of the major subjects of discussion of the early Christian period. Now, to the details of this RfC.

Ebionites/Dead Sea Scrolls linkage

Several encyclopedias have referenced J. L. Teicher's theory that Jesus was the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They have uniformly mentioned it as a theory which has gained, to quote one, "little support," but they at least mention it and include his articles in their bibliographies. as can be seen by looking at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, where I have been collecting some quotes on the subject. Robert Eisenman's more recent theory, which he first proposed in the 1970's, is that James the Just was the leader of the Ebionites, who were according to Eisenman more or less the umbrella group for the Jewish resistance at the time. Eisenman's central theory regarding James has been described by one subsequent scholar, Stephen Hodge, in his book The Dead Sea Scrolls Rediscovered ISBN 1-56795-333-4, as having been "largely rejected within the academic community," on page 207. The lack of any mention of his theories in particular in any of the encyclopedic sources I have found, or inclusion of any of his works in their bibliographies, certainly supports this contention.

So the question is how to mention these theories in the article, if at all. I can think of a few possibilities. One would be something along the lines of

"Some scholars have attempted to link the early followers of Jesus to the Ebionites. J. L. Teicher's theory that Jesus was the Teacher of Righteousness received little support from the academic community. Robert Eisenman's hypothesis that James the Just was the leader of the Ebionites has been largely rejected by the academic community,"

citing sources as required. Alternately, a shorter version, perhaps along the lines of "Theories attempting to link the Ebionites to the Dead Sea Scrolls community have been largely rejected" would also be possible.

Which of these options would be prefered by the rest of you?

Responses

• The latter is preferable, as negation with elaboration only serves to promote not only a minority theory, but a largely discredited one. I'd suggest the latter one, with the references relegated to footnotes. --XKV8R (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Footnotes to indicate the sourcing are a given. I just hesitated to include them in these drafts because I didn't want to indicate to anyone that my preliminary proposals should be given too much weight. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

External links

As it stands, the first external link in that section is to a neo-Ebionite group whose separate article had been previously deleted and merged here on the basis of non-notability. While the page linked to gives a great deal of information about that specific group, it gives little if any direct information about the historical Ebionites. If the neo-Ebionite group were itself mentioned in the article in a manner supported by an independent reliable source, I could see having it included. Without that mention in the article, however, I believe that the pages linked to may well fail WP:EL because of any lack of direct relevance to the content of the article. I myself have found only one independent reliable source which discusses neo-Ebionites at all. It is a book review discussing current Judeo-Christian vegetarianism, and in it neo-Ebionites are mentioned, but in such a way that the following comments cannot be clearly seen to clearly describe either the neo-Ebionites or the Judeo-Christian vegetarians, and is thus, for all practical purposes, useless for saying anything beyond "neo-Ebionites, or people who could be called that, exist."

Also, there are at least four other webpages about presumably non-notable neo-Ebionite groups at ebionite.com, ebionite.net, atheists-for-jesus.com,and ebionim.org. The first of these actually provides numerous detailed quotes from others, unlike the page currently linked to and would thus seem to be better qualified for inclusion as an external link than the existing one. All of them, however, share the same non-notability, and I would have to assume that if the existing one is to be included, all the others should be as well. However, the ebionite.com page, which does have some useful quotes, might itself be prefereable individually.

In any event, I would think that, if the existing link is to be kept, it should have a description of the nature of the site following it. If the ebionite.com link is substaituted, it would also benefit from having a disclaimer attached.

The question would be which if any of the sites should be linked to, why, and should they have descriptions attached or not? John Carter (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for page protection

John Carter, a request for page protection, after you have made all the changes you want, is an admin abuse of power. Ovadyah (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is entirely relevant to the content dispute, and you cannot remove content from article talk pages. Ovadyah (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no content dispute. There is the fact that the material removed was found to violate basic wikipedia policy, and, despite my having given yourself and others a great deal of time to find anything which would indicate that it remotely adhered to policy, you did nothing of the kind. The dispute is, so far as I can see, between you and wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This page, however, is not the correct forum as per policies and guidelines to bring up such points. Perhaps your time would be better spent in seeking to add verifiable information than in raising accusations of misconduct which cannot be supported by policies or guidelines. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing mediation of the content disputes on this article, of which you were a part until you refused to participate. You cannot define your own actions as the embodiment of Wiki policy and any criticism of them as the definition of a personal attack. Ovadyah (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And, after the mediation was ended, it was found and agreed that the content in question was completely and utterly in violation of basic wikipedia policy, as determined by an uninvolved administrator. Nevertheless, that does not relate to the fact that subsequent involvement by uninvolved administrators found that the material was not even remotely supported by the material in the book to which it was cited. If however you choose to bring the matter to a noticeboard, you are free to do so. They will note that, despite having been given abundant warning that the material was not in accord with policy, you did nothing to improve it and make it adhere to policy. If, however, you choose to bring it to a noticeboard, feel free. However, your comments here I believe fail everybody's definition of WP:TPG, which are also applicable here. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the mediation isn't "ended". The only thing that ended is your participation. I requested that the mediation be kept open to resolve any disputes, and the other parties to the mediation intend to make use of it. The only agreement that "the content in question was completely and utterly in violation of basic wikipedia policy" is apparently in your mind, but wishing won't make it so. Your admin and editorial conduct is noted and will be dealt with in good time. Ovadyah (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right - I did suspend my participation pending finding sources. Having found those sources, I now realize that mediation, which is intended to resolve conflict disputes which cannot be resolved by policy, is pointless, because the material under discussion can be resolved by policy - the Tabor material fails to meet WP:V requirements, and Eisenman's theories have been explicitly stated to have been rejected by the academic community. On that basis, I guess I will completely withdraw from mediation, considering that the disputes can obviously be resolved on the basis of policy. John Carter (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to give an opinion here, though it's hard to see what the issue is. John, can you say why James Tabor might not be a reliable source? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tabor is a reliable source. What he says about the Ebionites is that the group was started around 150 CE. The problem with the reference citations that have been removed is that, as per previous review by another uninvolved administrator, they fail basic policy of WP:V. Considering that Tabor is also a living person, WP:BLP could be considered applicable as well, and that policy says that poorly sourcd material, which nonverifiable material clearly is, should be removed immediately. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the basics of the original dispute regarding James Tabor can be found on the Talk page here and here, which led up to the trip to AN/I and the request for mediation. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And note that John Carter withdrew from mediation after being unable to provide any sources for this POV. (He may deny this with some wall-of-text response, but see the mediation for confirmation.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And note how, now that a reliable source regarding this subject, Robert Eisenman's theory, which has been largely ignored by the acacemic community as per quotations in Painter's book James the Just and now been specifically said to have been rejected by the academic community in another source, is being completely ignored by Michael, who instead makes what is clearly an ad hominem comment above. Is there some reason Michael is apparently refusing to address this matter? John Carter (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)