Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2

Ground rules In order to ensure the discussion is focused and relevant, I'm imposing some strict rules, as follows: Discussions will be solely about article content: no references to history or other editors will be allowed. Points will be brief: no statement or response will be longer than 1,000 words. Any comment that violates rules 1 or 2 may be edited, shortened, or removed entirely by me. Please adhere to the rules above, so we can ensure a speedy and successful mediation.

First sentence to be mediated

Thank you all for your contributions so far, they've been clear and helpful. It seems obvious to me that the most contentious sentence, and much of the general disagreement, relates to the following sentence.

Scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church, including Pierre Antoine Bernheim, Robert Eisenman, Will Durant, Michael Goulder, Gerd Ludemann, John Painter, and James Tabor, argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death. rather than Peter.

I'd like to dig into this sentence, and examine the sources supporting it. For each (listed below), could an exact quote be provided, and then arguments for or against its use or applicability be brought forward? One might, for example, object to Durant on the grounds that he was a non-specialist, and his research outdated. Based on the information and arguments presented, we should be able to see if the sentence should be kept, re-worded, or removed. Please keep in mind the Ground Rules listed above.

Eisenman 1997 p. 155-184

Relevant quote(s)

• "As presented by Paul, James is the Leader of the early Church par excellence. Terms like 'Bishop of the Jerusalem Church' or 'Leader of the Jerusalem Community' are of little actual moment at this point, because from the 40s to the 60s CE, when James held sway in Jerusalem, there really were no other centres of any importance." p.154

• .."there can be little doubt that 'the Poor' was the name for James' Community in Jerusalem or that Community descended from it in the East in the next two-three centuries, the Ebionites." p.156

• "Paul makes it clear that whoever we may think 'Peter' was, he was not the Head of Christianity in the days of Paul. His picture of a Movement headed by James is also borne out by the Acts' presentation of James' rulings at 'the Jerusalem Council' and at the time of James' final confrontation with Paul (15:19-29 & 22:20). In Paul's account, Peter emerges as someone overseas in competition to some extent with himself, but not with James. Peter is clearly under James" and subservient to his rulings, because he must defer to him and follow his instructions when his representatives or the uniquitous 'some' arrive from Jerusalem (Gal 2:12)" p.157

Arguments for

• Eisenman argues that James is the leader of the Jerusalem Church, from the 40s to the 60s, and explicitly ties the Jerusalem Community under James to the later Ebionites as descendants

• My rebuttal to Eisenman being a fringe source is that he is cited as a source by Painter, as I explained below. They both have in common a conjecture that the Roman Church attempted to cover up the primacy of James' leadership role in the Jerusalem Church. (The same conjecture is shared by Bernheim and Tabor, except that B & T also advocate a dynastic succession of the Desposyni that begins with a direct succession from Jesus to James.) The bits about Qumran and Eisenman's attempt to equate James the Just with the Righteous Teacher are a straw-man argument. If Eisenman's hypothesis was being added to an article on James the Just, it would be a valid criticism. However, that hypothesis has nothing to do with the Ebionites, and in any case does not invalidate Eisenman's main conjecture: that the forms of both Judaism and Christianity we know of today were handed down to us because they were the only forms the Romans were willing to tolerate. The issue of Eisenman being a single-source only applies to the extent he doesn't overlap with John Painter (or Bernheim and Tabor). I believe Dbachmann made a reasonable suggestion for how to handle Eisenman as a source, shown here. A more balanced appraisal of Painter's review of Eisenman, one that does not selectively pull out the negative comments while ignoring the positive comments, can be found here. Ovadyah (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• As I pointed out in the last informal mediation, WP:FR requires the application of an objective standard. It breaks down when attempting to apply it to religious articles, which rely heavily on unprovable conjectures, and results in little more than editorial POV-pushing. Scholars are entitled to push a POV, editors are not. As Llywrch pointed out in arbitration, the normal Wiki editing process fails on this type of article. I would rather see all scholarly POVs represented, even at the risk of some of them being wrong, than assent to the selective suppression of certain POVs that might turn out to be right. At least that way, a reasonably well-read editor can look at the sources and decide for themselves. Ovadyah (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• My suggestion to solve the SYNTH problem. Since no one knows what the Ebionites thought (they left behind no writings) it's all scholarly conjecture. Just say that the scholars mentioned in the article find a connection, direct or indirect, between the Jerusalem Church under the leadership of James the Just and the beliefs and practices of the later Ebionites, and leave out the mention of Peter (which is a sensitive subject, and it doesn't matter for the article anyway). This statement is supportable for every scholar mentioned (except perhaps Bernheim, I don't know about him yet, but I should have the book in a day or so). Speculative statements on the part of Eisenman, or any other scholar, should be handled the same way. Simply state that it is a speculation. What is not acceptable is to solve the problem by deletion, when it is clear that there are other ways to handle it. Ovadyah (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion above has serious problems with WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, etc. And, by the argument above, the fragments of the Gospel of the Ebionites must be discounted as well. Personal comment removed Also, I note that one of, if not the, most frequently cited secondary sources is the book by Klijn and Reinink, which discusses the various statements made by and attributed to the Ebionites by the various roughly contemporary sources, and the possible connections between them. Given the clear status of that work as one of the most relied upon secondary sources, I would have to think that following their model, not necessarily verbatim, would be the way to proceed which is most neutral and most in accord with encyclopedic principles. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I offered a compromise proposal that I thought would satisfy everybody. What is your alternative proposal? Ovadyah (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume by Klijn and Reinink you mean the following reference: Klijn and Reinink (1973). Patristic evidence for Jewish-Christian sects. Brill. pp. 19–43. ISBN 9004037632.. I agree that Klijn is a first-rate source. However, the book has almost nothing to say about a connection between the Jerusalem Church and the Ebionites and even less to say about James, aside from Epiphanius' description of the Ascents of James. Klijn's lack of making any statements in support of the above sentence is not an argument against inclusion; it is simply an argument from silence. Demonstrating (or refuting) a connection between James as the leader of the Jerusalem Church and the later Ebionites was not relevant to the purpose of the book. Ovadyah (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple then. If the most reliable sources do not place much emphasis on the presumptive connection, then, as pwer WP:UNDUE, there is no particular reason we should either. The connection can be mentioned in the articles on the individual works in question, and, probably most reasonably, in the Jewish Christians article. However, as per guidelines, we shouldn't reproduce information. Also, there are notable disputes about whether the Nazoreans or the Ebionites were the "splinter" group in that connection. Given the fact that there is serious question as to how direct the connection between the Ebionites and the Jerusalem church is, that seems to me an additional reason to mention it in Jewish Christianity and not here. While I would have no objections to a connection to the early Jewish Christians be mentioned, that is, I believe, already done here. Also, I note once again that AFAIR all the recent encyclopedic sources on the subject, which can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, also minimize the connection between James and the Ebionites. I see no reason why we should not follow suit. John Carter (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with using Klijn as a source to improve the article. However, I profoundly disagree with the concept that silence is a weight. I could then come up with any number of reliable sources that have nothing to do with the disputed sentence and say that "proves" that the sentence is insignificant. By this reasoning, I could just as easily come up with any number of reliable sources that have nothing to do with the Ebionites and say that "proves" the Ebionites are insignificant, or come up with even more sources that have nothing to do with Christianity and "prove" that Christianity is insignificant. Ovadyah (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

THen you would aqpparently also profoundly disagree with adhering to WP:V, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE, because making what you seem to call making an argument based on weight seems to me to violate all of the above, in some form or other. And, yes, I believe that to an extent that has already been done. I recently raised the issue of the reliability of the Slavonic Josephus as a reliable source at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 92#Slavonic text of The Jewish War, and found that it is not considered a reliable source. The fact that it is included in Tabor's arguments does not necessarily make it reliable. Over time, any number of people have cited any number of sources, some of which have been found worthless later, in support of their points on various topics. And, yes, as that source does not clearly mention the Ebionites, it could be argued that it has "nothing to do with the Ebionites," as you put it above. So, yes, in effect, I think the situation you postulate above may have already occurred with this article. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I am responding to your claim: "If the most reliable sources do not place much emphasis on the presumptive connection, then, as per WP:UNDUE, there is no particular reason we should either." If this is accepted as policy, then we don't have an encyclopedia because it can be used as a general argument to make anything violate UNDUE. We need a decision on whether this is an acceptable practice before we can proceed any further. Also, the statement "the most reliable" sources is nothing but your personal opinion, and likely an example of confirmation bias, unless you can back it up with a reliably-sourced review article that explicitly makes that claim. Ovadyah (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You are in fact only choosing to respond to one point of the claim. You have to date refused to address the fact that the source itself does not clearly relate to the Ebionite, which would presumably be required as per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I did ask above about whether the source can be verifiably said to be directly relevant to the subject of the Ebionites, and to date I see absolutely nothing which addresses that matter, which seems to have been, somehow, ignored. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Must we point out, yet again, that Slavonic Josephus is a primary source? What you think of the source is utterly irrelevant, what matters is whether secondary sources make the connection. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And, must we point out, again, that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are also relevant to content which cannot be clearly and explicitly linked to the subject, and that the Slavonic Josephus makes no statement which clearly and explicitly links it to the Ebionites, thus making it a very real likelihood of violation of SP:SYNTH? John Carter (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources can not be excluded because of an individual editor's WP:OR, if the secondary sources use it, such as they do with Slavonic Josephus. If the primary sources are used to illuminate statements made by a secondary source, that is NOT a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Now who is not listening? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If the source is found in independent secondary sources, then it makes sense that the secondary sources which cite it be used, in the form of "Slavonic Josephus, cited by X, p. whatever." In fact, that is, basically, what policy demands. I had pointed out that policy above. May I ask why the policy is currently not being adhered to? John Carter (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So your only problem is a missing page number in the ref? Yes, or no? Since we are moving towards giving all references page numbers, this should be no problem. Matter resolved. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not the only problem. It is the fact that the source is also, as has been said at RSN, of at best historical reliability, and very possibly a fraud. Yes, some individual authors have chosen, for whatever reason, to try to substantiate their theories by citations of extremely problematic sources such as this one. And my congratulations on some of you getting to the point of adhering to policy of adding page citations and otherwise adhering to policy. But, yes, it is important to know which sources, the more reliable ones or the more fringey ones, indicate such potential frauds are reliable sources. It should also be noted that the specifically emphasized unsigned comment above was added at the same time as a much more substantive comment below, which is signed. My regrets for not having added signatures to each comment. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So you are back to your old position of trying to apply OR to judge primary sources. Well, I tried. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your argument that Klijn and Reinink is some kind of self-evident "gold standard", and that the article should be rebuilt around this standard, is based on nothing more than your own bias. You were desperate to find a reliable source that didn't mention the subject we are discussing, so that you could use that source as an argument for deletion. Here's a newsflash; the article content may be modified to resolve problems with WP:SYNTH, but it will not be withdrawn voluntarily by me, nor will it be deleted as a result of this mediation. Deal with it. Ovadyah (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comment above seems to ignore that it is, so far as I can tell, one of the few most frequently cited sources for the subject, as per User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#Sources. And, regarding the comment above, there are other policies and guidelines, including WP:WEIGHT. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a frequently used source - by conservative Catholic exegetes, not by scholars in the field in general. For one thing, the work is seriously dated and precedes all the advances that have occurred in the field since the advent of the Third Quest. Ovadyah (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if the editor provided some specific information to demonstrate that only conservative Catholic exegetes use it, as he seems to be implying above. I didn't see that it was exclusively used by conservate Catholic exegetes, and particular note that the Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed., ed. by Lindsay Jones, 2005, among others, includes it. This particular source was counted one of the best reference works for that year by Booklist and/or the ALA, and is widely regarded as being at least among the best of the current reference sources. Also, while there is the question as to developments since then, there is also the question as to how many of those developments specifically relate to this subject (no information provided) and how well received those sources have been by the academic community (no information provided). John Carter (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been repeating your demands for the unconditional removal of this article content. Are you willing to move from this position and negotiate a rewording of the material, or are your demands for the deletion absolute? Ovadyah (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And I am forced to acknowledge that in your comments above you seem to be again perhaps attempting to avoid dealing with the matters being discussed. First, the claim is made that it is apparently only conservative Catholic sources which support the contention, I indicate that is false, and the rebuttal is again ignored with ad hominem comments. I also note that there has been a question regarding my opinion of how the article should be structured. Given what struck me as the at least somewhat leading nature of the original questions (I do not however fault Jayjg for them - the article as it stands has been said by multiple people to be a mess) I will outline here what I think is the most reasonable structure.

• Lead
• Judaism - including definition of the term, Skarsaune's theories, use by the Dead Sea Scrolls
• Patristics - roughly 40% of the article text. Taking into account that there would be no article without the patristic material, and that all the theories, ultimately, derive from that material, there is no reason for it not to be included. In what I saw of the literature, there is only one source which specifically disagreed with Klijn & Reinink on their view of the interrelationship of the various patristic sources (what is and isn't derived from earlier patristics). I think that was a question about whether something in Origen can be linked to Irenaeus - it was not, in any event, on one of the major sources. So, on that basis, having this section largely follow the model of Klijn & Reinink would be both useful, in accord with scholarly views, and a way to ultimately remove redundancy.
• Theories - This section would be for all later subsequent interpretations of both the texts above, and anything else which has been introduced by subsequent authors. It would be no longer than the above patristics section, so as to ensure WP:UNDUE is not violated.
• post-patristic history - This would be including the other groups which have been linked to the Ebionites, through their repetition of some variation on the Ebionite heresy, as well as the few archaeological sources which have been so linked.

I note that this is, basically, a repetition of what I had earlier proposed on the article talk pages, in comments which were basically ignored by individuals who might have, apparently, objected to reducing the emphasis on Tabor and Eisenman. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What has this too do with the sentence currently being mediated? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RSN said that it is either a primary ancient source or a primary medieval source, and they don't have the expertise to decide that issue. And in either case, it needs to be cited by a reliable secondary source. There are many documents that exist in Old Slavonic that show more primitivity than their Greek versions because they have been less "improved" over time. Ovadyah (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I see absolutely nothing in the RSN discussion linked to which even remotely supports the statements made above. Please provide an exact quote from that discussion which supports the contention in the second sentence. Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS regarding the third sentence, and, as you are referring to these "many documents", please indicate exactly how they are necessarily relevant to this particular discussion. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What is relevant is that it is not up to editors to pronounce primary sources they don't like unreliable. This, again, is a major violation of WP:PRIMARY. RSN did not say that they found Slavonic Josephus to be an unreliable source. It is an inaccurate statement to say otherwise. Ovadyah (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:IRS. A reliable source is one which, basically, can be used on its own. The comments in the discussion indicated that the Slavonic Josephus should only be used when cited by an independent source, not on its own. While I acknowledge that the exact terms I used were not used there, the duck test standard seems to make the phrase, even if not strictly accurate, within acceptable norms. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The RSN was quite explicit that a reliable secondary source was the "independent source" needed to cite Slavonic Josephus. In other words, it should be handled like any other primary source. Ovadyah (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "silence" being used as evidence of absence, rather it is one of well-respected sources (including Klijn and Reinink, Pritz, Bagatti and many others) giving a history in which details are profoundly different than those being relied on from Eisenman. • Astynax ^talk 20:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What is a matter of "silence", or at least WP:IDHT, is the ongoing refusal to address the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH questions regarding the use of Josephus. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I readily agree that Klijn is a well-respected source. I am less sure about the others you mentioned. However, the idea that the sources you mentioned are well-respected, in the sense of being self-evidently superior to the others, is nothing more than your opinion. Generally speaking, the tactic of offering up silence as a form of evidence, in effect stating that the absence of evidence is equivalent to evidence of absence, is logically unsound, and it would put the whole encyclopedia on unstable ground. Ovadyah (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion. Particularly in the field of religion, which has, roughly, about 20 reference books per year published, there is every reason to believe that even weakly accepted theories would be discussed in some degree by at least a few of them. There is also the fact that the comments above seem to be overlooking the fact that, over and above what the individual entries in encyclopedias say, I and others have also been stressing laying weight on those works which are included as references. If those sources themselves said something, whether the comparatively brief article did or did not, that would be grounds for inclusion. To date, I have seen no encyclopedic article on the Ebionites which either includes Eisenman's theories in the text, or his works in their bibliographies. On that basis, I have to say that there is no reason to believe that the purely hypothetical belief "but maybe it's all part of a grand conspiracy theory to silence the truth" has any sort of basis whatsoever. And, yes, I acknowledge that some individuals and non-notable groups apparently take Tabor's book as some variation on "Gospel truth". However, there is the question how much weight as per WP:UNDUE to give the beliefs of such groups, and, in their particular cases, how much weight to give any content related to them at all. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A review of Ray Pritz (1988). Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century. Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. ISBN 9004081089. by Robert M. Price can be found here, in which he states the following: "One must wonder if here we do not have a reconstruction of Jewish Christian history implicitly tailored to fit the apologetical model of church history according to which the theological catholic purity of the church was only lately besmirched by the mischief of heretical interlopers and innovators. At several points one suspects that Pritz's judgments stem from the anachronistic imposition of earlier evidence by the doctrinal canons of a later era, whether of Pritz's own or that of Eusebius." In other words, this is history recast as Church apologetic. Interestingly, Pritz states in the book that it is the Nazarenes that are the direct descendants of the Jerusalem Church under the leadership of James the Just. I guess it must be insignificant though, since Klijn and Reinink didn't mention that either. Ovadyah (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Tabor, Pritz is rigorously careful to note alternatives and where the ancient sources do not give enough information to draw a firm conclusion. Pritz shows that the sources made a distinction between the Nazarenes and Ebionites, and notes problems with conflating them. Pritz's work has been around longer than Tabor, and has garnered many favorable reviews and hundreds of citations in noted scholarly works. For the record, this website also gives a scathing review of Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty. Compare the concluding words of his review of Tabor: "One might apply Tabor’s own words to his book as an epitaph: 'It is amazing what firm opinions have been built upon such shaky foundations'" with the conclusion of his review of Pritz: "Early Christianity, like the Judaism from which it evolved, was a confusingly diverse phenomenon. The danger of a systematic scholarly scrutiny of it is to oversystematize the phenomena, and thus to oversimplify them. But, as Pritz's engaging and informative work manifestly shows, it is well worth the effort." It is easy to see which gets the more respect. • Astynax ^talk 03:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And, I feel it worth noting, Pritz' work has been cited as a relevant source by independent tertiary sources on the Ebionites, which can be demonstrated at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#Sources. I would have to say that it's being considered a significant enough work to be included in the references there is an indication that it has received at least some academic respect. I would still be very interested in seeing anyone produce evidence of similar regard from tertiary, encyclopedic overview, sources for Tabor or Eisenman, which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been produced yet. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Odd that RMP criticises Tabor for "firm conclusions" when Tabor often states that he is speculating and only arriving at provisional conclusions. Also odd that RMP takes Tabor to task for taking the gospel narratives too literally, and then rebukes him for not taking parts literally (e.g. John 7:3-5). Eh? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 04:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is the above comment supposed to be in any way actually pertinent to this discussion? If it is, I don't see how. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

On talk pages (and presumably here) we are allowed to opine on sources. I'm just saying that the review seems internally inconsistent. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A positive review of Eisenman's (1997) James the Brother of Jesus by Robert M. Price is reproduced here from the Talk:Ebionites archives, where he states, "Eisenman is like the Renaissance scientists who had to hand-craft all the intricate parts of a planned invention. The book is an ocean of instructive insight and theory, a massive and profound achievement that should open up new lines of New Testament research." An updated review states, "The breadth and detail of Eisenman's investigation are breathtaking, as are its implications. In James the Brother of Jesus he tells the long-lost tale of formative "prehistoric" Christianity as it emerged from the crucible of revolutionary Palestine and from the internecine hostilities between Pauline and Ebionite Christianities." And he goes on to state Eisenman's main conjecture that runs throughout the book, "His working hypothesis is that the confusions, alterations, and obfuscations stem from an interest in covering over the importance, and therefore the identity, of the Desposyni, the Heirs of Jesus who had apparently functioned at least for Palestinian Christianity as a dynastic Caliphate similar to the Alid succession of Shi'ite Islam or the succession of Hasmonean brothers." Ovadyah (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Arguments against

• Eisenman does not explicitly say that Peter played no leadership role prior to the 40s, but he does say that the issue is probably forever unclear.

• Eisenman himself is not necessarily a non-fringe source. The comments I found on his work at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#Eisenman are such that I do not think, based on them, that he can be said to be other than fringe. Also, as per the quotation User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#The International Standard Bible Dictionary, Eisenman is not himself the first to premise the linkage of the Ebionites and Qumran, but that a J. L. Teicher premised them before, with different individuals cast as the Teacher of Righteouness and other named individuals. That theory was rejected, at least in part because the dating of the Qumran texts does not support it. Other individuals have tried to link them after Eisenman as well, with little if any positive support from the academic press. Thus, I have to say that at best Eisenman is a source which would need replacement by a better source, and at worst, if no such source exists, should well be removed altogether as per WP:FRINGE. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The question remains, in response to Ovadyah, that, to date, the only sources which has yet been produced which seems to treat Eisenman with any respect are Painter, in a book about James, and to a degree Tabor. Painter's book is about James, not the Jerusalem Church or the Ebionites - there might be SYNTH and WEIGHT problems about including that material in this article. Tabor's book has received little if any academic support or attention. I note that those issues of WEIGHT and SYNTH have not so far as I have seen been addressed. Again, Painter's book is not about the Ebionites, and few if any of the sources I have found about the Ebionites, most of which can be seen at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites and its related page, even make a passing mention of Eisenman in terms of the Ebionites, which is, after all, the topic of this article and this discussion. One supporting reference in a dubiously-related source does not necessarily help establish WEIGHT and SYNTH issues regarding inclusion of the material in this article. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Eisenman does not say that the Ebionites regarded James as their head, and does not directly say that the Ebionites were in existence that far back (though he leaves open such a possibility). Therefore, this source does not support a sentence which makes James the head of the Ebionite community. Instead of sticking to the source, the sentence makes a synthetic conclusion. Moreover, I agree with John Carter's view that Eisenman veers into fringe territory. Speculative statements such as "there can be little doubt that 'the Poor' was the name for James' Community in Jerusalem or that Community descended from it in the East in the next two-three centuries, the Ebionites." have no support in the few scraps of ancient documentation on the group, nor are there parallel jumps to those sorts of conclusions on the part of the overwhelming majority of scholars who have dealt with the subject since—those I have read note that there may have been some connection between the much later Ebionites and the original Jewish Church, but that there is clearly no documentation of any link and that ancient sources present the later group as having significant differences from what is known of early church to the extent that the Ebionites were regarded as heretical. Using the citation to reference that James is regarded by some scholars as head of the original Jerusalem Church is only included to link him to the Ebionites (otherwise, why is this statement in the article at all?). Regardless, the sentence posits that the Ebionites regarded James as their leader, and Eisenman does not give unqualified support for that connection. And it is misreferencing and editor synthesis of this sort that has crept into the article in several places. • Astynax ^talk 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Tabor 2006 pp. 222-223, 231, 257-258, 302-303

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Relevant quote(s)

• "Peter did rise to prominence in the group of Twelve, as we shall see, but it was James the brother of Jesus who became the successor to Jesus and the undisputed leader of the Christian movement." & "James, not Peter, became the legitimate successor of Jesus and leader of the movement." pp.222-223 (UK ed)

• Clement of Alexandria, who wrote in the late 2nd century A.D., is another early source who confirms this succession of James. At one point he wrote: "Peter and James and John after the Ascension of the Savior did not struggle for glory, because they had previously been given honor by the Savior, but chose James the Just as Overseer of Jerusalem." 2) Eusebius also preserves the testimony of Hegesippus, a Jewish-Christian of the early 2nd century, who says he is from the "generation after the Apostles": "The succession of the church passed to James the brother of the Lord, together with the Apostles. He was called the Just by all men from the Lord's time until ours, since many are called James, but he was holy from his mother's womb." 3) We also have a recently recovered Syriac source, The Ascents of James, that is embedded in a later corpus known as the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, which reflects some of the earliest traditions related to the Jerusalem church under the leadership of James the Just. It records events in Jerusalem seven years following the death of Jesus, when James is clearly at the helm: "The church in Jerusalem that was established by our Lord was increasing in numbers being ruled uprightly and firmly by James who was made Overseer over it by our Lord." - pp.257-258

• We do know that these original Christians survived, mostly in the areas east of Palestine, well into the 4th century A.D. But they were scattered and without power or influence and they had little or no part in influencing what went into the New Testament, which became the official story of early Christianity. They were known subsequently by the term "Ebionites", which meant in Hebrew "poor ones". - pp.302-303

Arguments for

• Tabor explicitly identifies James as the successor to Jesus as the leader of the Jerusalem Church. His identification of James as leader from the beginning rather than Peter is the most explicit (termed a succession), followed by Painter, who identifies James as the leader of the apostles as well as the Jerusalem Church. The other sources (except Goulder) leave room implicitly for Peter to be the immediate successor followed by James in the 40s to 60s. Tabor explicitly identifies the Ebionites as being the direct successors of the original Christians.

• My rebuttal regarding the use of Tabor is that his hypothesis is hardly unique. Gerd Ludemann also argues for a dynastic succession by the relatives of Jesus (the Desposyni) as leaders of the early Church, as shown here, resulting ultimately in their beliefs and practices being passed along to the later Ebionites. Richard Bauckman makes a similar argument about the dynastic succession of the Desposyni, as shown here, with the exception that he sees the ultimate inheritors of the Jerusalem Church being identified with the Nazoraeans of the fourth century. Therefore, Tabor, no matter the frequency of citations, cannot be considered to have a single-source hypothesis. Ovadyah (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The claims of Tabor being WP:FRINGE are Personal comment removed smear by association with a non-existent link to the Da Vinci code. (BTW Tabor dismisses the Da Vinci Code in the forewood of Jeffrey Butz' The Secret Legacy of Jesus.) Butz reviews the development of Judaic Christianity in this book, placing Tabor firmly in the midst of other respected researchers such as Robert Eisenman, Hugh Schonfield, Hyam Maccoby, John Painter and Richard Bauckham. Of Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty Butz says it is "a long overdue and most welcome addition to our knowledge of the historical Jesus, which has, not surprisingly, been widely denigrated by conservative scholars." p.24 -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael, which specific source made this statement? Also, do you have supporting material from these other sources, either for Tabor specifically, or for the theory in general? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Has the clarification of a pronoun above made it clearer? If not, it is by Jeffrey Butz, in his The Secret Legacy of Jesus, ISBN 978-159477307-5, page 24. What this demonstrates is that, within the field of Jewish Christianity, Tabor is a respected source.

No, I don't have any supporting material from Butz' sources, or least not to hand.

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading Tabor, in relation to the Gospel of Matthew and agree totally with Michael. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Tabor as a WP:RS

Could those supporting the use of Tabor explain why further why he should be considered reliable enough to use here? Please focus on criteria that are relevant to WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

He cites primary sources and presents summary conclusions based on them, as shown here, that are directly relevant to the content of the article. Ovadyah (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, that isn't really relevant to WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A favorable review of Tabor's Jesus Dynasty can be found here. Ovadyah (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He is published in respected journals, has respectable credentials and engages in research (both literay and archaeological). -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you be more explicit about his compliance with WP:RS as regards this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, can you clarify what you're getting at here? I'm not sure what you're after. Tabor has published extensively on early Christianity and Roman-era Judaism. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly that - his academic qualifications and publications. Those, along with where this was published, are generally the most important factors in deciding if a source meets WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is Tabor's bio with links on the Department of Religious Studies website at UNC. Also, his Wiki article James_Tabor has ISBN numbers for all his books. Ovadyah (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, regarding Tabor's history and qualifications, there has never been a lot of serious objection to him or any of his published works as reliable sources per WP:RS per se. Almost all of them, if not all, have been published by publishers with at least a bit of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The question has been almost from the beginning whether the material associated with him qualifies as fringe as per WP:FRINGE. The bulk of the objections on the later point have been about the comparatively few, if any, other RS's which support his contentions, and the number which have considered them negatively. A corollary objection has been the almost completely disproportionate emphasis given to Tabor over almost all other sources. I think Nishidani said some time ago that there were seventeen or so individual citations to Tabor, and there are few if any other sources which receive anywhere near that degree of attention. On that basis, in addition to the FRINGE issues above, WP:WEIGHT has been involved. From my own perspective, the primary concern has been for some time the really poor attempt to in my eyes synthesize the views of Tabor and Eisenman with the historical sources, presenting primarily (if not only) the perspectives of those two. A more reasonable, and I believe more encyclopedic, approach would be to present the historical sources which clearly do reference the Ebionites first, and then, in a separate section thereafter, the theories which have arisen since then. So far as I can see, however, there has been little if any interest in making such adjustments to the article. When the article were finally presented into a more clearly NPOV manner, and the information about all the theories examined for degree of support and sympathy in the academic community and the broader world, then it would be reasonable to determine how much weight to give each individual theory in that section. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Arguments against

Tabor's work has received little if any real support, or even discussion of any kind, in the academic press, and the majority of the independent opinions I have seen about it are negative. I believe he probably qualifies as per WP:FRINGE as a fringe source. Any material currently cited from him should probably be either researched and cited from a less fringey source, or, if no such sources are available, perhaps be removed entirely. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Much of Tabor's recent work is barely distinguishable from historical fiction. His speculations are unsupported, or only weakly supported, by the very few scraps available from ancient sources, and are insinuated as valid premises. Tabor makes for a good read, and like those who choose to believe that The DaVinci Code is based on historical research, has a popular following, but is no longer taken seriously in the archaeological and historical disciplines. There are things Tabor has written that probably could be referenced, but only with more solid and explicit backup references than have been used here. • Astynax ^talk 19:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal statements removed the comparison with the Da Vinci Code has been made many times. (e.g., Wavell, Stuart. "God, this conspiracy is getting bigger", The Times, London, 5 March 2006; Enright Michael. "All in the family: move over, Da Vinci Code". Literary Review of Canada May 2007; among others) John Carter has previously noted many of the reviews which have treated Tabor's work with a good deal of skepticism (typical is Strange, James F. "Historical Jesus and Christianity Reviews", Biblical Archaeology Review). Time Magazine in an article entitled "Religion: Rewriting The Gospels" describes material in Jesus Dynasty as "speculative", and lumps it with similar books which exhibit "the Da Vinci Code effect" (i.e., speculative and sensationalist claims slickly put out for the general audience with the aim of hitting the Best Seller lists). So, despite Tabor's dismissiveness of The Da Vinci Code, others have indeed made the connection. • Astynax ^talk 03:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The allegedly non-existent links of Tabor to The DaVinci Code can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor, specifically including statements by Tabor himself that his book is at least in part aimed at The DaVinci Code's readers. Simply because those comments have been ignored for some time now does not mean that they do not exist. I very strongly suggest that the individuals involved perhaps take the time to read that material. Regarding Butz, a source I think I first introduced to this discussion some time ago, I note that the majority of his book, as I remember, was about how the Ebionites served as the originator of a Christology adopted later by the Cathars, Muslims, Freemasons, and Founders of the US, among others. While it is true that he, in his book, does indicate that there may be a stronger connection between the Ebionites and James than others have said, those others include, so far as I can remember, just bout all of the other recent sources on the subject, including encyclopediac sources, as can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites. Given that there is, so far as I can tell, only a very few sources, including Butz and Tabor, who support this theory, while it has been apparently not taken up by any other sources in the journals (as per JSTOR's lack of recent content on the subject or references to Tabor), I am myself far from sure that the idea deserves any more weight than the theories of H.-J. Schoeps, Klijn & Reinink, J. L. Teicher, and all the other sources who have theorized on the subject whose work is addressed in those sources. So far as I can see, there is no real independent support for the theory of Tabor other than Butz, and substantial opposition to it. If and when it receives attention from tertiary sources, then I would have no reservations for saying that it has received support. However, neither Butz nor Tabor have apparently received much support in this argument to date, given the lack of comments about either. The bulk of the content from Butz, about the history of Ebionite Christology, is another matter which has been discussed earlier by others, and is a different matter. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I fail see how Tabor's statements about his audience composition, even if accurately reported, have any bearing on his reliability or suitability as a source.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Equating Tabor's published work with The Da Vinci Code – a speculative, unsupported, work of pseudo-historical fiction – has been used by reviewers to underline their points about Tabor's book making similar breathless claims that seem to be oriented more towards garnering publicity than adding anything solid to what we know. Tabor's fringe theories have not changed the consensus of either the historical, religous studies or archaeological communities. • Astynax ^talk 20:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• As an outside view, the scholarly review in RSR is particularly dismissive: DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0922.2006.00116_39.x. Slightly more charitable is doi: 10.1177/001452460711800532. Either way, this book is not intended as an academic study, but is specifically written for a wider audience and its use as a source is questionable given the widespread availability of more substantial works. Eusebeus (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you provide links for those reviews, for us lazy readers/editors? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Eusebius, thanks for your input. Links would be really helpful so that everyone here can read them. Ovadyah (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• • • Sorry - I should have been clear: you can just paste the full doi ("doi: 10.1177/001452460711800532") into google and it will bring up the item. Let me know if you don't have access (e.g. you don't have an institutional affiliation), and I'll go ahead and cite the text directly inline. (Securing the scholarly reviews of this kind of material is usually a good idea wrt to secondary sources to determine their value as WP:RS). Eusebeus (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's comment

The consensus here is that Tabor meets the qualifications of WP:RS, and that he believes James led the church after Jesus, and that his church became known as the Ebionites. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Note, though, that they may have called themselves Ebionites much earlier, since it was common self-designation. See Ebionites#Name. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 04:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael's comment brings up the subject I would like to get into next: The relationship between the Essenes, the Jerusalem Church, and the later Ebionites. That whole section was moved to the talk page in Sept. 2007 over concerns about SYNTH. This is probably the best chance we will have to retrieve it from the talk page and go through all the sources. Since, the section on the Essenes precedes the sections on John the Baptist and James vs. Paul in the article, it will also resolve the question for those sections. I recommend that we accept Jayjg's statement as the consensus for now, until those details can be worked out. Ovadyah (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we assume that if we accept Eisenman and Tabor as WP:RS on this sentence that we don't have to re-fight this battle every other place they are used as sources in the article? It seems obvious, but it probably needs to be made explicit for some people. Ovadyah (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it can be reasonably assumed that a work published by any publisher which in general meets RS would qualify as RS. There is the question about the Slavonic Josephus, which neither specifically mentions the Ebionites nor is generally accepted as being necessarily containing content actually written by the purported author, but rather, at least potentially, by a later individual seeking to fraudulently establish some sort of contemporary historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and his followers. I think it probably has to be made explicit to some people that that even the quotations cited do not explicitly reference the Ebionites, and thus that it is very likely the case that it cannot be seen as a reliable source on the Ebionites, given that fact. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are willing to apply the same reasoning you are currently applying to Slavonic Josephus to all of the books of the New Testament, except for the 7 genuine letters of Paul (1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philemon, and Philippians chapter 3). They are pseudo-graphical in their entirety, and their content, at least according your suggestion for how to handle fraudulent sources, is therefore presumably worthless. Ovadyah (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to wonder how the above completely irrelevant comment does not violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and simply constitute yet another attempt to ignore difficult questions. I believe that there are already guidelines about using Biblical texts, and that those guidelines do not necessarily apply to the Slavonic Josephus. I also note how the comments at RSN, saying that the Slavonic Josephus should only be used in conjunction with another source specifically using it. There may well be a WP:V violation otherwise. Am I to take this tangential comment as being the basis for the continuing failure to abide by the statements of independent editors at RSN? John Carter (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Far from irrelevant, I would think. And how Ovadyah's response can be conscrued as WP:IDHT is beyond me. But I see no point in pointing out, yet again, that John Carter is applying OR to judge primary sources. So you can classify that as WP:IDHT as well, if you like. :-) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Since, the only place Slavonic Josephus even comes up in the article is in the section on John the Baptist (i.e it is not even relevant to the sentence on James we have been discussing), why don't we table further discussions on the SJ until we work on the JTB section. The JTB section is dependent on the results of mediating the section I mentioned earlier (the relationship between the Essenes, Jerusalem Church, and the Ebionites). Ovadyah (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should stay focused. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, there is a comment on the AfD page of the EJC article by John Carter shown here - third from the top, indicating that he refuses to accept any consensus has been reached on James Tabor being a reliable source. How do you want to proceed? Ovadyah (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus here is that Tabor meets the requirements of WP:RS for this article. I'm not concerned with other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Particularly as the comments linked to completely and utterly fail to demonstrate the claim made. Tabor has not been cited as a source for that article, and, thus, I did not comment on him. If it would be possible for Ovadyah's claims to more accurately reflect objective reality than his comments above do, which are not supported by the evidence presented, that might be beneficial for us all. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

However RS Tabor may be for some subjects, his work being cited in this article pushes unsupported fringe conjectures that are widely dismissed and which are mostly notable for garnering popular attention through sensationalistic presentation. Even such reviewers who have "welcomed" his Jesus Dynasty (and there have been few outside his students, fans and publicists), have not gone on to adopt his speculations in their own works. Were his theories not interwoven into this article, but instead separated out and presented as a view with almost no support within the scholarly community, then he could be cited for that minority view. I consider him non-notable for supporting the particular sentence being examined here or the article's topic, however, and the quoted material does not support the synthesis made in the sentence. • Astynax ^talk 17:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Durant 1944 p. 577

Relevant quote(s)

• "James "the Just," "the brother of the Lord," became the head of the now reduced and impoverished church in Jerusalem [...] The Jerusalem Christians [...] left the city and established themselves in pagan and pro-Roman Pella, on the farther bank of the Jordan.[...] Thereafter Judaic Christianity waned in number and power, [...] Judaic Christianity survived for five centuries in a little group of Syriac Christians called Ebionim ("the poor"), who practiced Christian poverty and the full Jewish Law. At the end of the second century the Church condemned them as heretics."

Arguments for

• Durant is a historian who brought together information based on secondary sources about the Ebionites. He functions as the equivalent of a third party source with defined authorship, roughly the equivalent of an encyclopedic article, which is allowable under the guidelines.

Arguments against

• Durant is less strong as a source than a reliable secondary source authored by a scholar. The much older date than all the other sources also argues against inclusion. (A weak argument at present when some of the sources in the article are 100 years old.)

While I agree that some of the other sources are 100 years old or so, at least one of the sources of that age, the Hastings Encyclopedia, is itself cited as a source by other encyclopedias, indicating that much of its content is still considered quite worth reading. Other such dated sources, including, perhaps, translations, and sources roughly contemporary to the Ebionites themselves (like Irenaeus), might well be argued as acceptable on the basis of translations having not changed much over time (and, possibly, these old sources being public domain) and/or being, like Irenaeus, et. al., the only really contemporary sources on the group we have. If, like with those sources, they are pretty much the sole basis of evidence upon which later work is based, I would have to think that they would qualify for inclusion as being the few independent generally reliable (to a degree, anyway) contemporary sources available, and, like I said, the only hard evidence upon which later speculation can be based. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• As I noted on the article talk page, "Durant makes a single mention of Ebionim as a survival of Judaic Christianity. He makes no mention of James as having founded a sect, nor does he say anything at all else about the Ebionites—including anything about Ebionites regarding James as 'their leader after Jesus's death'." This reference (and I've gone over the chapter repeatedly) does not support the synthesis that the article introduces that the Jerusalem church=the Ebionites and that James was their leader. • Astynax ^talk 19:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• AGFing the above, I would have to say that the single brief mention of this subject in the source, without any source cited. Also, the above clearly indicates that there are serious SYNTH problems with using the brief quote to substantiate something it does not address. Material which fails to adhere to guidelines is generally supposd to be removed, and I have seen nothing which indicates that this is not an instance of such failure to adhere to content guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, Durant makes no mention of James as having founded a sect. Neither does the article, so what is the issue here? As for claim nor does he say anything at all else about the Ebionites I am having trouble processing - "anything else" beyond the Ebionites being a survival of Judiac christianity? That strikes me as fairly relevant! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Personal comment removed Durant makes no connection between the Ebionites and James. Period. Personal comment removed • Astynax ^talk 01:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Personal comment removed Durant makes the connection with the word "Thereafter". I have expanded the quote to include the reference to Pella, to make it clearer that the synthesis is made by Durant. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Personal comment removed Durant in no way makes a connection between the two. Durant simply begins a new paragraph which says that "Thereafter" [i.e., after the death of James, after the fall of Jerusalem, after the split between Judaism and Christianity, etc.), Jewish Christianity waned, though "Judaic Christianity survived for five centuries in a little group of Syriac Christians called Ebionim ("the poor"), who practiced Christian poverty and the full Jewish Law. At the end of the second century the Church condemned them as heretics." It is entirely editor synthesis that posits this as supporting the statement that Durant is among those who "argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death." • Astynax ^talk 17:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• All sources agree it was the Ebionites who fled to Pella (see Butz' The Secret Legacy of Jesus, for example). Durant calls them Jerusalem Christians whilst they are in Jerusalem, and Judaic Christians and Ebionim after the move from Jerusalem. It really is as simple as that; an open and shut case.
• If I said "King John died after eating a surfeit of eels. Evidently his meal disagreed with him.", no one would misunderstand that "meal" refers to the eels and "his" to King John. I don't see the difference here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that this is the prevailing view of modern scholarship. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica supports this view, Encyclopedia Britannica: Ebionites "The Ebionite movement may have arisen about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (ad 70). Its members evidently left Palestine to avoid persecution and settled in Transjordan (notably at Pella) and Syria and were later known to be in Asia Minor and Egypt. The sect seems to have existed into the 4th century." Ovadyah (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's comment

Durant does not appear to be a strong source for this claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we can live without this third party source. We already have some excellent reliable secondary sources to support this claim. Ovadyah (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No objections to removal from me. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I object to removal since the claims made are supported by other sources. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all sure the exact sense of the above statement. As Ovadyah has noted, there are other sources, better ones, which support the claim. Therefore, this discussion is not about the removal of the material which is supported by the reference, but to the specific reference itself. The above comment does not seem to indicate that editor's awareness of that fact, or possibly that he has a particularly good understanding of the specific discussion here, which is, clearly, about the single citation in question. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course I understood "that fact". Removing an encyclopedic source for an (apparently uncontested) statement is to the detriment of readers who read references. If the statement was contested then removal of the source would make sense, but not since it is uncontested (i.e. alternately sourced). -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, apparently, you don't understand it particularly well, given your above comments. References are really only useful, even to the readers who read references, if the references cited are particularly useful. In this case, the reference is to a single sentence in a work which, while widely hailed as an outstanding achievement by its author, is held to be of at best questioned academic quality. Your argument seems to be along the lines of saying "if one source says it, we should include each and every other source which say the same thing." I cannot see how that argument is supported by any policies or guidelines. And I still haven't seen how you have necessarily addressed the matter for the specific reasons for the inclusion of this specific source in this article. The only reason I can see you giving for the inclusion of the source, is, basically, "piling on is a good thing," and I can't see how that argument makes much sense in terms of policy and guidelines. The source is, at best, of dubious academic quality, and your comments have not addressed that matter at all. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the source should remain for now, until the mediator makes it clear that the remaining reliable secondary sources are going to be retained. Otherwise, this just plays into your attempt to knock off every single source one by one. Ovadyah (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, so far as I can determine, this page was set up to discuss every single source one by one. I am sorry that the above editor seems to be not only questioning the organiztion of the mediation page, but is drawing conclusions regarding the motivations of not only all other editors, but the mediator as well. Also, in the above comment, I do not see anything which, well, actually relates directly to the possible quality of the source. If and when Jayjg chooses to comment, he can draw conclusions such as the above, but I cannot see how it is called for for any party to impugn not only the motivations of all other parties involved, but also the mediator as well, as the above comment seems to be at least implicitly doing. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Painter 1997 pp. 84, 220-221, 229 (republished in 1999 with Excursus)

• Bernheim, Eisenman, and Painter all published books on James in 1997 independent of each others work. Painter republished his book in 1999 with a new publisher and added an Excursus on Eisenman's (1997) James the Brother of Jesus Ovadyah (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Relevant quote(s)

• "Although Cephas and James stand close together as representatives of the circumcision party, evidence of a leadership struggle surrounds these two figures. Historically it is likely that James was the leader of the first Jerusalem church. In Acts Luke tried to reconcile conflicts and to reconcile the later tradition of Petrine leadership in the church at large with the tradition of the original leadership of James in Jerusalem. This strategy was possible because of the public role of Peter from the beginning. The evidence of the authority of James over Peter, even exercised at a distance, is demonstrated in Gal 2:11-14, and there is no reason to think that the situation was different at the beginning of the Jerusalem church." - p.84

• "Opposed tendencies concerning James have emerged. In the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Pseudo-Clementines the leading role of James is developed. He is the leader of the apostles, of the Jerusalem church, and of the church at large. In the Protevangelium of James, Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome there is a distancing of James from any natural relationship to Jesus. The position of Origen is less clear on this matter than those of the others mentioned. 2) The role of James was not immediately obliterated. Origen notes that such was the righteousness of James that once he had been murdered Vespasian began his siege of Jerusalem. Even Jerome acknowledges the leadership of James in Jerusalem. He notes that James was called the brother of Jesus "on account of his high character, his incomparable faith, and extraordinary wisdom" but "preeminently" because "the Lord at his departure had committed" the leadership of the Jerusalem church to him." - pp.220, 221

• "By the second century only those factions that maintained Jewish identity (defined as circumcison and observance of food and purity laws) were perceived to be Jewish, and the name of James was associated with them. In the process the Jewish Christians became isolated from other Jews because of the confession of Jesus as the Messiah and isolated from other Christians because of their adherence to the Jewish law. Perhaps because of this isolation Jewish Christianity failed to follow developments in the broader Christian movement. The most notable of these developments is to be seen in terms of christology. Jewish Christians maintained belief in Jesus as Messiah and looked to his speedy return as judge of the ages. There was a reticence about ascribing divine attributes to Jesus. A connection between early Jerusalem Christianity (the Hebrews) and the later Ebionites is probable." - p.229

Arguments for

• Painter explicitly identifies James as the leader of the apostles, the Jerusalem Church, and the Church at large, and he states that a linkage between the Jerusalem Church and the later Ebionites is probable. He explicitly supports the statement that James is the leader of the apostles, rather than Peter, and that the leadership role of James was later suppressed.

• Painter supports Eisenman's counter-factual hypothesis that the leadership role of James was suppressed by the Roman Church. He reviews Eisenman's 1997 book JTBOJ in an Excursus at the end of the book, citing points of agreement and disagreement. The strongest point of disagreement - that James the Just is the same person as the Righteous Teacher - has no bearing on the article as far as the role of James is concerned.

• Again, I have to ask, where are the sources supporting an alternative view, that there is a "connection" between the Jerusalem Church under the leadership of James the Just and the Great Church of Rome? Reference to the past removed Personal comment removed Ovadyah (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• A positive academic review of Painter's Just James can be found here. Ovadyah (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Painter argues for the immediate succession of James as leader of the Jerusalem Church rather than Peter. Unlike Bernheim, however, he does not explicitly mention the dynastic succession of Jesus' relatives based on a Davidic line.

• Note: There was a paradigm shift in the understanding of James' role in the early church in 1997. Before this time, the prevalent view was that James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church from the 40s to the 60s, a view exemplified by Ludemann and Goulder, and that Peter probably played an early role as head of the apostles. This changed in 1997 with the co-publication of the three books on James. Bernheim and Painter, writing independently of each other, explicitly advocate that James became the leader of the Jerusalem Church after Jesus from the beginning rather than Peter. Eisenman implicitly supports this view by arguing for the primacy of James and not assigning a defined role to Peter. All three books argue that the Acts of the Apostles is a tendentious document that intentionally suppressed the role of James in the early church. This represents an important milestone in the evolution of the Third Quest.

Arguments against

The inclusion of all this material is based on the author's statement that "a connection" between the Jerusalem Church and the Ebionites is "probable." Unfortunately, "a probable connection" does not indicate how strong or direct that connection is. I would also be interested in whether the author says the early Jerusalem Church was "connected" to any other groups as well. However, I have to wonder whether including the cited material is necessarily that relevant. If it is to be included, there would have to be I think some discussion as to how much weight to give it, and where to put it. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• In addition to John Carter's comments, I will note again that Painter does not support, and should not be used as a reference for, the editor synthesis that "Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death". • Astynax ^talk 19:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is also I believe completely irrational to use Eisenman rather than Painter as the cited source, considering Painter is generally considered a more reliable source. Personal comment removed However, the text does not support the material in the article, and Personal comment removed the fact is the quote does not support the material it is cited as a reference for. And the 'connection" between Painter and Eisenman, like all other content, should adhere to WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. So far as I can see, this alleged "connection" cannot be asserted without violating at least one of these policies or guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal comments removed Specific examples please. The Comments about the past removed "connections" to Eisenman were made by Painter himself through his review of Eisenman's work. Ovadyah (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

An argumentative individual could respond that the fact that the Ebionites belonged to the same religious tradition, Christianity, is evidence of a "connection" to James. The question is what the nature of the connection is, how it is presented, and what WP:WEIGHT such comparatively weak statements should be given in this article. I believe that they clearly were a part of the Jewish Christian tradition, as per numerous sources. However, if that the extent of the nature of the "connection", and there is nothing in the quote to necessarily indicate anything stronger, than a simple mention of the Ebionites being "Jewish Christians" and a link to that article might be sufficient. The question is regarding the amount of weight as per WP:UNDUE to give such comparatively weak statements in this article. Considering that this article is, effectively, a "daughter" article of the main Jewish Christians article (at least in terms of Jewish Christian-related material) it might very probably be sufficient to include that material there, and only brief mentions, like in the lead and maybe a short summary section as per WP:SS regarding their "family" relations. Separate inclusion later very likely might be seen by independcent individuals as violating WP:UNDUE. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish Christian article could, at some point, be reorganized to serve as a gateway or "parent" article, but it is presently little more than a gateway article for Messianic Judaism, a modern Evangelical Christian group which has adopted some Jewish practices. Ovadyah (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, all the early Jewish Christian groups counted themselves as "spiritual descendants" of James, and, on that basis, it seems to me that the basic guidelines, including MOS, that say content should not be repeated in multiple articles applies here. Therefore, the material could be added to that article. Further efforts to develop that article would certainly be helpful. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement "Apparently, all the early Jewish Christian groups counted themselves as 'spiritual descendants' of James" is an oversimplification of the facts. The sources cited here argue that the Ebionites are literally the descendants of the Jerusalem Church, having maintained the same beliefs and practices. Some of the sources such as Bernheim, Tabor and Eisenman's The NT Code go further than this by arguing explicitly that they are the inheritors of a dynastic succession, beginning with the direct appointment by Jesus of his brother James as head of the early church. As for the rest, let's stick to a discussion of this specific sentence, and the sources supporting it, in this article. Ovadyah (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please indicate to nme exactly where these citations above say anything like what you are saying. So far as I can see, the only explicit linkage to the Ebionites in the above citations is that a connection between the early group and the Ebionites is "probable." The majority of your other comments, particularly about other sources, are themselves pretty much irrelevant to this specific source, so far as I can see, and I would think it would make sense to not engage in some form of SYNTH of other sources as a justification for the inclusion of any particular individual source, which seems to be at least in part what you are doing in your own comment above. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is to stick to the specific statement we are discussing, and the sources supporting that statement, rather than drift into a nebulous discussion about Jewish-Christians, which is a completely modern name with no agreed upon meaning, and discussions about what it means to be a 'spiritual descendant' of James, which is nothing but an exercise in WP:SYNTH. Ovadyah (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sticking to the specific statement being discussed. As I indicated, the only direct reference to the Ebionites in the source indicated is that there exists a "probable" linkage with James. The introduction of completely irrelevant discussions about Bernheim, Tabor, and Eisenman, on the other hand, seems to be completely irrelevant to the source under discussion. If anything, it seems you are the one insisting on deviating the discussion from the single source under discussion. The only thing it is says about the Ebionites is, apparently, that a linkage with James is "probable." Please be so good as to yourself act upon the instructions you seem to feel yourself qualified to give to thers. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The quote from p.229 is sufficient to demonstrate a "probable" linkage of James and the Jerusalem Church to the later Ebionites. That is all that is being claimed for this source. It can be made clearer in the wording of the sentence, but it is certainly not going to be used as a pretext to delete either the sentence or the source. Ovadyah (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It is sufficient for an article on Jewish Christianity, which as you have been told before is a separate article. And, if that is all that is being claimed for this source, I would have to strongly question the inclusion of the other two quotations cited. Yes, the rather weak nature of the "probable" direct connection between the earlier Jerusalem Church and the Ebionites is supported by the quotation, but that is the only thing in any of the three quotations included directly relates to the Ebionites. Please refrain from making assumptions about the intentions of others as well, as you seem to be doing above. If that is "all" that is being claimed for this source, then there is no reason I can see for the first two quotations to be used at all, as they do not in any way directly relate to the subject. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to you as an editor to divine the "rather weak nature" of the meaning of "probable". Our task is to report what the reliable secondary sources say. If you want to talk about Jewish Christianity, take it to the talk page of that article. We are discussing the Ebionites article in this mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Our task is also to indicate how the reliable sources (secondary or otherwise - please do not introduce your own opinions as to what sources are acceptable, as you seem to be doing above). And please do not continue to ignore the fact that, as stated, the first two quotations are not demonstrably relevant to this article in any way. Also, regarding your refusal to address the matter that the content might be better placed elsewhere, with only a summary section here, WP:SOFIXIT indicates that it is at best a facile argument to ignore the fact that the source might be better placed elsewhere. I am sorry that you have made a point to rarely if ever edit other articles, but that is not grounds for saying that the material must be included here if it is better placed elsewhere. Also, please actually at least acknowledge the point of the at best dubious relevancy of the other two indirect citations, and, if it is not too onerous a task, actually respond to it. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the other two quotes is to establish Painter's claim that James was the head of the Jerusalem Church from the beginning, rather than Peter. This is also claimed in the sentence we are discussing in the article, and it is therefore relevant to the discussion about article content. Ovadyah (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

But the two quotes don't actually say that James was the head of the Jerusalem Church frm the beginning, do they? All they say is he was "the leader" of the Jerusalem Church. They do not indicate either that he was the sole leader of the Jerusalem Church, and it would likely be a violation of SYNTH to say otherwise. Also, they do not say that he was "the leader" from the beginning, as you say above. Therefore, I would have to question whether it might not be a violation of WP:SYNTH to use those quotations as sources of a statement which they do not make explicitly themselves, and which is not necessarily the only way they could potetially be interpreted. Therefore, I believe that, there would be very, very serious considerations that the quotations should only be used to support claims they unambiguously make, and the claim that "James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church" from the beginning is not one that is clearly or unambiguously supported by the quotations. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, it is not your job as an editor to divine whether "the leader" really means "the sole leader" or something else. Stick to what the source actually says. That is why we are providing quotations. Ovadyah (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is the job of all us to determine if the quotations actually support the claims made of them. There is a serious question in the eyes of editors who disagree with you that they do not. The first quotation speaks only of the "historical probability" of James being the leader. The statement is not made in the authors own voice, and, on that basis, I believe it can only be used to support content which says what the source it self says, that there is such a historical probability. In all honesty, I cannot see the clear relevance of the second quotation at all, unless it is used to support the one side in what it itself says in the first sentence of the quote is a matter of dispute. First, I cannot see how we can use the quotation without clearly saying that it is a matter of dispute, like the quotation itself does. It could be used as the source for some of the other historical arguments for James's position, but there are at least potentially questions of WP:UNDUE to discuss them in detail, particularly if, as the source itself says, there seem to be others who dispute the matter. I cannot see how we can include only one side of what the source says is a disputed matter in this article. John Carter talk 20:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this mediation is to examine specific content that is in dispute and the sources supporting that content. You can document other points of view by adding content to the article. However, that has nothing to do with the specific sentence we are working on. Ovadyah (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Why quibble over the word "sole" since it doesn't appear in the quote? We can let readers judge whether they think that "the leader" implies "the sole leader". And please note "and there is no reason to think that the situation was different at the beginning of the Jerusalem church." -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

First, saying "there is no reason to think that the situation was different" is far from being the same as saying in a clear and direct way that it was the same - in fact, making such a conclusion likely violates WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. However, I have to agree that the point about dropping the word "sole" is a good one. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying "there is no reason to think X" is academic code for "not X". -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH. It is not our place to attempt to interpret what we as individuals think are "code words", and it is almost certainly a violation of WP:SYNTH, and probably WP:V, to attempt such interprettions. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation into the venacular is permitted. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite all the distractions being aired here, neither Painter (nor any of the other sources cited in the sentence being reviewed here) "argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death. rather than Peter." Several leaps of editor synthesis occurred to arrive at a statement not contained in any of these sources. As editors, we are only to report what the sources say, not produce an essay airing editor conclusions. This sentence is but one in the article where there seems to be an exasperating refusal to get the point of WP:NOR policy. • Astynax ^talk 15:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

See, for example, Eisenman 1997 p. 156: .."there can be little doubt that 'the Poor' was the name for James' Community in Jerusalem or that Community descended from it in the East in the next two-three centuries, the Ebionites." -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In the quote from Eisenman, the word "descended" makes a clear separation (of time and likely of place) between the former and later groups. The statement does not conflate the 2 groups, and it is just as much synthesis to do so here as it would be to say "that the Lutherans regarded Pope Leo X as their leader" on the basis that some scholars have noted that the Lutheran church "descended" or "arose" from a Roman Catholic tradition. • Astynax ^talk 08:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The analogy fails because, whereas we know the Lutherans developed a theology that was different from the preceeding Roman Catholicism, some authors maintain that the Nazarene/Ebionite movement did not change its theological stance from the apostolic age onwards.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? when Epiphanius himself, a major source, says the Ebionites got from the Elchasai the doctrine (astutely ignored in the article presumably to save modern Ebionite enthusiasts from embarrassment) according to which Christ, as the Adamic standing-one, stood 96 miles high, though invisible to the eye? :)Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is currently a hot topic of research in the field. Scholars generally fall into two camps: 1) those who assume Epiphanius' report is accurate, including 1a) if a Church Father said it, it must be true, and 1b) Epiphanius is compiling an accurate historical account, or 2) those who assume Epiphanius' report is tendentious, including 2a) Epiphanius is supplementing a sparse account of the earlier Fathers with his own conjectures to compose a pseudo-historical account, and 2b) Epiphanius is deliberately conflating conflicting accounts to compose a polemical proof text that "proves" the Ebionites' beliefs and practices were internally inconsistent. Camp 1 has gradually fallen out of favor relative to Camp 2 as the Second Quest for the Historical Jesus (an affirmation of Church dogma) collapsed and was replaced by the Third Quest at the beginning of the '70s. Modern scholarly opinion in the last 10 years leans heavily toward a combination of 2a and 2b (it's a polemic of dubious historical worth that is a combination of conjectures and a deliberate synthesis of conflicting information.) Unfortunately, it also has nothing to do with what we are discussing in mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point. Michael, as is his wont, replied to a detailed and thoughtful point by making a convenient assertion. I gave a concrete example, of dozens I am familiar with, of why that assertion fails (Astynax, unfortunately, is not listened to here). As for the rest, I am thoroughly familiar with the various positions, though, as always, I appreciate the attention you always give to details. My point, to recapitulate then, is quite apropos what was being discussed in mediation, since Michael appeared not to answer an argument on a specific issue raised, but simply made an assertion contradicted by the primary evidence, and my illustration serves to show that. Regards and good luck with the mediation, in any case. Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Thanks for clarifying your previous comment. Ovadyah (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Nish, your argument is based on primary sources (Epiphanus etc) whereas mine is based in secondary sources (Tabor, Butz etc). Butz, BTW, discusses your primary sources in some detail and yet comes to the conclusion I have outlined, that the "Nazarene/Ebionite movement did not change its theological stance from the apostolic age onwards" -with the exception of their advocacy of vegetarianism which he thinks they probably adopted under James' tenure. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But I thought you were familiar with Eisenman? It's he that made the point I repeated. I simply did you the courtesy of reminding you what the primary source says. I thought you would be sufficiently intimate with Eisenman to recognize the 'reliable' secondary source. Unlike the wild conjectures of Butz and co., who have not a jot or tittle of evidence to buttress their conjectures, in any case, my point was rooted in the actual patristic information on Ebionites, or those believed to be Ebionites :) Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I should add however that while Tabor and Eisenman might arguably just slip in under the bar, Jeffrey Buetz has no place on this page. I've nothing against rock singers with a BA in earth sciences who, anointed ministers, then, under the influence of Dan Brown's fictions, connect up the Ebionites with the Templars and Freemasonry, much in the manner of Umberto's sorry tale of the hermeneutics of suspicion in Foucault's Pendulum, and write 'stuff' about patristic history without any background in the subject. On a highly technical subject like this, a mere background and adjunct professorship in 'religious studies' is not sufficient to qualify someone as RS. Allow this line to be breached, and the whole of wikipedia will be flooded by evangelical opinionizers with fringe views based on incompetence and lack of serious qualifications.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof, who everybody professes confidence in, has a high opinion of Butz's book. Oh, and please supply the exact Eisenman quiote that you say supports your position. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ret.Prof is a wiki editor, not an academic authority. That he has a high opinion of Bütz's book tells us nothing, except that some editors apparently have a very shaky understanding of WP:RS. Are we reduced to this? In lieu of recognition of any value in Bütz's plebeian fantasising by scholars of semitic languages, patristic history and religion, to adduce a wikipedia editor's personal opinions in deciding what is, or is not, RS? Come now, that is patent nonsense in terms of how we do things round here. As to Eisenman, you quote the book endlessly, so look it up in the index. It should take no more than 2 minutes of your own time. :) Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The mountain roars to reveal a mouse. As I expcted, no quotation supplied. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mindful of 'Could you provide links for those reviews, for us lazy readers/editors?' Michael C. Price ^talk 10:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC), and of the habit, of citing books by index page numbers without apparently even reading the pages, which got your an earlier suspension, I prefer not to indulge an editor's otiose requests that others do his work. A hint, which will of course help you look up the indexes. The statement about Ebionites borrowing from Elchasaites is after p.300 and before p.400. Enjoy your homework.Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, did you change your mind and decide to join the mediation? I thought you said for the record you couldn't WP:AGF towards Michael. I'm glad you are here, but please clarify what has changed. Ovadyah (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As you know, I am interested in the page, but regard it as unworkable, as I do mediation. I naturally follow efforts by editors to resolve the impasse, because it will affect that page's future, and I may one day edit it. The technical reason, rather than WP:AGF, for abstaining from a full engagement here, is that you cannot 'mediate' positions which show no interest in (a)the principles of wikipedia (b) the five pillar process. Occasionally, I think twice, I have stepped in where a particularly egregious example of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is underway, to illustrate the way this technique of (1) assertion of the obiter dictum variety, when (2) met by an informed challenge (3) is skewed to sidestep the issue (4) while the burden of evidence is thrown on the other and (5) the argument redirected etc. Perhaps, in noting that for the record, I am proving a nuisance. Michael's pattern is as I outlined it - he consistently makes points no experienced editor would ever make (like citing Ret Prof's views on Butz as evidence Butz is RS) because they do not conform to the standard protocols for resolving disputes. And this habit, of ignoring or sidestepping serious and informed editors' arguments by vague, jaunty one-liners, (Astynax above) does need to be dealt with. This is a very complex page to write, and a frivolous insouciance to scholarship, conjoined to a POV-pushing partiality for fringe sub-academic literature that should not even be seriously mentioned, concur to make a 'compromise' anything more than a compromise on the very principles which underwrite our activities here. Enough. If my occasional notes are a disturbance, of course I will refrain even from those extremely rare moments in which I am tempted to register an opinion.Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Astynax, rather than repeating the same criticisms endlessly, how about considering this as a revision:

Scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church (including Pierre Antoine Bernheim, Robert Eisenman, Will Durant, Michael Goulder, Gerd Ludemann, John Painter, and James Tabor) argue that James the Just was the leader of the Jerusalem Church after Jesus' death rather than Peter,<Bernheim><Eisenman><Painter><Tabor> or from at least the 40s to the 60s,<Durant><Goulder><Luedemann> and that the Ebionites are the probable successors of the beliefs and practices of this tradition.

Or can you suggest alternative wording that would fit the sources better? Ovadyah (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To avoid synthesis, the statement needs to stick only to those things which all the cited scholars have said, and refrain from introducing things which all the references do not specifically state. Something acceptable might be similar to:

Most scholars agree that at some point following the death of Jesus, James the Just became the leader of the Judeo-Christian Church in Jerusalem. Some scholars speculate that the Ebionites may have later branched off from this group.

This could be supported by a couple of solid references without synthesis. If you wish to summarize a particular proposition, then limit the summary to only reporting the position which the references cited directly and unambiguously uphold. Where it is a controversial position, then all significant alternative positions should be detailed in proportion to their acceptance within the scholarly community. If a fringe theory or controversial minority view is genuinely notable, then it can be briefly included in such a way that notes that it does not reflect general consensus and using language which delimits the view to the notable proponent being summarized (e.g., "In a minority view, X has said..."). Similarly, when a reference has aired various possible scenarios, these may also be reported in language which reflects that these are not established as fact (e.g., "X has speculated..." or "Y and Z have advanced the proposition...")—again, reporting other WP:N alternative views/propositions in proportion to their currency in scholarly sources. • Astynax ^talk 08:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this is a great starting point for a discussion. Michael, how do you feel about this suggested wording? Ovadyah (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My main problem with this wording is the phrase "branched off from", which has heavy POV heretical connotations. As we know, many sources (e.g. the ones cited above) claim that it was the Pauline movement that diverged from the original Nazarene/Ebionite theological position. The other main problem here is perennial "naming issue", and I think we have new source (J Butz, Secret legacy of Jesus) that is explicit on this. Butz maintains that the original apostolic followers of Jesus were called Nazarenes and Ebionites, but that it is convenient to call the early followers (in Jerusalem, under James) "Nazarenes" and the later followers, (after the flight to Pella under Symeon/Simon), "Ebionites". Butz emphasizes, though, that this is an entirely abitrary distinction, and that the two groups were identical. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in fact is WP:OR. None of the sources cited describes the Ebionites as having "branched off from" the Jerusalem Church. This is the viewpoint of Ray Pritz and Richard Bauckham, who do not appear in the list of references. Ovadyah (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is odd that only a small variety of sources are included in the list of references, isn't it? How is it, I wonder, that almost all of the much larger number of RS which do not support this claim, and in some cases may actively disagree with it, are still somehow seemingly completely omitted from the references? Could there possibly be some factors such as perhaps those sources not agreeing with individual editors' POV involved? Unfortunately, if that were the case, that would itself be likely contrary to policies and guidelines. Also, I have to question why the other sources included in the citations are somehow excluded from the references as well. In short, the comparatively short list of works included in the current list of references is not something I believe can be seen as being in any way indicative of whether sources or opinions in them are or are not worthy of inclusion. In fact, I believe it was this problem, among others, which spawned the current mediation, at least from my perspective. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The POV that the Ebionites were a bunch of wayward heretics is mentioned in the lead. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to how to respond to all the assumptions in the above statement. First, it is the academic opinion of several that the Ebionites were out of the mainstream. To call that a POV that they were a bunch of wayward heretics, as is said above, seems to be almost a prejudicial refusal to acknowledge that belief could be at all correct. Also, I believe that the lead is supposed to, as per WP:LEDE, actually summarize the rest of the article, isn't it? That being the case, can anyone give me any good reason why this point is consigned exclusively to the lead, and not discussed in the body of the article to the same degree as other points in the lead? I have every reason to believe that this failure of the existing article to adhere to content guidelines, and the possible refusal of some editors involved to act to correct it, is one of the primary reasons this mediation was required in the first case. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

John, please adhere to WP:AGF and stop projecting prejudice onto fellow editors. Also please stop making erroneous time wasting claims about the current state of the article, such as the statement in the lead not being reflected in the main body (hint: look for "Jean Daniélou" and the Catholic encyclopedia citations in the religious perspectives section, along wth Bauckham elsewhere as Ovadyah has mentioned.) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem adding Ray Pritz to the article to supplement Bauckham, who is already in the article, as I explained below. As far as "almost all of the much larger number of RS which do not support this claim", please list them for us now, here on the mediation page, so that others may know about this information. Please remember that the absence of mentioning a topic does not constitute a disagreement. We must have concrete affirmations of points of view from reliable secondary sources other than the views mentioned in A., B., and C. below to be acceptable as RS. Ovadyah (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two variations of opinion among scholars who see a probable connection between the Jerusalem Church and the later Ebionites (let's call them A. and B.) and an opposing view (C.) that sees a probable connection between the Jerusalem Church and the later Nazoraeans. These can be represented as follows:

Scholars believe that James the Just was the leader of the Jerusalem Church:

A.from the earliest times and there is a probable connection to the later Ebionites. Bernheim, Eisenman (1997, 2006), Painter, Tabor

B.from the 40s to the 60s and there is a probable connection to the later Ebionites. Goulder, Ludemann

C.from the 40s to the 60s and there is a probable connection to the later Nazoraeans Bauckham, Pritz

All of the sources we have talked about are accurately captured in the above schema. The sources that advocate for version A. all assume that Acts is a tendentious rewriting of history. Versions B. and C. either accept or are neutral about the accuracy of the testimony reported in Acts. Ovadyah (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The question is, of course, whether the scholars who see this probable connection are of sufficient significance to be given the weight as per WP:WEIGHT which they seem to be given in the current article. Granted, the sources may be sufficient for the statements that they support the claims made, but there is I believe a much larger, clearly demonstrable number of reliable sources, many of which can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, who seem to give little if any attention or credit to the "Despronyi" theory. While these sources, admittedly, may be sufficient for proving WP:V and perhaps WP:N, and I do not necessarily say they aren't, article content is also supposed to adhere to other guidelines, including WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. I can see perhaps ceding that the sources are sufficient do verify the claims, and am actually willing to do so, provided we then proceed directly to the matter of the FRINGE and WEIGHT concerns, which are also according to wikipedia's policies and guidelines supposed to be used to determine the amount of attention such ideas are given. And, of course, Bauckham and Pritz refer to a different group altogether, the Nazoreans, and it would thus probably be a violation of WP:SYNTH to include them in reference to the Ebionites, which those sources see as a separate group. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, let's see your sources here on this page, and then we can talk about WP:WEIGHT. And don't provide a list of sources that mention something other than the subject matter we are discussing, and then say that is evidence of an alternative view, or we can talk about WP:TENDENTIOUS. Ovadyah (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the sources that advocate for a dynastic succession of Jesus' relatives (the Desposyni) cross all three of the above groups: A. Bernheim and Tabor (and Eisenman 2006), B. Ludemann, C. Bauckham. Ovadyah (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Luedemann 1996 pp. 52–56

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Relevant quote(s)

• "Since there is a good century between the end of the Jerusalem community and the writing down of the report quoted above (by Irenaeus), of course reasons must be given why the group of Ebionites should be seen as an offshoot of the Jerusalem community. The following considerations tell in favor of the historical plausibility of this: 1. The name 'Ebionites' might be the term this group used to denote themselves. 2. Hostility to Paul in the Christian sphere before 70 is attested above all in groups which come from Jerusalem. 3. The same is true of observance of the law cumulating in circumcision. 4. The direction of prayer towards Jerusalem makes the derivation of the Ebionites from there probable." - pp.52-53

• "therefore, it seems that we should conclude that Justin's Jewish Christians are a historical connecting link between the Jewish Christianity of Jerusalem before the year 70 and the Jewish Christian communities summed up in Irenaeus' account of the heretics." - p.56

Arguments for

• Ludemann links the Ebionites known to Irenaeus (c.180) back to the Judaic group described by Justin in Dialogue with Trypho (c.130) - (a linkage also made by Skarsaune, btw) - and in turn links the group(s) attested by both back to the Jerusalem community as an "offshoot" with similar practices. His views on a linkage between the Jerusalem Church and the Ebionites are closer to Painter and both are more nuanced than the direct relationships posited by Eisenman and Tabor.

Arguments against

• Elsewhere in the text, Ludemann mentions James eventually assuming the leadership role in the Jerusalem Church, which implies that someone else, presumably Peter, had that role earlier. Therefore, Ludemann can be used as a source to support a linkage between the Jerusalem Church and the Ebionites, but not the statement that James was the leader from the beginning rather than Peter.

Mediator's comment

The consensus appears to be that Ludemann can be used to support the view that Ebionites were linked to the Jerusalem Church, and that James was at least at some point the leader of the Jerusalem Church. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No objections here, although there are potentially at least a few other, probably later, discussions regarding whether it is the best available source and exactly how much weight to give such views, and exactly how the content to be supported by this source should be phrased. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

However, Ludemann cannot be used to support the synthesis the Jerusalem Church was synonymous with the Ebionites, or that the Ebionites regarded James as "their leader". • Astynax ^talk 17:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The above comment pretty clearly defines the "matter of phrasing" I was referring to. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Goulder 1995 p. 134

Relevant quote(s)

• "So the 'Ebionite' Christology, which we found first described in Irenaeus about 180 is not the invention of the late second century. It was the creed of the Jerusalem Church from early times." - p.134

• "We should never lose sympathy with the Jerusalem Christians; they lost the great battle, but not for want of devotion or energy. They took the label 'of Cephas', the Petrines, because Peter had been Jesus' leading disciple; but the real leader of the Jerusalem Church in the vital period from 40 to 60 was James, Jesus' brother." - p.188

Arguments for

• Goulder's statemment that the Ebionites known to Irenaeus had a similar Christology to the Jerusalem Church is similar to the exposition of Ludemann, with the exception that Ludemann details various religious practices held in common rather than shared beliefs. Goulder's statement that James was the Leader of the Jerusalem Church from 40 to 60 AD is similar to Eisenman's. His contrarian hypothesis is similar to F.C. Bauer's original hypothesis that there were two competing factions within the Church from the earliest times.

Arguments against

• Goulder explicitly states that Peter had a leading role before James, unlike Eisenman and Ludemann, where his role may be inferred implicitly. Therefore, Goulder can't be used to support a statement that James was the head of the Jerusalem Church from the beginning rather than Peter.

Bernheim 1997 pp.5-7, 183, 211, 217-218, 267-269

Relevant quote(s)

• "The fact that he became the head of the Jerusalem church is something which is generally accepted."

• "Clement of Alexandria in this Hypotyposes, composed around 200, presents James as the first head of the Jerusalem Church. Clement doubtless considered James the supreme authority of the church after the death of Christ." (p.5) "The pre-eminence accorded to James in many Jewish-Christian, Catholic, and Gnostic traditions is quite remarkable. These traditions have passed on the lofty image which James enjoyed in the primitive Jerusalem church and in the other communities which had a majority of Jewish Christians." (p.6) "For around thirty years, academic circles have become increasingly infatuated with James and the Jewish Christians. This revival of interest is part of a new orientation aimed at integrating Jesus and the primitive church better into the Judaism of their time. The majority of impartial experts accept the central place of James, at any rate from the 40s." (p.7)

• "From 1831 on, Ferdinand Christian Bauer and his disciples of the Tubingen School attacked this type of harmonizing conception (that all the early Christians got along after the Jerusalem Council) by interpreting the first two centuries of the Christian movement as a merciless struggle between Petrine and Pauline communities. They emphasized the incessant conflicts between Peter and James on the one hand and Paul on the other. This interpretation was fiercely contested by exegetes, for good and not so good reasons; sometimes they did not want to concede that the Holy Spirit had not uniformly inspired the glories of the primitive church. After being discredited for awhile, this view has recently been taken up again, in more or less mild forms, by some first-rate exegetes." (ref 75 - Michael Goulder has recently tried to revive the ideas of F.C. Bauer in A Tale of Two Missions 1994. A less extreme position can be found in Ludemann Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity 1989.) p.183 - Here Bernheim identifies Goulder and Ludemann as a revival of the ideas put forth by the Tubingen School headed by F.C. Bauer.

• "The first Christians, some of whom had probably formerly been Essenes, doubtless borrowed Essene ideas and concepts, sometimes modifying them. This influence on the primitive church is probably not an indication of its progressive Judaization. On the contrary, it shows that from its origin this community faithfully observed the law. So there is little reason to suppose that the primitive Jerusalem community with which Peter and James are associated did not observe the law faithfully. ...the first Christians hardly differed from other Jews in the milieu in which they live, apart from their belief in Jesus and some other practices of their own. The supposed Judaization of this community represented by James' assumption of power hardly existed except in the imagination of exegetes." p.211

• "There is perhaps no need to seek out dubious explanations in order to understand the pre-eminence of James. He probably occupied first place in the primitive church by reason of his kinship with Jesus. There is nothing surprising about such a rank in society in which the dynastic principle was so deeply implanted. ... In a messianic movement like primitive Christianity, in which the Davidic descent of Jesus was affirmed, the primacy of the brother of Jesus, who was also a descendant of David, would seem natural. The importance attached to kinship with Jesus in the primitive church is confirmed by the elevated position reached by other members of the family of Christ. ... According to Eusebius, after the death of James, his cousin Simeon, son of Clopas, was designated head of the Jerusalem church. ... Quite apart from kinship with Jesus, the fact that they belonged to a Davidic line explains the pre-eminent position of the members of Jesus' family, who played a significant role in the churches of Palestine and neighboring regions long after the death of Jesus. The notion of a dynastic Christianity is certainly nothing new. Maurice Goguel, following Adolf von Harnack, Johannes Weiss, and Eduard Meyer emphasized its importance. ... Maurice Goguel, like many other historians, makes 44 the decisive moment in the change of power. But evidence of this apostolic Christianity led by Peter and replaced by dynastic Christianity is very thin. The role of the Twelve, with Peter at their head, as the ruling authority of the primitive church is based solely on the first chapter of Acts, the historical trustworthiness of which is limited. ... Is it not more reasonable to assume that the revolution of 43 or 44 is perhaps simply a delusion, and that the primacy of James is prior to Peter's departure from Jerusalem?" pp. 217-218

• "James was the most eminent representative of a primitive church deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. He regarded his brother Jesus as the eschatological agent chosen by YHWH to proclaim the immanent arrival of the kingdom of God, and to call on the children of Isrqel to repent. This new era in which the will of God would be respected would see the restoration of Israel." p.259

• "Sometimes the church fathers mention the Jewish Christians, frequently called Ebionites, and their doctrines. But these are usually polemical texts, often ill-informed and sometimes confused. The beliefs and practices of Jewish Christians, which have sometimes evolved over time, hardly seem homogeneous. In general the church fathers distinguished two categories of Jewish Christians. The first thought that Jesus had been a man among men, born of Joseph and Mary, adopted and consecrated by YHWH as Christos at his baptism by reason of his exceptional justice (his piety and his other meritorious acts). The second, described as Nazarenes by Epiphanius and Jerome, less heretical by the criteria of orthodoxy, accepted that Jesus was born of a virgin and the operation of the Holy Spirit. ... Most Jewish Christians, with the exception of the Nazarenes of Epiphanius and Jerome, rejected the writings of Paul, whom they considered an apostate. ... It is probable, as James D.G. Dunn, Hans-Joachim Schoeps, and other experts think, that the anti-Pauline Ebionites with an adoptionist christology were the more direct heirs of James and the earliest church. However, Ray Pritz has recently argued that the Nazarenes described by Epiphanius and Jerome were the true decendants of the primitive community of Jerusalem, the Ebionite current forming after a schism shortly after the migration to Pella. This theory, which affirms the orthodox christology of the primitive community and the absence of major antagonisms between it and Paul, is very speculative, since it is largely based on confused and late evidence dating from the end of the fourth century. Nevertheless it suggests that the diversity of later Jewish-Christian movements to some degree reflects the diversity of currents within the primitive church." pp.267-269

Arguments for

• I will have more to say about Bernheim's book when I receive it in a few days. The book was positively received in the scholarly community, but it has been given less attention than the others, probably because it was originally published in French only. Meanwhile, here is a review. Ovadyah (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Bernheim discusses the revival of ideas put forth by F.C. Bauer and the Tubingen school and specifically affirms the scholarship of Michael Goulder and Gerd Ludemann, ("this view has recently been taken up again, in more or less mild forms, by some first-rate exegetes").

• Bernheim explicitly supports the view that James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church from the earliest time, rather than Peter, and that he was appointed by Jesus to lead the Church in a dynastic succession. Bernhiem's views on the immediate dynastic succession of James and the family of Jesus (the Desposyni) is more explicit than Eisenman's at the time (both books were published in 1997). It anticipates the later views of Tabor (2006) in the Jesus Dynasty and Eisenman (2006) in The New Testement Code.

• While Bernheim usually uses the term Jewish Christians throughout the book, in the last chapter, he explicitly identifies the beliefs and practices of the Jerusalem Church with the later Ebionites, as "the more direct heirs of James and the earliest church." At the same time, he criticizes the work of Ray Pritz in attempting to link the 4th century Nazarenes to the Jerusalem Church as "very speculative" and "largely based on confused and late evidence dating from the end of the fourth century".

• A positive academic review of Bernheim's James, Brother of Jesus can be found here. Ovadyah (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Bernheim makes the point that "The majority of impartial experts accept the central place of James, at any rate from the 40s." is the majority view at the time he published in 1997. He takes this a step further by arguing, based on the importance of the Davidic succession, that James immediately became the head of the Jerusalem Church after Jesus in a dynastic succession based on the Davidic line.

Arguments against

The quotation does not indicate when James became the leader of the church. It is therefore I believe very possible to ask whether he became the leader in the beginning or later. Regardless, I do not see how this statement can be used without violating SYNTH or OR for anything other than the statement that at some time James became the leader of the church, and I am not impressed that it is being used in a sense acceptable by guidelines now. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• And again, this source does not support the synthesis that the listed scholars "argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death." • Astynax ^talk 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And violations of WP:SYNTH are, pretty much by definition, unacceptable in article content. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Unclear source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Relevant quote(s)

• James is traditionally considered the leader of the Jerusalem church. As such he appears in Acts (15 and 21), Eusebius of Caesarea (Church History II, 1, 2), Clement of Alexandria (quoted by Eusebius in Church History I, 1, 3–4), Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius in Church History II, 23, 4) and the Gospel of Thomas (saying 12).

Arguments for

These are all priamry sources quoted by secondary sources to support James' primacy over Peter, therefore they can be cited without introducing OR or SYNTH. Readers benefit from being able to access the primary sources, alongside the secondary sources.

Arguments against

I did a lit search on this and it came up empty, other than Wiki mirror sites. OR?

There is also the question as to whether James was the leader or a leader of the Jerusalem church - the two are not identical terms. I would have to see clear and explicit quotes which gave James the unique position of leader of the Jerusalem Church. And, of course, I agree that the reader can benefit from primary quotes as well, and wonder why that argument is not also used for quotes from the church fathers regarding the beliefs and teachings of the Ebionites. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Insisting on a review of primary sources to establish the claim that James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church is a violation of WP:OR. Reference to the past removed Ovadyah (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am opposed to the creative reuse of primary sources. Primary sources should always be subordinated to reliable secondary sources, either as inline references in the Harvard style, or embedded within secondary references. They should never stand alone in an article. Ovadyah (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  Interesting, because none of the sources you have cited address the question raised, specifically whether he was the only leader or the leader from its beginning. If you can provide any statements that explicitly say as much, I would love to see them. There is also, of course, the clear question as to the definition of the "Jerusalem Church," which seems to be only assumed in the above quotations. However, without direct comments regarding a question which I consider to be a valid and reasnable one, specifically, how his leadership is defined, both in terms of time and in terms of jurisdiction, the question is, basically, unanswered. I would welcome a clear statement from the sources which address these matters, but, without them, I would have to say that the sources would apparently be less reliable or useful than they would seemingly be required to be to make a clar and definitive statement, and should thus be sublimated to better sources which do specifically address these valid concerns. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is this statement relevant to me? I did not add any of these primary sources into the article. Ovadyah (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:BURDEN, which clearly states the person seeking to include or restore material is the person upon whom the obligation of proof lies, and consider the material in question removed, thus placing the burden on the individual seeking to restore it. Personal comment removed. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Proofs are not constructed by assembling primary sources. That is a major violation of WP:PRIMARY. Personal comment removed I have already assembled all the reliable secondary sources I need to make my case. Personal comment removed Ovadyah (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal comment removed I am aware of no individual who is demanding primary sources be used. The source I believe most useful is Klijn & Reinink, which is a secondary source which specifically uses the primary sources extensively. Personal comment removed If you yourself, of course, consider the material not worthy of inclusion in the article, then there is no need for anyone to defend its inclusion. Personal comment removed Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's comment

Given the contentious nature of this information, I think it's best to leave out this footnote, as it's based on 2,000 year old sources. Let's stick to reliable secondary sources as sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Once primary sources become separated from the secondary sources that mention or quote from them, it causes problems. Even worse is the argument, advanced on the article talk page (now archived), that patristic sources and quotations from scripture are timeless truths that serve as their own witnesses, therefore, no secondary or tertiary sources are required. All of this needs to be cleaned up, and this is a good place to start. Ovadyah (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting into a closed discussion, but I don't understand the logic. All the primary sources here are approximately 2,000 years old, so by the logic advanced here, there should be no primary sources anywhere (there are, of course). Confused, but will not rock the boat further. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eisenman 2006 pp.34,145,273

Relevant quote(s)

• "These "Ebionites" are also the followers of James par excellence, himself considered (even in early Christian accounts) to be the leader of "the Poor" or these selfsame "Ebionites"". - p.34

• "For James 2:5, of course, it is "the Poor of this world ("the Ebionim" or "Ebionites") whom God chose as Heirs to the Kingdom He promised to those that love Him"." - p.145

• "..."the Righteous Teacher" and those of his followers (called "the Poor" or "Ebionim" - in our view, James and his Community, pointedly referred to in the early Church literature, as will by now have become crystal clear, as "the Ebionites" or "the Poor")." - p.273

Arguments for

• Eisenman goes further than in his previous book JTBOJ (1997) in linking James as the head of the Jerusalem Community directly to the Ebionites. He explicitly states that James and the Jerusalem Community are the Ebionites.

• Rebuttal regarding the use of Eisenman's NT Code. This work is an extension of his JTBOJ (1997) that continues the discussion beyond James to the role of the Desposyni in the early Church. Eisenman's expression of equivalence between the Jerusalem Church under James and the Ebionites is just a matter of nuance relative to his earlier work and the conclusions of the other authors cited here, including Goulder, Ludemann, Painter, and Tabor. All of them advocate a connection between the Jerusalem Church and the Ebionites, either directly or indirectly, as the inheritors of the beliefs and practices of the original Church under the leadership of James the Just. One might also reasonably ask, if this is a tiny-minority view among scholars, where are the reliable sources supporting the supposedly majority view? It's been over 3 1/2 years - still waiting. Ovadyah (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• The statement that the consensus view of scholars is that the Ebionites are a later schismatic group is accurate - for scholarship 100 years ago. This scholarly conjecture was advanced by Ritschl in 1857 as part of a genealogy of early Christianity. Prior to that F.C. Bauer posited that two groups existed in the Jerusalem Church from the earliest times, a Hebraic group he associated with the later Ebionites and a Hellenistic group that became universalist in their beliefs and practices. Modern scholarship has come full circle to Bauer in identifying a Judaic group (or groups) associated with the Ebionites known to Irenaeus and a Hellenistic-Samaritan group (or groups) known to Epiphanius that were both present within the Jerusalem Church from the earliest times. (Luomanen (2007) Jewish Christianity Reconsidered, pp. 101-102, 115) Ovadyah (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A very favorable review of Eisenman's (2006) New Testament Code is given by Robert M. Price here. He states, "And the first achievement of The New Testament Code hard won through this methodology, is the realization that the Dead Sea Scrolls stem from the mid to late first century CE (equivocal Carbon dating results no longer even being relevant), and that they represent the sectarian baptizing Schwärmerei known variously as the Essenes, Zealots, Nasoreans, Masbotheans, Sabaeans--and Jewish Christians headed by James the Just." And he goes on to state, "Ironically, all these correspondences serve as collateral evidence for a much clearer basis for identifying early Christianity with the sect of the Scrolls. Have you ever read the truism that the Scrolls neglect to name their parent body? And yet their sect is again and again called both “the Poor” (Ebionim, Ebionites) and “the Way.” These, of course, are the earliest known self-designations of Christians, as Acts tells us, long before they were called “Christians”--by outsiders. The refusal to recognize the identity of the nomenclature, and therefore of the groups behind them, is astonishing and attests a simple unwillingness to factor the Scrolls into Christian Origins on such an integral level.", and he again restates Eisenman's main conjecture, "Eisenman’s broadest goal is to show how the Greek gospels are products of a Paulinized, Hellenized, completely non-Jewish retrofitting of the tradition. The underlying reality must be speculatively pieced together by comparisons between gospel materials and apparently related texts from the Mishnah and Talmud, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, and Ebionite sources." And finally, "As much as some might wish it otherwise, we can now never turn back from his revelations, great and small, any more than we dare retreat from the ground gained by Strauss, Baur, and Bultmann. Indeed, it is among the ranks of these scholarly titans that we must now enroll Robert Eisenman." I agree completely. Ovadyah (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A single favorable review is, of course, not in and of itself grounds to say that the material reviewed qualifies per WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. It should also be noted that Price himself is one of the clearest advocates of "alternative views of earlier Christianity," and that, unfortunately, makes it not unreasonable to think that such a favorable review might not contain a few pats on his own back. While a single review is interesting, I don't think anyone has ever said it is sufficient for material to necessarily be included in a main article. If such single favorable indications of reception were sufficient, each and every source listed at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#Sources should at least be considered to receive the same weight in the article, and I believe that to clearly not be the case. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice you attempting to undermine Robert M. Price's reputation when he was critical of James Tabor. Ovadyah (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me how either of the two comments directly above is at all demonstrably relevant to this discussion? I believe WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may apply here, and the apparent refusal to address the concerns expressed may well, in at least some eyes, constitute what some might see as yet another attempt to ignore the legitimate concerns of others. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Arguments against

His assertion that James and others are the Ebionites is contradicted by just about all other reliable sources, and his statements are not such that they have apparently drawn much if any attention from anyone else. As such I believe that there are serious issues regarding WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT regarding including it at all. There are any number of other theories about the Ebionites, and there is, so far as I can tell, no way to have this one article provide information on all of them and still make any sort of coherent sense. It is for such reasons that FRINGE and WEIGHT guidelines exist. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree, this is a wild statement unsupported by evidence from any of the very few sources we have on the Ebionites. Far from agreeing, the consensus view is that the Ebionites are a later schismatic group and not identical to the early Jerusalem church. • Astynax ^talk 19:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The consensus view in history seldom changes rapidly (if it changes much at all) over time. Gibbon's Decline and Fall may be some 230 years old, but has stood up in the main due to his rigorous use of original sources (and is even today RS on Wiki as well as in scholarly papers). In the absence of any fresh epigraphic or archaeological primary source material, established consensus doesn't just vanish when a revisionist or popularized interpretation appears. When new claims do not have an irreproachable basis in ancient sources, we don't find them sticking around very long or having much of any affect on consensus. That seems to be happening with some of this material. It is interesting; it draws renewed attention to the subject and the careers of those who espouse it, but it hasn't changed the widely held view of the Ebionites and should not form the basis for claims in this article. That a consensus has been around a long time does not argue for the position that current writers have created or represent a new consensus. It may, in fact, prove to be evidence for the contrary (that the older consensus survived because it was more firmly based in the sources). Time will tell and perhaps Tabor and Eisenman will eventually form a notable school of interpretation, but they have yet to attract much support. • Astynax ^talk 03:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• One way consensus changes is with new material, and the Nag Hammadi library and Dead Sea scrolls have appeared on the scene more recently than 230 years ago. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• However, in the case of the Ebionites, no such new primary source material (either archaeological or epigraphic) has come to light. • Astynax ^talk 20:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• The authors of the Dead Sea scrolls refer to themselves as The Poor. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• There are very many unrelated references to "the poor", and only a couple of unambiguous connections in later sources. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain no Christian references, ergo, the writers of these were not the group under discussion here, and it is an unwarranted leap of logic to connect them. • Astynax ^talk 20:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• That logic is both fallacious and circular; no matter - the connection has been made by a secondary source - a source that has been removed from the article and should be restored. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• THe above argument is complete nonsense. The fact that there are two references in the Dead Sea Scrolls to "Ebionites" is true, but it is a completely irrational and unjustifiable violation of WP:SYNTH to say that each and every usage of the term must, inherently, be to the Christian groups that use the name. I also note that at least one source on the subject, Marcel Simon, says that there may well have been "Ebionite" branches of every then-extant Jewish group, and that Skarsaune says the use of the term may not have started with the Dead Sea Scrolls. While I agree with Nishidani and others that the Skarsaune material should be included, I can see absolutely no way in accord with policy to say that the Dead Sea Scrolls usage of "the poor" must refer to the Ebionites mentioned by the early church fathers, and that such an unfounded equation of the two is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH based only on the use of what seems to have been a fairly common word. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Since we are all experienced editors I am at a loss to understand why such basic misunderstandings still exist. It's not synthesis if the sources say it. How many times must this be repeated??? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Probably as many times as it has to be pointed out that there are a rather large number of sources which say a rather large variety of things regarding this topic, some of which clearly disagree with each other, that specific quotes, where possible, are requested, and that there are serious issues regarding WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT regarding a lot of this content. I myself don't see the secondary source which has been removed, and the page's edit history is of such length that finding it could be problematic. Please provide a link for the specific source used, and, if possible, provide some sort of case that its use would be in accord with WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• That secondary sources express a diversity of opinions is irrelevant, and in no way makes their speculation synthesis. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

James K. Walker's Guide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Relevant quote

The single quote/citation provided.

Hey, it would be helpful to actually have the quote here. Thank you. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Arguments for

Arguments against

I am the individual who added this quote, based on my having earlier given my word to add such material should I find it. However, I have to myself wonder whether the material in question might violate WP:UNDUE. I cannot remember seeing any reference in any of the RS I consulted on the broad subject of the Ebionites which in any way made any mention of the EJC or any other neo-Ebionite groups. And that might be seen as arguing against even a brief mention of the group(s), let alone a separate short section. Also, at least as far as I can personally remember, I did not see anything particular about the EJC website which would qualify it to be included as per WP:EL regarding the Ebionites per se. If anyone can point out to me material in those pages which does clearly and specifically provide information about the historic Ebionites, I would be very appreciative. However, without that information, I would have to question both whether there should be other external links which do more clearly address the matter of the historic Ebionites, and also whether that link should be included at all. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Q. What does this have to do with the sentence we are currently working on? Answer: nothing. Ovadyah (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This matter I agree does not specifically relate to that discussion. However, the mattter is one which I believe deserves serious consideration. As this was the only existing way to raise the issue according to the format, I added it in accord with the existing format. I also have extremely serious questions regarding the "References" section. I believe we would perhaps best allow Jayjg to decide matters of formatting of the issues raised. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I have no problem with removing the specific content. However, the consensus of the AfD on the EJC article was to merge, not to delete it. If you want to restore the version of the EJC article that was originally merged into the Ebionites article, that's fine by me. Ovadyah (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And, as per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus can change. I believe given that there is now more evidence available for independent editors on the subject, such as at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, a reevaluation can be called for. Also, I do not see how the last comment above, about merging content, relates to this matter at all, unless the existing external link was the only content. The question I asked is whether the link meets WP:EL, and, at least so far as I have seen, that question is is not addressed in the above comments. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we can leave the question of merging content aside for the time being. Go ahead and self-revert the content you added to the article. This should not be a part of the ongoing content dispute, as nothing you have proposed here is in dispute. Ovadyah (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that the above comment seems to ignore the fact that there is a dispute now regarding how the use of the EJC website meets WP:EL. I would still like to see that addressed, as opposed to ignored. So, yes, it is now clearly the case that the EL is in dispute. Personally, and I would like the input of others here, I think the section would be best addressed by changing the name and having the section deal with all the groups since the Ebionites which have promoted the Ebionite Christology. I think that information is also clearly relevant, and there probably should be discussion about it. Also, I would like Jayjg's review of the material here in advance before acting. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no link to the EJC website in the article, nor is there any ongoing discussion about it on the talk page. The statement "there is a dispute now regarding how the use of the EJC website meets WP:EL" is fictitious nonsense. Please stop making things up to provoke yet another dispute. Ovadyah (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the EL has, apparently since the Request for Arbitration, been removed. I had not noticed the removal, having not been actively editing the article as per my recusal, and profoundly apologize for same, with my thanks to the person who removed it. Jayjg, please feel free to remove inaccurate comments. I would however still like, somewhere, discussion on adjusting the section to include subsequent ises of Ebionite Christology. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, feel free to self-revert your addition to the article. Let's spend our remaining time in mediation working on issues that actually matter. Ovadyah (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the matter of Ebionite Christology is a significant one, and probably deserving of a separate distinct section in this article. One specific current source, F. E. Peters' "Jesus and Muhammad", specifically says that he believes that Muhammad was likely influenced in his Christology by Ebionite Christology. He specifically names the Elkeasites, but says that specific group is only named by him because they were attested as being in the general area, and it might have been some other group as well. The book has been checked out for some months, and my notes are at this point kind of blurred, but the statement seems to be on page 117 or 177. The fact that his statements are as vague as they are makes it hard to determine where if anywhere the material should be placedJohn Carter (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no article or article section on Ebionite Christology. Bringing up subjects to contend over that have not even occurred yet is hardly the purpose of a mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed an option which, I believe, is potentially a reasonable way to address some concerns regarding the content dispute. And, yes, there are encyclopedic sources which have "Ebionites" as only a "see also Christology" link, so there is basis for discussion of it. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of mediation is to resolve current disputes over content, not potential future disputes. I'm not going to engage in a hypothetical discussion over how someone might disagree over something that might be written. If and when it becomes an issue, we can deal with it then. Ovadyah (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that you seem to be assuming that you do, and appreciate the humor. And the proposal is being put forward as a resolution of some of the material already introduced into this discussion as being relevant. I am thinking in particular of the Butz material. Considering that such material has already been put forward in this discussion as relevant to the existing issues, it seems to me that it is very relevant to indicate that there are other ways, which might be better, to address such content. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any arguments in favor of keeping the content you added to the article. Ovadyah (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been taken care of, as you suggested. Ovadyah (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's comment

Let's focus on coming to a consensus on the current issue, before adding new ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You are probably aware that the neo-Ebionites section was removed from the main Ebionites article and restored as its own article. It is currently undergoing AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ebionite_Jewish_Community_(3rd_nomination), and is most likely headed toward deletion, in which case the point of this discussion will be moot. Ovadyah (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reminder about the ground rules

I've just removed a number of comments that violated the ground rules listed at the top of this page. I remind everyone here that comments about the past, or about other editors, will be removed, as they are not helpful. I've generally marked where and why the statements were removed, so people can understand what kinds of comments are inappropriate, but in the future I will likely just remove them. In the future, please restrict your comments to discussing sources only, not history, or other editors, in any way, so that I don't have to do this. Thank you all! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayjg, the atmosphere was starting to grow thick! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed more unhelpful comments. Please review to understand what kind of comments do not assist in reaching consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Ovadyah (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Scholarly tools

Fellow editors, I don't want to involve myself directly in this debate, but I thought I would post some potentially pertinent literature that may help bring some insights about the state of the literature. I am sure much of this is already familiar, so my apologies if this is redundant. (If this is disruptive, please feel free to refactor or extirpate) Eusebeus (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

1. State of the literature review on James:

Matti Myllykoski. "James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship, Part I" Currents in Biblical Research 2006 vol. 5 no. 1, pp. 73-122 DOI: 10.1177/1476993X06068700. Online at: http://cbi.sagepub.com/content/5/1/73 (Includes a review of the reception of Eisenman's theories at 76-77) id. "James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship, Part II," Currents in Biblical Research October 2007 vol. 6 no. 1, pp. 11-98 doi: 10.1177/1476993X07080242 Online at: http://cbi.sagepub.com/content/6/1/11

Thanks. We also looked at this last year in informal mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. If you need the full article, let me know. Eusebeus (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Eisenman, 2006

Perhaps because it is not considered a scholarly undertaking per se, this work has only received one academic review (noted above). A google scholar search pulls up only one or two results (excluding the book itself), which would seem to reinforce Google's astonishingly low cite number of 3. I am further surprised to discover the same search term on JSTOR produces 0 results (no reviews, no cites...).

Eusebius, if you think The New Testament Code is "not considered a scholarly undertaking", what do you think it is? There are extensive scholarly end-notes available online here. Unlike Tabor's (2006) Jesus Dynasty, I don't see a list of critical reviews denouncing the quality of the scholarship either. What do you suppose the silence means? Ovadyah (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My comment is inferential based on the absence of both reviews and citations, both of which mitigate against it's value as a RS. I suspect that it has been ignored in favour of Eisenman 97, since the underlying theory remains the same. A mere three citations however and none in the scholarly literature suggests it should be treated with circumspection as a source for the article here. I admit I was rather surprised. Eusebeus (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a different perspective on what silence means, but I think we can converge on a way to use Eisenman as a source based on the suggestions offered by Nishidani and Dbachmann. Ovadyah (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ovadyah about silence, but more importantly such arguments tend toward POV pushing. The result is that Ovadyah and Michael make sound edits with reliable sources but their sources "will never measure up". In any event , have a good weekend. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, as per the Fringe theories noticeboard basic guidelines, works which have received little if any attention from scholarly sources tend to be lumped together as "fringe theories." Reasons for this tend to be, in some cases, that the source might say little if anything new. This might include things like Eisenman's indicating the early Christians were discussed in the Dead Sea Scrolls - such a linkage had been proposed before, by J. L. Teicher, it had received little if any support at the time, and the later source might not have specifically introduce any particular developments which might make the statements regarding the earlier proposal not apply here as well. In such cases, the silence is often because, basically, the questions had been addressed earlier. In most such cases, the issue is not so much about reliability as per RS. Pretty much every book published by a major publisher is an RS for something. The question is more about whether the material which might be, basically, be a repetition of what others had said earlier should be taken as being less "fringey" because of the repetition. This can be a particular problem regarding eras and subjects which have recently been the subject of very controversial but well selling literature. Even respectable academics will face the temptation of "cashing in" on a very lucrative trend. Sometimes, like Bart Ehrman, by writing rebuttals of such works, like his rebuttal of The DaVinci Code. This work tends to be seen as RS and non-fringe, because it is effectively an overview of the subject stressing the preponderance of contrary or non-supporting theories and evidence. Other works, which might make new speculations, sometimes with no better support than those of The DaVinci Code or other blockbusters, might be seen as being, basically, books perhaps putting forward a reasonable theory but in such a way as to appeal to the sometimes very lucrative "controversial literature" field. Regretably, in the current market, conspiracy theories and similar works have shown a tendency to sell sometimes very well, particularly if the primary topic being discussed is one about which people have strong emotional positions. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ret. Prof, WP:FT requires the application of an objective standard, and it cannot be applied to subjects where everything is based on unprovable conjectures. Ovadyah (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a comparatively clear guideline on the subject. Your own sttement that it cannot be applied on matters of conjecture is itself, I believe, contrary to guidelines and policy. It can be applied once it is determined how much support within the academic community the subject has received.

And, of course, specifically regarding the possibility of claims to apply this thinking to the subject of Tabor, there have been several sources written by academics about the subject. I believe, in general, we would probably count the Boston University theology librarian who gave the book a "not recommended" ranking (the lowest that publisher gives), as well as the other works by academics referenced at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor, gives a fairly clear indication of the academic reception of his work.

Regarding Butz, introduced elsewhere, I note that he did, apparently, endorse Tabor (In all honesty, I scanned the book, and may have missed that. My apologies.) I also note that one of the reviews of his book The Secret Legacy of Jesus, that by Graham Christian in Library Journal, vol. 135, issue 1, p. 64, noted how the book took had a "hectoring title and presentation" similar to that of "certain best sellers and blockbuster movies" (presumably The DaVinci Code and The Jesus Dynasty), that there was talk of a movie version (I think it was made on German TV), and that, remarkably, the review itself didn't really say anything which would be counted as clearly favorable regarding any of the content of the book. Rather, the author of the review said that the book was a welcome examination of the subject of James. James clearly does deserve more attention than he has recently gotten. However, given what could be taken as a refusal to actively endorse any of Butz' theories, there is a question how much that review can be used to support the contentions per se as non-fringe. Having said that, he does assert a connection between the Ebionites and others, which has in at least a few cases been asserted by others before. He apparently says there is some form of "continuous history" of the idea, which the reviewer disputes, but that is not necessarily required to say that one group repeats ideas that had previously been also put forward by others. WP:WEIGHT might still apply, but that is a separate matter. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)