Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:57, 5 January 2007

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

Ebionites has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Ebionites received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Previous discussions can be found at:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3

• /Peer Review Archive
• /Spiritual Ebionite Archive
• /Dispute Archive

Towards Featured Article status

Before we push the article to Peer review - a step that should always be taken before the Featured Articles Candidacy step - , we need to 1) preserve a neutral point of view ; and 2) extensively provided references for every paragraph in this article following Misplaced Pages:Citing sources guidelines. --Loremaster 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

About See also

According to a Misplaced Pages rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Loremaster, Articals explaining offical Misplaced Pages policy have "see also" sections. NazireneMystic 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I know but official Misplaced Pages policy pages and encyclopedic articles are not held to the same standard. Futhermore, I have spoken to Misplaced Pages administrators about this issue and I've confirmed that this rule of thumb is an unofficial policy that is highly recommended. --Loremaster 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and "see also", which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. --Loremaster 19:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference audit

Connected Klijn and Reinink reference back to article using ref tags. Ovadyah 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The following are "dead references" that don't connect back to anything in the article:

• Akers, Keith. The Lost Religion of Jesus : Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity. New York: Lantern Books, 2000.
• Cameron, Ron. The Other Gospels. Philadephia: Westminster Press, 1982, pp 103-106.
• Danielou, Jean. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Chicago: The Henry Regnery Company, 1964.
• Klijn A.F.J.; Reinink, G.J. Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects. 1973.
• Lüdemann, Gerd. Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
• Skriver, Carl Anders. The Forgotten Beginnings of Creation and Christianity. Denver: Vegetarian Press, 1990.
• Vaclavik, Charles. The Origin of Christianity: The Pacifism, Communalism, and Vegeterianism of Primitive Christianity. Platteville, Wisconsin: Kaweah Publishing Company, 2004.

These were added to the reference list during the early stages of writing the article. I'm preserving them here on the Talk page but removing them from the article. Ovadyah 01:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference links in the article without references: Tabor 1998 (4 times), Schonfield, Urrutia

Loremaster, I need your help with these. We either need to add the references or remove the ref tags. Ovadyah 02:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What a coincidence! I was in the process of writing the exact same commen and request. I don't know which works of Schonfield and Urratia the person who originally added their names to the article was refering to but I won't be able to look into it due to time constraint. As for Tabor, the reference is already mentioned as "Tabor, James D. Ancient Judaism: Nazarenes and Ebionites. The Jewish Roman World of Jesus, 31 August 2006, 20:02, " --Loremaster 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the ref tags for Schonfield and Urrutia. We can always add them back if needed. Ovadyah 14:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster 17:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, is the Keith Akers reference another "dead reference"? I don't see anything pointing to it in the notes. Ovadyah 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We should remove it. --Loremaster 23:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. I moved it to the talk page. I'm also considering removing the Klijn and Reinink tag and reference because it doesn't tie to a specific page in their book. I don't think we need it to support the sentence. It's clear enough from the context. Ovadyah 23:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Loremaster 00:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Ovadyah

Passed GA

Congrats! You have made the requested changes and your article now qualifies under Misplaced Pages:Good Articles. That said, I enourage you to continue to work on it, especially to resolve the issues you have been discussing. You may now want to submit it once again to peer review, as I believe it still has a ways to go to meet FA criteria. Montanabw 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Montanabw. Ovadyah 00:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Good work, Ovadyah! :) --Loremaster 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work, Loremaster! Ovadyah 14:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review for FA

I consider the current version of the Ebionites article to be stable enough. Should we go through peer review again? --Loremaster 19:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, however, this time we should focus on the changes needed to bring it up to FA standards. Ovadyah 21:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. You can trigger the process. --Loremaster 22:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the help. That was a little confusing! Ovadyah 01:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Loremaster 01:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't get rid of the redirect per the instructions. Can you fix the path? Ovadyah 01:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything seems fine. What are you refering to exactly? --Loremaster 02:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. :) Ovadyah 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Loremaster 09:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... The second peer review seems very quiet (possibly because of the holidays). How long should we wait? --Loremaster 09:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I would wait a week and then discuss our options. People are traveling. Ovadyah 17:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let's wait a week. --Loremaster 17:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what we decide, I would be ok with you nominating the current version of Ebionites for Featured Article. --Loremaster 10:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I will nominate the article for FA if you will be available to help implement the changes. Ovadyah 17:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

When you do nominate it, I will try to make myself available to implement the changes if there are any. --Loremaster 17:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, the nomination for FA is on hold. We are going backwards. Ovadyah 05:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Loremaster 09:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean we should continue to work with deliberate speed towards FA, but hold off on the actual nomination until this CS business is resolved. Ovadyah 16:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I agree. --Loremaster 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Schoeps, Ebionites and Anti-Gnosticism

Scholar Hans-Joachim Schoeps, however, argues that the primary influence of Ebionites on mainstream Christianity was to aid in the defeat of gnosticism.

Since User:NazireneMystic has disputed the veracity of this sentence (the orginal version of which was added by anonymous user 4.227.194.130 at 16:45, 30 July 2005), we need someone who has access to Schoeops' works to verify it. --Loremaster 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ovadyah, is there anyone you can email to get this info? --Loremaster 00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I will ask around. If that fails, I will purchase the book, if it's still in print, and check for myself. Ovadyah 00:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Loremaster 00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I found someone that claims to have a copy of Schoeps. If I don't hear back from them in the next few days, I will look into purchasing a copy. Ovadyah 16:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster 00:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Archaeology section

I think we may have our archaeology section. Anonymous user 69.136.245.176 stopped by (presumably Jacob Rabinowitz) and left a nice paragraph on an archaeological find that appears to link back to Ebionites. We can change the external link he left to an online manuscript into a reference instead. Jacob, stop by anytime. Happy day! :) Ovadyah 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I placed the paragraph in a separate archaeology section and changed the external link into a reference. I have been reading Jacob's PDF manuscript that can be accessed by the weblink. It's great stuff! There are several useful references to Ebionites by Origen. I can use some of them to expand and improve the History section. See in particular p.73 (of the actual manuscript). Ovadyah 17:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read that document yet but is Jacob suggesting that all early Ebionites were Gnostics? If so, aren't troubled by this? --Loremaster 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's quite the opposite. He is saying they are being falsely portrayed as Gnostics in order to dismiss their relevance to mainstream Christianity. See p.73. Ovadyah 19:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh. This is perfect since the Archaeology section is a great way to expand an article that has been criticized as being too short. --Loremaster 20:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My initial excitement is turning to scepticism, now that I have actually read the manuscript. Despite Rabinowitz's claims, I don't see the symbolic imagery as convincingly Ebionite or even Judaic. And what's with the angel language? I will need to research this more thoroughly and find independent evidence to support his claims. Ovadyah 04:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I will wait for your verdict before doing anything to the Archaeology section. --Loremaster 08:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The 3 Messianic Figures

Is there any evidence that some Jewish Christians believed that John the Baptizer was the Prophet like Moses, Jesus was the King like David, and James the Just was the High Priest like Aaron? --Loremaster 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any, but I will look into it. If anything, there were Jews that accepted John as the Prophet like Moses and rejected Jesus as a false prophet. I just picked up Eisenman's new book, The New Testament Code. It's another 1000 page Magnum Opus like James the Brother of Jesus. Maybe I can find something there. Ovadyah 20:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. --Loremaster 21:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I'm wondering if there any source that would support the inclusion of the following statement in the first paragraph of the Beliefs and pratices section:

Alternatively, Ebionites expected three messianic figures and some may have seen John the Baptist as the prophet like Moses, Jesus the Nazarene as the king like David, and James the Just as the High Priest like Aaron.

--Loremaster 21:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

James Tabor makes an interesting speculation in his new book, "The Jesus Dynasty", pp. 145-148. He claims that the Essenes understood their Teacher of Righteousness to be the Prophet like Moses, and saw the Sabbatical year of 26-27 CE as the time for the coming of the Two Messiahs. James speculates further, that those who accepted John's baptism saw John the Baptist as the Priestly Messiah of Aaron and Jesus as the Royal Messiah of David. Imho, he's out on a limb as far as the evidence goes, but it's an interesting idea. There's nothing in here about James the Just, but I'm sure Eisenman has plenty to say about him. I'll keep reading. Ovadyah 16:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So the question would be who was the Teacher of Righteousness according to Jewish Christians who viewed John as priest and Jesus as king? --Loremaster 22:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Irregardless of who these three figures might be, I think James T. is onto something in terms of the timing. What he is arguing is that the Sabbatical year 26-27 CE marks the beginning of the final 7 year period of the last Jubilee before the End of Days. That would make the final year 33-34 CE, which fits with the gospel of John. Interesting. :) Ovadyah 16:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. --Loremaster 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Tabor also says "The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of mostly Jewish/Israelite followers of John the Baptizer and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions and led by "James the Just" (the oldest brother of Jesus), and flourished between the years 30-80 C.E." So the Ebionites first followed John, then Jesus and later James. IMO the lead is too focussed on Jesus and needs to mention the other two pivotal figures as well (without necessarily discussing their specific messianic roles, which is rather more speculative).--Michael C. Price 10:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I would have no problem with the re-mentioning of James in the Lead, I would be opposed to the mention of John the Baptist which is speculation on Tabor's part that is not supported by patristic sources which focus on Jesus and, correct me if I am wrong, don't mention James. --Loremaster 11:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've re-inserted the mention of James that was deleted months ago from the Lead of the article. --Loremaster 11:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I've added a mention of John the Baptist that I am comfortable with. --Loremaster 12:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Loremaster, imho, you should have stuck to your guns on this point. Adding James the Just and John the Baptist to the lead does nothing to improve the quality of the article. It introduces spurious speculation that has nothing to do with the purpose of the sentence, ie. to compare the received teachings of Jesus vs. Paul the apostate. From my perspective, there is no rational reason to do this (but maybe some irrational reasons). Ovadyah 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the addition of John and James to the end of the sentence about the possible distortion of Jesus's original teachings does not add to the article. The addition is a clumsy attempt at a synthesis (with violates WP:NOR) of different concepts and divergent viewpoints into a monolithic presentation (which violates WP:NPOV, with the unfortunate result that no viewpoint is clearly represented. --Michael C. Price 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. There will be no mention of John the Baptist or James the Just in the Lead since it is supposed to be an overview of the articles devoid of speculative details. However, I have no problem mentioning that Tabor thinks John the Baptist may have been the first leader of the Ebionites in the History section. --Loremaster 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything we write about the Ebionites is speculation. Shall I therefore raise an AfD on the entire article?--Michael C. Price 01:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You are being unreasonable and bullyish. Most of what we write is based on the commonality within primary sources. --Loremaster 02:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You really don't get WP:NOR, do you? --Michael C. Price 03:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would expect the patristic sources to focus on the Ebionite view of Jesus, but that focus does not necessarily reflect the original focus of the Ebionites themselves (the Panarion quoets from the GoE mentions John the Baptist as much as Jesus). Also it is our task to report research, not judge it (which would be original research): Tabor says the Ebionites originally followed John the Baptist; this is what we should report.--Michael C. Price 12:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, mentioning John the Baptist and claiming that he was their original leader is not the same thing. Second, it would be an exageration to claim that sources mention John as much as Jesus. Third, I don't think it would be appropriate to mention Tabor's speculation in the first two paragraphs of the Lead. However the third paragraph (which mentions the opinion of scholars at the end) does so now to an appropriate degree. --Loremaster 12:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In order, first, yes mentioning John the Baptist and claiming that he was their original leader is not the same thing, which is precisely why the lead needs to be more explicit on the subject. Second, I was refering to just the Panarion (our only sources of quotes from the Ebionite Gospel) not sources in general. Third, I don't see why it is inappropriate to mention this in the lead; Tabor leads off with it and so did this article once: perhaps you don't agree with Tabor, but that's original research. We should report the views of others, not judge them. --Michael C. Price 13:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First, does Ebionite gospel mention that John the Baptist was the first leader of Ebionites? Second, one source is not enough. Third, I don't judge Tabor'views. However, I don't think the Lead should focus on his speculation which is his original research. --Loremaster 13:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me but it seems that you are always right and the rest of the world is wrong. Earlier we saw that when the secondary sources suit you, they are right and the patristic sources are wrong, even "irrelevant". But the above conversation shows that when the primary sources suit you, they are right and it is the secondary sources that are engaged in "original research", and not you for making yourself the sole ultimate arbiter of what the ancient Ebionites believed on the basis of some modern day theology. I wouldn't complain, but when you make yourself judge to the point where you are selectively deciding what information to present and what must be suppressed, it is pure information control. In a situation like this where there are only a handful of primary sources, EVERYTHING should be presented, even Epiphanius, along with all of the relevant secondary sources that comment on Epiphanius, instead of cherry-picking what readers are even allowed to hear about in the first place. Which has been my point all along. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly I agree with ፈቃደ -- dismissing a published non-primary source as "original research" and therefore inadmissable is to seriously misunderstand or twist WP policies and speaks of a lack of objectivity. Given the paucity of sources every viewpoint should be presented.--Michael C. Price 15:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of cooperation, I will put aside the personal attacks and focus on explaining my actions: First of all, I am not a Christian nor a Jew. I am not pro-Ebionite or anti-Ebionite. I am therefore not influenced by modern-day theology of any of these religions. However, I have disclosed on several occasions that my view of Jesus is informed by the work of the Jesus Seminar but I haven't let that view interfere with our duty to present a secular account of Ebionites. Second, secondary sources, specifically scholars, provide 1) academic theories and 2) personal speculation. An encyclopedic article should sthrive to only present their academic theories and avoid their personal speculation. Third, I haven't suppressed any information that can be supported by primary and secondary sources. However, I have and will "control" how this information is presented and contextualized in the interest of fairness and accuracy. With the help of Ovadyah, I've succeeded in getting Ebionites Good Article status so I take your biased criticisms of my work with a grain of salt. --Loremaster 17:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but there is no mention in the guidelines of distinguishing between the "academic theories" and the "personal speculation" in a source. This is a false dichotomy and any attempt to do so is original research and to be eschewed, since it unavaoidably introduces the POV of the editor. Content is to be reported, not judged. --Michael C. Price 17:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I obviously disagree with your characterization. Regardless, there are guidelines about not giving minority views undue weight. --Loremaster 20:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Which irrelevant to the issue of whether the guideline support the "academic theories" vs "personal speculation" dichotomy: they don't. If you still clain otherwise then quote the relevant section here. --Michael C. Price 20:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't claim any relevance. My point is that Tabor's opinion (whether it be an academic theory or personal speculation) is in the minority and should not be given undue weight in the Lead section of an article. Regardless, John the Baptist and James the Just are now mentioned in the Lead in a way that I think is appropriate in light of primary sources. Anything more would be trying to push a POV. --Loremaster 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I missed this thread. So much to read, so little time. It's not so hard to determine the difference between an academic theory and a speculation. Theories are based upon hypotheses that can be tested and verified. I can speculate that Jesus was the reincarnation of Buddha. That can't be tested or verified. Original research from secondary sources is fine, but we have to use some collective judgement as to the weight to attach to our sources. See the NPOV guidelines regarding Undue Weight here. Ovadyah 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV guidelines do not say that minority viewpoints should be completelly omitted from the article, which is the situation with regards to the Tabor's view that the Ebionite were originally lead by John the Baptist.--Michael C. Price 17:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thus, the collective judgement of the editors is required to reach a decision. I would argue that this process is both necessary and sufficient, since we can't expect to do better than the sum of our abilities. Ovadyah 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's always true, of course, but you haven't addressed the point I made about undue weight does not imply exclusion. --Michael C. Price 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Imho, it does not automatically imply exclusion, but it can mean that if the editor's judge something to be spurious. Alecmconroy gave a great explanation about this previously on one of the old talk pages, maybe I can ask him to comment on this again. That's what we pay the RFC the big money for. :) Ovadyah 02:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Which archive is it in? And I don't think anyone could regard Tabor's views as "spurious", even if they don't agree with them. (Jesus, for example, was commonly regarded by the people and Herod as John the Baptist risen from the dead (Mark 8:28, Matthew 14:2, 16:14, Luke 9:7, 9:19) -- was this because Jesus had replaced the late John's role as leader?)

RFC Comments

Alec, can you comment on NPOV, undue weight, and minority opinions along the lines discussed above? Ovadyah 02:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites and Essenes?

I moved this closer to the top because I thought this topic was outside of the line of fire. Silly me. The issue is complicated. First of all, I have great respect for James Tabor. I have read his books and communicated with him personally. That said, he has a tendency to extrapolate beyond his data. James likes to point out what is possible. Linking the Ebionites to the Essenes is a perfect example. There is not a shred of direct evidence tying them together, but it's interesting to speculate that the Ebionites were influenced by the Essenes. I think you stay out of trouble if you preface your remarks, "James Tabor speculates...". However, there is a reasonable limit, such as when an author is out there all by himself. An example of this is Eisenman trying to link the DSS to early Christianity and Paul to the Spouter of Lies. He is utterly alone in the academic community in promoting this view. Ovadyah 15:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's hard to believe, I'm sure I've read lots of authors who connect Ebionites with Essenes... I will have to look in some of my books to see if I can find some others... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Prefacing the remarks with "according to James Tabor" would be fine with me. --Michael C. Price 15:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Tabor is not utterly alone. It is the main thesis or conclusion of a 1980 book I have just pulled off my shelf and am lookign at now, entitled "The Essene-Christian Faith" by Martin A. Larson, that the Essene brotherhood reconstituted themselves as the Ebionites and were the core of the Early Christians. Someone here must be famiiar with this work. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I said Eisenman was utterly alone in arguing that the Spouter of Lies in the DSS was Paul. Since you are so quick to demand primary references for everything, I challenge you to come up with one primary source document that ties the Ebionites directly to the Essenes. Lot's of people have opinions on the matter. Talk is cheap. Bring your evidence here. Ovadyah 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the insistence on primary sources? Misplaced Pages prefers secondary or tertiary sources. --Michael C. Price 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm trying to drive home the point that it's all speculation. There is no real evidence. Theories are based on facts and they are also testable. The hypothesis that the Ebionites are connected with the Essenes is not a theory because it can't be falsified. Ovadyah 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is really pointless to castigate something as inadmissable by labelling it "speculation" -- even the theory of gravity is speculation; the guidelines say secondary and tertiary sources are preferable and that's all we need to know. Larson and Eisenman's views are both notable and admissable, regardless of whatever our views on them are. This is not the appropriate forum for rewriting the rules of wikipedia. --Michael C. Price 01:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

According to your inclusive principle of not judging sources, should we include the views of a fringe researcher who argues that Ebionites worshipped aliens? If not, why? --Loremaster 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

They are not my principles, they are Misplaced Pages's.--Michael C. Price 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. According to Misplaced Pages's guidelines which include not giving undue weight to minority views, would you approve of the inclusion of the views of a fringe researcher who argues that Ebionites worshipped aliens? --Loremaster 01:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on whether the source(s) met the various criteria for inclusion. --Michael C. Price 01:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Which are? --Loremaster 01:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming this is a rhetorical question since I do not believe that someone who claims to be one of Misplaced Pages's most prolific editors can be that ignorant. Also I note that Tabor meets these requirements by your own standards since Tabor is used, multiple times, as a source for the current article. Excluding some of his conclusions because you don't like them, but accepting other of his conclusions, is original research and POV pushing. --Michael C. Price 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Micheal, I know what these various criteria are. I want to know if you know and understand them. Regardless, we are justified in excluding conclusions made by Tabor or any scholar that are not based on verifiable facts. The notion that I exclude any views because I don't "like" them is ridiculous in the context of this specific dispute since I was the one who added the mention of Ebionites being followers of John the Baptist and later Jesus months or years ago until I deleted it when some of you made me realize that the majority of sources did not support this speculation. So for the record, the only views I don't "like" are those that a significant number of serious scholars have deemed unreliable and/or not based on evidence. This is not original research or POV pushing. It's common sense. Period. --Loremaster 05:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The statement: Regardless, we are justified in excluding conclusions made by Tabor or any scholar that are not based on verifiable facts. shows that you still don't understand the concept of original research: verfiability refers to the sources, not to the "facts" the research is based on. And minority views are still reported in Misplaced Pages - it is only extreme minority views (e.g. the belief of one person that the Ebionites worshiped aliens) that are excluded. So both your objections are invalid. --Michael C. Price 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, this is beating a dead horse (see CS's user page). It comes down to deciding when minority views are too minor to be worth reporting. That has to be decided by the collective judgement of the editors, taking into account the criterion of undue weight that we talked about before. There may be, and should be, legitimate disagreements between editors about the weight of various sources. Ovadyah 16:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an amusing graphic. As for undue weight, consider that Tabor has published widely in respected journals; his viewpoint can hardly be considered a "tiny minority" given the paucity of active reseachers in the field. His views deserve more respect than is accorded here. However the more important issue is the long-standing and widespread violation of WP:NOR going on here; it is not flogging a dead horse to point this out (unless everyone had the same understanding of the issue, which is clearly not the case). There is also a gross violation of WP:NPOV which states:Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. This seems to have been forgotten.--Michael C. Price 17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The notion that Tabor's views are not being respected is ridiculous when he is one of the few scholars mentioned by name in this article *and* the one only one who has two paragraphs based on his views. However, the article cannot be about every single opinion that James Tabor has about Ebionites. That would not be NPOV. --Loremaster 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would be, since this an important opinion. Clearly you understand as little about NPOV as you do NOR. And I quote:

Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics.

--Michael C. Price 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it is an important one which is the crux of the debate. As for your repeated quoting of the Misplaced Pages guidelines, you are engaging in Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering. --Loremaster 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I offer the quote repeatedly because you have repeated your claim that everything must be based on verifiable facts, which is not what the NPOV guidelines say, which refer to verifiable sources.--Michael C. Price 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start a new section "NPOV and NOR" so this conversation is not so scrunched up. Let's continue to work on this. Ovadyah 19:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, John the Baptist and James the Just are now mentioned as highly regarded teachers of Ebionites. This nuanced mention reflects the speculative nature of the claim. Since sources don't back up the claim, why push the POV that John the Baptist was the first leader of the Ebionites? --Loremaster 05:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a POV that meets the admission criteria. Where there is a diversity of sourced viewpoints they all should be reported. It's called balance and NPOV. --Michael C. Price 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. An encyclopedic article should not report speculative views that are not based on verifiable facts. --Loremaster 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of WP:NOR. You are trying to judge content which is expressly forbidden. It is sufficient that the sources be verifiable. --Michael C. Price 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Larson's entire 273 page, highly acclaimed book is dedicated to exploring all the similarities between the Essenes and the Ebionites. I highly recommend it if you haven't come across it yet. He leaves no primary account of either group uncited, and discusses not just the vegetarianism but the ritual ablutions, titles and doctrines common to both. Of course since it doesn't mesh in with your views, you may want to obstruct it from even being mentioned at all, even though he even has his own wikipedia article at Martin A. Larson. In the long run, it really doesn't matter if this article is going to be out of touch, since anyone who really wants to research the Ebionites will have plenty of sources out there more reliable than wikipedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you have abundant resources, I'm sure you will have no trouble using them to show us an example of one primary source document that explicity makes this connection, as I requested. Ovadyah 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Larson book, and other similar scholarship, is about as close as you are going to get to showing exactly what all the connections are... So, have you determined that Martin A. Larson's credentials are not good enough? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Giving up so easily? I didn't when you challenged me to prove the Ebionites believed Jesus to be an ordinary man. I produced multiple primary witnesses. Don't feel you need to confine yourself to Larson. Any reputable scholar in the field will do nicely. Put your facts on the table (if you are able). Ovadyah 22:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem mentioning a possible Essene connnection since I was the first one to do it in an earlier version of the article until it was deleted. --Loremaster 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Loose ends

I don't foresee making any major changes to the Ebionites article. I consider it to be stable and almost perfect as it currently is. --Loremaster 21:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree we are very, very close. There are a couple of things left to look at. I'm going to put some quotations from Origen about the Ebionites on the talk page and work on that. Origen gives direct testimony that he knows Ebionites means "poor men". That is worth adding to the History section. The other thing we can work on is evidence for the demise of the Ebionites in the Roman Empire, presumably soon following the decree of Theodotian near the end of the 4th century. We also need to tidy up the format of the references. Montanabw said something about the Notes section being non-standard. Ovadyah 23:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's proceed. However, I think the standardizing the Notes section should be our priority. --Loremaster 23:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Whew! Let's keep the momentum going. Ovadyah 17:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you already have a source for evidence ofr the demise of the Ebionites in the Roman Empire, following the decree of Theodotian near the end of the 4th century or will you have to search for one? --Loremaster 09:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this. No, I don't have one at hand. Just recall from prior reading. Ovadyah 23:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute?

Codex Sinaiticus insist in adding the following sentence to the Beliefs and practices section of the article:

However, it should be noted that the only evidence that the Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus comes from the accusatory writings of those who opposed them the most vehemently, for their continued adherence to Mosaic Laws.

I've removed this redundant sentence several times because the introduction of the History already explains quite clearly that everything we know about Ebionites beliefs and practices comes from the polemical works of the early Church Fathers. --Loremaster 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The article as it stands seems to be pushing the exact same POVs that the enemies of the Ebionites were pushing. It can't be made clear enough that there is no other reason to think Ebionites really denied Jesus' divinity. And no, not "everything" we know comes from polemical works, I'm sure you have seen the section "Ebionite writings". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, since I am the person who has been working the most on making sure that this article has a neutral point of view (that critics could nonetheless accuse of being pro-Ebionite rather than anti-Ebionite), I find your accusation ridiculous. Secondly and objectively speaking, Ebionites denying the divinity of Jesus is probably one of their most realistic beliefs. Are you trying to push the POV that perhaps Ebionites were not as heretical as they were accused of being because they may have embraced the divinity of Jesus??? Thirdly, I am fully aware of the Ebionites writings section since they support the notion that Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus. What's your point? --Loremaster 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly pushing the POV that Ebionites did reject Jesus' divinity, you just admitted that this is your own opinion. But since it is open to dispute, I feel the article should be neutral and not automatically assume that the anti-Ebionite polemicists were correct. As it stands, it gives the clear impression that they were correct on this point, without offering much other support, thus the NPOV tag. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not pushing any POV. I'm simply presenting the facts in the form they are available to us. Every historical source we have describes Ebionites as rejecting the divinity of Jesus among other Christian doctrines. The article makes it quite clear that most of the sources are polemical in nature. What can be consideredd the anti-Ebionite POV of these sources is Ebionites being explicitly accused of "judaizing" and "heresy" NOT the reporting of what their beliefs actually were. This is why I think the article is neutral. --Loremaster 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the npov-section tag after having improved the Beliefs and practices section. Do you approve? --Loremaster 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no NPOV problem. The article has been thoroughly vetted by an RFC for NPOV, then by a peer review, and finally by the nomination process for GA. Loremaster, this NPOV-dispute nonsense has led to some weasel-words being added to the article. Feel free to remove them. Codex Sinaiticus, if you want to help out, please consider joining the second peer review. Ovadyah 21:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that I have no right to dispute assumptions made in the article that I detect are written from a point-of-view ? Who made you the judge of whether or not a dispute is valid? If there is a POV dispute, and you guys who think the article is your private property just remove the NPOV tag unilaterally, then there will be another RFC. As an editor I have every right to dispute the article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a right to dispute assumptions made in the article. However, I think you overreacted. --Loremaster 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course you have a right to dispute assumptions in the article. We have an agreement per the first RFC to try to reach a consensus on the talk page before we make changes to the article. Loremaster and I have abided by this agreement ever since. There is no consensus that the Beliefs and practices section is lacking in NPOV. Ovadyah 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that on any other article. If someone disputes a section and puts up the NPOV tag for any reason, and discusses it on talk, other editors are not supposed to touch the tag until the dispute is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. That's standard courtesy. I don't understand why you think this article is a special case. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my lack of courtesy. I guess I've encountered so many cranks that use the NPOV tag to further their agenda (not that I ever believed you are the one of them) that it made me forget proper Misplaced Pages protocol. That being said, now that I've slighty improved the article, do you still dispute its neutrality?

I guess it is improved enough as it stands right now that I won't pursue the dispute any further, but this article seem to be in a constant state of change, it is always on my watchlist with the same two editors, so I can't say what it will look like tomorrow! My real problem is that I will admit, I am not so convinced that Ebionites sect really rejected Jesus' divinity, I suspect they were wrongly lumped together with some other sects that did, by their enemies... And although the only evidence the article provides is the testimony of their enemies, it seemed like it was assuming to give their enemies too much credit. At an earlier stage, the last time I read the article many months ago, it had seemed more balanced in this regard. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I am puzzled and in obvious disagreement with your views regarding the Ebionite view of Jesus and how this was and is presented in the article, rest assured that the article will become stable as soon as we finish with the second peer review and the featured article nomination. --Loremaster 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

CS, correct me if I am wrong but the problem with your POV is that there is NO evidence that Ebionites believed in the divinity of Jesus. Until you can provide some, it wouldn't be neutral to imply that there might be. --Loremaster 21:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

CS, I also apologize. Your concerns are not "nonsense". It's just that we are used to discussing things and working together very efficiently. What I object to is the edit-warring style of editing, not your POV. BTW, please see my warm welcome on your talk page. Ovadyah 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem... I generally prefer working when many editors can cooperate on improving different aspects of an article together, sorry to react like I felt at first I was being shut out by a clique... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, if you need me to revert any changes to the article, just ask. Ovadyah 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Depending what you mean by "weasel word", I've removed some but not all of them because I think some are justified. --Loremaster 22:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that was the wrong term. I meant words that unnecessarily qualify a sentence where the meaning is straightforward. Ovadyah 22:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. So are you OK with the article as it is now? --Loremaster 22:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am ok with it. Ovadyah 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Alec. I'm pretty sure Loremaster moved this section to Archive 3 rather than blanking it. Do you have an issue with him moving it? Ovadyah 00:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed this what I did. CS said this dispute was over --Loremaster 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops-- sorry bout that. I figured it was just an accidental blanking. If all participants are fine with archival, then I certainly am as well. --Alecmconroy 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My own strong feeling is that discussions should not be archived until they are several months old at least... Seems like sweeping them under the rug to hide something... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not intentional sweeping, I'm sure. CS, we are feeling some pressure to tie up loose ends in preparation for the FA nomination. Things are moving faster than is usually the case. Ovadyah 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. --Loremaster 18:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Archangelus revisitus

Well, I am now looking this up to see what I can find. I just looked up the Epiphanius and was totally amazed to see what he testifies - that the Ebionites considered Jesus to be an Archangel... Why isn't this fact mentioned in the article? I really think it ought to be... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all certain that the Gospel of the Ebionites is really Ebionite in origin. The gospel was given that name by modern scholars. Ovadyah 05:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? That's interesting. Can you give me a link to the text of the Gospel of the Ebionites? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CS, please read the article carefully cause that fact is mentioned in the third paragraph of the Beliefs and practices section. --Loremaster 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You know the wording of that sentence is so unclear I actually missed that. In fact, it is a run-on from hell. It needs to be made a lot clearer but it is such a lengthy run-on sentence I don't even know where to start. If Epiphanius' main complaint about Ebionites is that (he says) they thought he was an Angel, that fact really ought to jump out at you a lot more, instead of being buried in obscure language in the third paragraph like that... I would propose mentioning it much nearer the top, like right next to where the assertion is made that the Ebionites thought he was an ordinary mortal human. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CS, we have been through this archangel discussion already. All the early Church Fathers that mention Jesus' birth agree against Epiphanius that the Ebionites believed Jesus was the child of mortal parents. Even Epiphanius mentions that the Ebionites believed that Joseph was his father. I'll try to find the cite for this. Ovadyah 04:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, he (Ebion) said that the Christ was born from the coition and seed of man, that is, from Joseph. Panarion 30.2.2. Ovadyah 04:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is Ebion? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Epiphanius is stating the tradition he received (from Hippolytus?) that the founder of the Ebionites was named Ebion. Ovadyah 05:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What? Didn't he even know that much Hebrew? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The previous discussion about the archangel passage is archived here. Ovadyah 05:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I just read the previous discussion, which consists only of one editor demanding to know why the cited reference was removed, and Loremaster responding that it was because in his personal estimation he didn't feel it should be stressed, but that he would add a brief mention of it into the most inconspicuous place possible. I think you should be able to see why I am detecting a bit of a POV slant here... I also think the article should pay just a little more attention to this question than it currently does, right now it is wanting on discussion of a very crucial aspect, which is unacceptable for any FA candidate. In fact, I'd say it deserves a dedicated section, exploring exactly what Epiphanius (primary source) and various secondary sources have to say about Ebionites considering Jesus to be an Angel. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Several scholarly sources have commented on this passage and concluded that Epiphanius is using the term Ebionites to refer to Jewish-Christians in general, and he is probably referring here to the Elchasites. It's all metioned in the article. Ovadyah 05:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I should mention that I agreed with Loremaster's decision at the time to remove it, and I still do. Imho, the discussion could be expanded, but I don't agree that it deserves a dedicated section. Ovadyah 05:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, but not in a very neutral manner...

Oh, and please don't sweep this discussion into the archive to get rid of it... I see the above referenced archive discussion is from August 2006, only four months ago, which IMO is way too soon to go chucking into an archive page... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CS, I resent your implication that something improper is going on. You have no idea how much discussion we have had in the last four months. Ovadyah 05:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I also see that despite my warm welcome on your talk page and efforts to include you in the editing process, we are settling in for a long, hard, and bitter confrontation. Have it your way. Ovadyah 05:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is constantly dominated by two opinionated editors who don't seem to be very cooperative toward working with anyone else. What this article desperately needs is to be gone over by a lot more hands than just two people who agree with each other and share the same POV. It's still a POV. I have brought cites and sources, but because they deviate from what you and LM think, you are trying to keep them from being admitted. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So far you are bringing lots of attitude and POV, but few facts. Show me verifiable sources and I'll take a look at them. Otherwise, don't waste my time with your rants. Ovadyah 05:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ovadyah so I've reverted the article to a version previous to CS' recent changes. The notion that I am not cooperative toward working with anyone else is ridiculous in light of the fact that I've worked with people with extremely opposite views to mine in order to succeed in getting an article featured on the home page of Misplaced Pages a few months ago. If CS is refering to our dealings with NazireneMystic, it should be obvious to any objective observer that NM is a person who was and is extremely difficult to deal with to say the least! That being said, I find it puzzling that CS now wants the article to focus even more than it already does on the opinion of one of the enemies of Ebionites regarding the nature of Jesus. Does CS even realize that Epiphanius' claims contradict the notion that Jesus was divine which he cherishes so much? --Loremaster 08:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CS appears to be more confused than Epiphanius. I pointed out the apparent internal contradiction in Panarion 30, that according to Epiphanius, the Ebionites believed that Christ's father was Joseph (Pan. 30.2.2), whereas he also describes Christ was an angelic spirit (Pan. 30.16.4). Ovadyah 16:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously in Archive 2, which CS read, Epiphanius is probably describing a "separationist christology", where Christ was seen as an angelic spirit that inhabited the man Jesus at this baptism. This type of duality was very characteristic of Gnostic groups, as Bart Ehrman has pointed out in many of his books. Imho, CS is desperately trying to attribute divinity to Jesus to make the whole Ebionite thing go away. Ovadyah 16:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reason for adding totally disputed tag

There is a major point here that you seem to be missing. First of all, forget about what you assume my "cherished notions" to be. That should not be relevant to what the primary sources state. I for one am not claiming myself to be a "Modern Ebionite", or trying to re-mold the primary sources to fit any romantic conception of what their theology ideally should be. The primary sources we have to go on don't even say that much, but all any impartial observer needs to do is read the fullest primary source account of them here and here and then read the incarnation of the wikipedia article immediately before I came on the scene here which paints a drastically different picture from the primary source, to come to the inescapable conclusion that nearly all discussion of a major piece of evidence was / is being suppressed in deference to the POV of a tiny number of editors. And you were hoping to make this an FA? To do that, you can't just ignore the main argument of the main primary source. If you have secondary sources that dismiss the primary source and come to the opposite conclusion, wikipedia has enough space for you to present the whole story and explain the entire reasoning of the matter in detail, but in light of the above-referenced conversation of only four months ago already shunted to the archive page here I think its fair to say that even the difficult to read and hard to find reference to Epiphanius' testimony that Ebionites regarded Jesus as an archangel (such as it exists in the article currently) was only admitted into the article rather grudgingly. But this is a crucial point, you should not be afraid of a full discussion of it or try to suppress or obscure it because it will come back to haunt you again and again as more and more editors discover that the article is at odds with the number one primary source. So I had added the following sentence:

Epiphanius, who left the fullest account of the Ebionites, is the only source who describes them as possessing an angelology, which he claims included Jesus as one of their archangels.

which is verifiable, sourced, and actually impeccably correct and accurate. But because it is the very thing you don't seem to want mentioned, you blanked it and the pretext you gave for doing so was entirely personal in nature, not even a logical one. So until this matter is addressed in a satisfactory manner, I'm disputing this article. If you summarily blank the dispute tag again, I shall have to pursue some other recourse to bring some balance into this article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that I called CS' attention to the archived section in the first place, and linked to it, in what he sees as an obvious attempt to surpress it. Ovadyah 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Epiphanius' dubious claim that Ebionites regarded Jesus as an archangel is already mentioned in the Beliefs and practices section of the article:

Tabor relies on Epiphaneus's description of Ebionites as rejecting parts or most of the Law, as religious vegetarians, as opposed to animal sacrifice, and as engaging in daily baptism; and his quotations of their gospel as ascribing these injunctions to Jesus the Christ seen as the adopted son of God and the incarnation of the first archangel.

Therefore, the accusation that we are suppressing facts to push a POV is ridiculous. Also, the current mention of Epiphanius's claim is far more explicit the the previous version of this mention which was added "grudgingly". --Loremaster 18:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the one I was referring to as the run-on sentence from hell.. It needs to be made much clearer... The sentence starts out "Tabor relies on" and assumes too much knowledge on the part of the reader... I re-read that lenghty sentence several times and don't see how anyone can be expected to grasp what it is Epiphanius, a primary source says when it is couched only in terms of Tabor, a secondary source. It logically needs to be previously mentioned and not assume prior knowledge. My edit did exactly that, what was wrong about it? Nothing, except that your agenda is apparently to detract from Epiphanius testimony re: angels as much as possible and promote instead the assumption that Ebionites considered Jesus an ordinary human, for which I have still yet to be shown a direct unambiguous statement of in a primary source. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I've had several people read this particular section of the article and you are the only one who has a problem understanding it. Second, as the article already explained, Epiphanius is the primary but the most dubious source for information on the Ebionites. This is the only reason why his testimony is treated the way it is. Personally, I like the notion that Jesus may have been the incarnation of the first archangel. However, the overwhelming evidence is that he wasn't so the article reflects this. --Loremaster 18:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Stating that Epiphanius is dubious is a POV. When you say the evidence is that Jesus was not an archangel I presume you meant to say the evidence is that the Ebionites did not consider Jesus to be an archangel. We are not debating whether or not Jesus really is an archangel. If the evidence is overwhelming as you say, it should be clearly shared with the reader in the article in an understandable manner. I think it is fully deserving of its own section where you can fully make the case why Epiphanius was wrong on this, instead of trying to make it as obscure as possible in a run on sentence. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* "Dubious" is defined as "giving rise to uncertainty, questionable or suspect as to true nature or quality, unsettled in opinion." Stating that Epiphanius is a dubious source is merely stating the fact that several scholars view it as such. It would be POV and a disservice to readers for the article not to reflect this. Futhermore, I resent your constant accusation that I am trying to obscure the facts through a "run on sentence". There was no mention of Epiphanius' claim about Jesus as archangel in this article for months until I recently made an extra effort for the article to be as comprehensive as possible by mentioning it in the way that I have. --Loremaster 18:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: Since that is what Epiphanius considers to be their most distinguishing (and heretical) identifiable feature, what is your real reason for not wishing to give even a little more prominence to this observation of his? Again, if you have evidence against it, please share it with the reader. Also please share, at least with me here on the talk page, what primary source unambiguously makes a direct claim that they considered Jesus a mere mortal, and hopefully link to it so I can read it for myself. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand your question. It doesn't matter what Epiphanius thinks is the most distinguishing feature of Ebionites. What matters is whether or not Epiphanius is a reliable source for information on Ebionites. As Ovadyah can painstakingly explain in detail, he isn't. As for the issue of providing you with sources which make "unambiguous" claims, the core problem with Ebionites is the fact that our knowledge of them is ambiguous due to the quality of the sources we currently have. --Loremaster 19:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So the only unambiguous primary source statement we have is the one by Epiphanius. Which you and Ovadyah say you have a lot of reasons why you can prove that Epiphanius is unreliable. Now what I would like to see in the article to resolve my concerns is a section header entitled Ebionites in Epiphanius where you and he can do just that. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would opposed to such a section since I don't think it is necessary in light of the information currently available in the article. (unsigned - Loremaster)

I thin kthe most telling thing is the thing you added, that I asked for a cite, then you removed again, about how Modern day Ebionite revivalists are the ones who find Epiphanius' claims contentious or objectionable... I think that is the real POV I am up against here and why you refuse to explore his claims in greater detail. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CS, this POV conspiracy theory of yours is getting quite tiresome. There is no neutral source for this claim that I made because it comes from my observation of the heated discussions that representatives of the Ebionite Jewish Community and the Ebionite Restoration Movement have had on this very talk page in the past. --Loremaster 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Situations_and_handling regarding Undue Weight. A minor point like this (held by a minority of editors) should be given an appropriate weight. There is no basis for the application of a Totally Disputed tag. Ovadyah 19:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work like that... It's not a minority of editors, the undue weight policy means a minority of cited sources... What editors think is supposed to be irrelevant, we are supposed to see what sources we can find that agree with our position. The guy in the run-on, Tabor, if I am reading it right, "relies" on this statement of Epiphanius, so the only bare mention it currently receives is from a cited source who gives credence to Epiphanius' claim. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also contacted Alecmconroy about reopening the RFC. Ovadyah 19:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also filed an incident report with AN/I over the mis-application of a totallydisputed tag. You can tell your story to the admins. Ovadyah 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't wait. Someone needs to see what is going on here. My reasons for the dispute are clearly laid out here in this section, and removing the tag while there is an ongoing dispute is just plain wrong. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that removing the tag may have been a mistake on Ovadyah's part. However, your reasons for the dispute are lame. --Loremaster 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to mention in my own defense, that I removed the totallydisputed tag because I feel that this action was improper and unethical. That was why I filed a complaint with AN/I. Ovadyah 22:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

...which failed when an admin pointed out to you that placing the tag was not an "incident" worthy of any administrative action, because there is indeed a content dispute... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I support both actions. --Loremaster 19:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Origen on Ebionites' supposed heresy

Origen's statement "The Ebionites deny this, saying that Jesus was born of a man and a woman in the same way we are." can't really be used to justify the assumption or claim that they rejected Christ's divinity... he instead seems to be saying yet again that they deny the Virgin Birth... Mainstream Christians also agree that he was fully human (as well as fully divine), being born of a woman at least if not a man... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The mainstream Christian claim that Jesus is divine is based on the notion that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit of God. If Mary was impregnated by Joseph, he cannot be divine unless one embraces an adoptionist view of Jesus's divinity. --Loremaster 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't assume that, and I also wouldn't assume that the Ebionites had even gotten around to thinking about all of that doctrine yet, because those are assumptions... All that came centuries later... If we assume the Ebionites denied Virgin Birth, it does not automatically follow that they denied Divinity... It is entirely possible that they employed a system of believing he was divine, but born of a man and woman, and no primary says one word to refute this. So let's not assume. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CS, you are the one making assumptions! What evidence is there that Ebionites employed a system of believing Jesus was divine? There isn't any! Enough with this wishful thinking already. --Loremaster 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not assuming that, I'm just saying neither should we assume the opposite if there is equally no primary evidence. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is that there is primary evidence which you choose to interpret in ways that a majority of academics do not. --Loremaster 23:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, when the citation you added for this simply says "Origen", it looks extremely sloppy... it should say what chapter number in Origen, or at a minimum which work of his... Same for all the other Anti-Nicene refs... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The style problems will all be fixed at the same time when we go over the Notes section as recently discussed. Ovadyah 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I added two more citations on the same subject. I will add more as I find them. Ovadyah 21:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll add Justin Martyr to the list: "..in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and is proved , that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I," (Dialogue, 48) Ovadyah 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds to me like the miaphysite position, ie that he was at once Christ (ie divine) and fully entered into creation as a full-fledged human, in one undivided nature...! Question is, was he talking about this sect? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that almost every academic who has studied the Ebionites argue that some of them may have held an adoptionist and/or arian christology? --Loremaster 00:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And this one from the Nicene Fathers on Symmachus and Ebionites. I'll just keep them coming.

Chapter XVII. The Translator Symmachus

As to these translators it should be stated that Symmachus was an Ebionite. But the heresy of the Ebionites, as it is called, asserts that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere man, and insists strongly on keeping the law in a Jewish manner, as we have seen already in this history. Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he appears to support this heresy by attacking the Gospel of Matthew. Origen states that he obtained these and other commentaries of Symmachus on the Scriptures from a certain Juliana, who, he says, received the books by inheritance from Symmachus himself. Ovadyah 01:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It just gets harder and harder to explain away all these references doesn't it. Ovadyah 01:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And this from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History:

Chapter XXVII.—The Heresy of the Ebionites.

1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.

2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.

3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.

4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.

5. The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord’s days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.

6. Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.

Is this enough, or shall I find more? Ovadyah 01:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I am learning quite a lot from studying these quotes, especially the last one from Eusebius. Eusebius paints a very clear picture indeed, of at least two different groups of early Christians calling themselves by the name of "the poor ones", one that definitely denied divinity and the the virgin birth, and the other that he says accepted at least the virgin birth, but not his divinity. He doesn't say anything about Angels, but the ones that had angelology might plausibly have kept this doctrine secret so that he wasn't aware of it. Since Jesus is alleged to have made references to "poor ones" in his sermons, more than one group of his earliest followers may have adopted this name before they settled on a name, let alone a fancy Christology. You have more than satisfied me that some authors do indeed allege some or all Ebionites denied his divinity, but don't let me stop you from keeping the quotes coming, since this is what I really wanted to see all along, and my awareness is growing with each new quote you dig up. If firsthand quotes such as these were included in the article, it would head off this kind of situation from arising in the future every so often, which is why many articles end up just putting the actual evidence right out front instead of trying to describe it. People don't really want to come to wikipedia to read an essay but to get the facts quickly; if our article is not going to present firsthand evidence, then all it is good for is to get the names of all the places where the firsthand quotes can be looked up, which is time consuming.

But I still think the Panarion evidence also ought to be included in its own section, for a fuller picture, the more you explain beforehand the less likely controversy will arise at every turn. I also want to apologize for being difficult but it seemed like you were trying to shut me out from the beginning instead of working with me, which can be infuriating. I don't know what you think my POV agenda is, because I don't even know what it is; I am far more interested in the original Ebionites than in any modern group as far as this article is concerned, and I strongly feel that considerations of modern revivalist groups ought not to dominate this article over the primary sources themselves, when they are so few and nearly all there is to go on. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Can we remove the totallydisputed tag now? --Loremaster 12:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well first I would like to know what is wrong with the addition I made about "Epiphanius is the only source that speaks of any angelology amongst the Ebionites." It seems to me that it is factually correct, and it still irks me that it was simply removed, even though factually correct, for reasons that amount to no more than a desire not to emphasize that point, gone somewhat overboard. I still maintain that the sentence that mentions "archangels" does so in the most abstruse manner possible, and assumes prior knowledge on the readers' part, aside from being grammatically a run-on sentence.ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't think this sentence is necesary or useful in light of the information provided in the article, specifically that we want to focus on providing the reader with the claims that most reliable patristic sources have in common. --Loremaster 21:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the comments from RFC below in - A way forward. If this doesn't do any good, I'm fine with going to arbitration. Ovadyah 22:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you think RFC means, but it stands for "Request for Comments". It means posting a message specifically asking as many editors as possible to give fresh views on a question, especially on articles that have grown stale through being dominated by a tiny number of voices. It tends to work against the interests of those who want to keep an article exclusive and private. Show me where such a message has been posted since this dispute began, because I haven't seen it and I do monitor the relevant RFC list. If it hasn't been done yet and nobody else does it, I'm going to try it myself, then if that doesn't work, then we go to arbitration. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Post it. Bring your complaint to RFC. Ovadyah 01:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The complaint to RFC has been posted, and in an extremely biased way I might add. CS, I have less of a problem with your ideas than I have with your behavior. All you have succeeded in doing is creating a poisoned well. And now you can drink from it's water. Ovadyah 16:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is this RFC? --Loremaster 19:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You can find it here. Ovadyah 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My proposal

What I would most like to see is something along the lines of other major articles that involve historiography of several primary sources, a good model is found here: Moses#Moses_in_historiography. You see how there are individual subsections entitled "Moses in Tacitus", "Moses in Strabo", "Moses in Manetho" followed mostly by direct relevant quotes from each author and a minimum of commentary and analysis? So for this article, there should be sections entitled "Ebionites in Epiphanius", "Ebionites in Jerome", "Ebionites in Origen" etc. clearly laying out what precious little the Primary sources do say, instead of the current editorial. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No. We decided against that some time ago. The editorial style is preferable to inline quotations. If you would like to write separate articles for each, you are welcome to get started. This is a general article on the historical Ebionites, not an article on Church Fathers. Ovadyah 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be opposed to it as well unless a consensus for it develops. --Loremaster 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, could you please explain why (and who) "decided" that the editorial style is preferable? The quotes I'm proposing would all be strictly about Ebionites, you know, it wouldn't be about Church Fathers any more than Moses is about Roman historians... It would make the article much more encyclopedic and clearer to find out precisely who said what about them, instead of second-hand and third-hand analysis written by parties with a vested interest or axe to grind. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We discussed the matter here in the context of inline quotes from the Panarion. We reached a concensus to use summaries. Nice try, but there is only one party here with a vested interest and an axe to grind. Ovadyah 21:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You call that "reaching a consensus?" ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I call that all the consensus we need. Ovadyah 22:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure ya do... I see in that discussion two editors who DO want inline quotes, and one very insistent editor who doesn't, and you call that a consensus in favor of not having them... More proof of why a multi-editor RFC is so desperately needed... I have encountered proprietary editors in my two years on wikipedia, but this is one of the most extreme cases I have ever seen... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with Ovadyah that we had reach a consensus or that the previous discussion of the matter is all the consensus we need. However, at the moment, there are 2 editors who prefer the current editorial style over the one you propose. Until the majority preference tilts in your favor, your proposal is rejected. PS. In all my years on Misplaced Pages, I have never encountered anyone so desperately trying to push a POV while claiming to not to be doing so while accussing others of doing the same thing. At least NazireneMystic was honest about pushing his POV at times... sort of. --Loremaster 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record I also opposed the removal of inline quotes from the Panarion. My views were ignored and the article (IMO) is the poorer without them. --Michael C. Price 09:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

CS is not asking for inline quotes in way the article use to have them and I disagree that the article is poorer without them since most good encyclopedic article try to avoid these types of inline quotes. That being said, I would tend to favor CS's proposal over returning to the previous version of the article that had those inline quotes you speak of. --Loremaster 09:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not accept that inline quotes are unencyclopedic. I've just checked my paper 1973 Britannica and it is peppered with extracts from letters and speeches.--Michael C. Price 09:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of that but I said good encyclopedic articles. --Loremaster 09:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, so another of your POV positions presented as "fact". --Michael C. Price 10:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I would encourage you to follow talk page guidelines by being polite, assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks. Second, I was refering to the good and featured Misplaced Pages articles I have read. None of them were peppered with as much inline quotes as this article used to have. --Loremaster 10:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't take the time to read through all this now, but I just wanted to say, welcome back Michael! I see you are already deep into the discusion. Ovadyah 14:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice to see many of the usual crowd here. --Michael C. Price 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My modest proposal

And I thought I had problems working with CS. You guys ever hear of a p-ss-ng contest? How's this for an idea. Why don't we change partners. I have no problem at all working with Michael. Michael, why don't you and I develop ideas together on the talk page and present our joint ideas to CS and Loremaster for comments. CS and Loremaster can do the same. I know this probably sounds hopelessly naive, but it's got to be better than this sniping. Ovadyah 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how such discussions can be ring-fenced. I think we just have to try to be more dispassionate. --Michael C. Price 12:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I'm good with dispassionate. Ovadyah 15:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A way forward

One thing I see we're running into here is a debate on how to weight various ancient primary sources-- which are reliable and which are not? But in doing this, we run into trouble, because that approach basically would constitute original research-- us looking over the sources and deciding which is best.

Instead, we should let the reliable secondary sources do their job for us, and let them guide us in how to weight the primary sources. Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman for example, is one I would pull out that does a very good job of explaining the Ebionites.

Now, I see CS disputes the idea that the Ebionites rejected Jesus's divinity. I have never encountered that viewpoint myself, but of course, I'm far from an expert. There's nothing wrong with mentioning minority viewpoints, so long as they are CONTEMPORARY viewpoints-- which is to say-- are there multiple reliable sources that hold that the Ebionites viewed Jesus as an arch-angel? If there are many such sources and it's a widely-held minority view, it's fine to give it a mention. If it's just the opinion of a few historical sources which are not generally respected, then we probably don't need to mention every opinion ever held about the Ebionites, unless we wanted to create a separate article that is a complete survey of every single primary source on the Ebionites.

Anyway, my suggestion would be to snag a copy of Lost Christianities, which is the only "Popular Science"-style book I can think of that covers the Ebionites, and then basically to snag its structure and assertions and use it as the basis for the article, adding in the notable minority POVs and additional details as needed. The main direction this article needs to go, I think, is to be more accessable. How to weight the primary sources is a second question. Both issues can be solved by turning to some of the contemporary popular-biblical-scholarship works. --Alecmconroy 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Alec, thanks for your perspective. I'm embarrased to say, I have looked through Lost Christianities in the bookstore, but I don't own a copy. I'll fix that problem today. You have mentioned this as a useful template before, and we need to give it serious consideration.

With regard to the viewpoint of Jesus as an archangel, I can't think of another encyclopedic summary that mentions it. It derives from a single source, Epiphanius, who has internal contradictions in his testimony as well, as I demonstrated. With regard to contemporary scholarship, I don't know of any credible sources that favor this view. Those that mention it at all attribute it to a Gnostic sect known as the Elcasites.

With regard to the viewpoint that the Ebionites regarded Jesus to be divine (in the Son of God sense) I don't know of ANY sources, historical or modern, scholarly or encyclopedic, that report this. It is a POV that simply does not exist in the literature. I think at some point, it's up to editors that hold to this POV, no matter what or how much evidence is presented to the contrary, to put up or shut up.

BTW, for those who may not know, Alec is from RFC. Ovadyah 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs of early Christians

I wrote the following sentence in the lead of the Ebionites article:

in contrast to the dominant Christian sects that came to believe Jesus was the incarnation of God the Son and the savior of mankind.

My point was not to imply that early Christians did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and only started to after 325 CE. It was to reflect that the fact that the early Christian view of Jesus was not as monolithic as many people think it was, and that it evolved over time. The Arian controversy being the best example of this fact. I'm open to finding a better way to convey this to the reader. --Loremaster 02:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But you aren't contrasting them with the Arian sects. You're contrasting them with the 'dominant' ie Orthodox sects and there is no clear evidence that they ever "evolved" as you put it, a belief in Jesus divinity. I know some people hold this POV, but it is controversial and should not be stated as fact, as well as directly contradicts the evidence of the 4 canonical Gospels as we know them. So please go back to the more neutral wording approved by Alex. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As always, you are misinterpreting what we say. --Loremaster 02:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well are you going to explain then, or just make ad hominems? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's quite simple. It is a fact that the nature of Jesus's divinity was debated before and after his death among Christians. However, over time, a consensus began to build which ultimately led to the Nicene Creed of the First Council of Nicea. --Loremaster 06:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not an established fact that the debate started before Jesus's death. The sources were not compiled until decades later. --Michael C. Price 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course but these sources imply that the debate started before Jesus's death. --Loremaster 09:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your POV whether you believe that, of course. Either way, it is still not as simple as you stated. --Michael C. Price 09:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing simple about stating that there was a debate. --Loremaster 09:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but there is in stating that it is a "simple" fact that is started prior to Jesus's death. --Michael C. Price 09:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* When I said "simple", I meant that what I said should be easy to understand without extensive explanation. --Loremaster 10:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And obviously it wasn't simple, otherwise you wouldn't still be trying to explain it now. And, BTW before we lose sight of where we started from, your original statement is still incorrect: it is not an established fact that the debate over Jesus's divinity started before Jesus's death. --Michael C. Price 10:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that we are still trying to explain it now is my very point. There always was and always will be a debate. And like I said before, all the sources we have, regardless of how unfair and unbalanced they may be, try to convince us that there was a debate before the death of Jesus. That's the fact that I am alluding to. --Loremaster 10:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all the sources. And the early debates were over whether Jesus was the messsiah (Davidic "son of Man"); only later did this expand to include whether he was the divine "son of God".--Michael C. Price 10:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm refering to Luke 9:18-24 and similar passages in canonical and extra-canonical sources. --Loremaster 10:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark would be an earlier source, of course, but even so there is nothing in Luke 9:18-24 that addresses Jesus's divinity. It is, as I said, a debate over whether Jesus is choosen by God to be the messiah or "son of Man".--Michael C. Price 10:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The question of the divinity of Jesus is interwoven with these terms in light of everything else that is said in the gospels. --Loremaster 10:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That being said, I don't see why were are debating this since I've already agreed to a compromise that should satisfy both CS and Alec. Good night, Michael. --Loremaster 10:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We were discussing it because you made a dismissive, incorrect statement. --Michael C. Price 10:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I obviously disagree that my statement was incorrect and I resent the accusation that I was being dismissive. Are we done? --Loremaster 11:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to have specific evidence that backs up your claim, yes we are done.--Michael C. Price 11:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I've given you specific evidence but we don't interpret it the same way. Understood with the context of the rest of the gospels, the issue of the divinity of Jesus is linked to how the disciples interpreted the nature of the Messiah or the Son of Man. Regardless, this is a tangential issue, which at this late time at night, I am not interested in researching and supporting more than I already have. --Loremaster 11:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the gospel evidence for Jesus's divinity comes from John c. 90–110, which was the last written. By contrast the earliest synoptic gospel, Mark c. 68–73, has no such evidence, which suggests (to me, anyway) that the debate started some considerable time after Jesus's death. I don't see how this can be regarded as a tangential issue to the Ebionite position and historicity. Regardless, sleep well. --Michael C. Price 11:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

By divinity, I am refering to a close relationship to God as either his prophet, his Son, one of his angels, God himself, etc. Anyway, sleep well. --Loremaster 11:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A pretty broad definition of "divinity" not shared by most people (including the Ebionites who would have accepted Jesus's divinity by this usage, which they did not). Moses would also be divine by this standard. --Michael C. Price 11:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

True but its tangential because the issue was whether or not early Christians came to believe he was divine or always thought he was divine from Day 1. Wait a minute... Doesn't your argument backs up the notion that early Christians came to believe was divine years later? :) --Loremaster 12:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some of them -- but evidently not the Ebionites (although that might depend on whether you classify them as "early Christians"). Your use of the smiley puzzles me, and leads me to wonder what assumptions you have made about my beliefs.  :-) --Michael C. Price 12:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's fine to say that the sect which believed in Jesus's divinity came to become dominant. The old text, however, said that the dominant sect came to believe in Jesus's divinity. It's a subtle distinction, and easy to miss, but I tend to think CS is correct to point it out. It's sort of beyond the scope of the article about whether proto-orthodox christianity always believed in Jesus's divinity or whether they came to believe that over time. Fortunately, it's not something we have to debate on this article-- it's sufficient for us to just mention that the Ebionites were unlike proto-orthodox on this issue, so as to explain Ebionites by contrast. --Alecmconroy 09:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that compromise. --Loremaster 09:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also comfortable with it. I have stayed out of this debate (whew!), but Loremaster is right about this. Both Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria comment that all the knowledge of the apostles had been lost. It's an argument for another day in another article. Ovadyah 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that I have read through all the comments in this section, I need to make comment myself. Michael is absolutely right that almost all the testimony (not evidence) about Jesus' divinity comes from the gospel of John, the last gospel written. He is also correct that the gospel of Mark in no way makes this connection. Mark has what Bart Erhman would call a Separationist Christology. I should also add that the Western text of the gospel of Luke has an Adoptionist Christology. All extant sources of Western text prior to the 5th century are adoptionist as are all the readings from Luke by the early Church Fathers. But, by the 6th century, none of the manuscript readings are adoptionist. All of this is laid out brilliantly in Bart Ehrman's, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture". Therefore, it's an over-generalization to say in the lead that all four canonical gospels support the divinity of Jesus as understood by mainstream Christianity. You may have been conditioned from birth to believe this, but the evidence from the texts themselves tells a different story. Ovadyah 14:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. What stance the four canonical gospels take on Jesus's divinity is another hotly disputed issue, and just as above, it too is a can of worms we don't need to debate in order to explain the Ebionites. I remove the reference to the four canonical gospels. I also notice in the next sentence that we say the Ebionite strictly adhered to Jesus' interpretation of the law-- that too is problematic, as _all_ variants of christianity would say THEY are adhereing to Jesus's interpretation of the law. I left it as is since I couldn't think off the top of my head how best to reword it, and thought i'd defer to the experts. :) --Alecmconroy 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest changing the text from and therefore tried to be strict adherents to Jesus' interpretation of the Law, to and therefore tried to be strict adherents to their interpretation of the Law, since it is not clear what extent they were influenced by other members of the Desposyni, such as John the Baptist. --Michael C. Price 21:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this suggestion. --Loremaster 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Reasons would be helpful. --Michael C. Price 12:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the influence of Desposyni is unclear as you say, we should stick with what we know. --Loremaster 12:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so I'll replace Jesus's interpretation with their interpretation. --Michael C. Price 12:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This probably the only thing I would strongly object to since we do know that Ebionites adhere to Jesus' interpretation of the Law. Their very name comes from the sermon he made on the subject. Ovadyah has backed up this claim quite extensively. --Loremaster 13:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Which, the origin of the name, or the adherence to specifically Jesus's interpretation of the Law, as opposed to John's? Any pointers, Ovadyah? --Michael C. Price 13:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't know what influence John had on their interpretation of the Law, but we do know from Hippolytus that the Ebionites emulated Jesus in following the Law, and saw him as following it perfectly. You could say something like "they followed what they believed to be Jesus' interpretation of the Law." Assuming Hippolytus can be trusted as a witness, then the above statement is as close as we can get to truth. Ovadyah 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hyppolytus seems to be saying that the Ebionites lived according to the customs of the Mosaic Law "They live, however, in all respects according to the law of Moses, alleging that they are thus justified." 10:18 and that Jesus conformed to this law. It doesn't say they lived according to Jesus's (or John's) interpretation of the law. I think it is safer to say that they lived according to their interpretation of Mosaic Law and stay silent about who they interpreted it through (although I expect that their current leader (John/ Jesus/ James) would have a lot to say about this). --Michael C. Price 15:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. --Loremaster 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, reasons would be helpful. --Michael C. Price 17:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a secondary source referenced in the article that makes this connection more explicitly. I should have mentioned it before. Sorry for the oversight. Ovadyah 18:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a good call Ovad and Alec... it's getting more neutral all the time, but there is still a ways to go. Maybe insert "attempted to" into that sentence, since after all that is the most anyone can do is attempt...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, could someone please reset the margins in this section? This is the first time I have ever seen a discussion disappear off the right hand side from all the :'s...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I approve of the current version of the Lead. Moving on to something else. --Loremaster 20:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites and Qumran

What is really amazing, while I was just now looking through my personal library for sources on the Ebionites, I picked up a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls. It points out that the self-description "Ebionites" (Ebionim, poor ones) runs throughout the Qumran scrolls... It makes clear that this is primary name by which the Qumran community, whoever wrote the scrolls, called themselves... If I can get this information from any book on the Dead Sea Scrolls, why can't it be mentioned in a wikipedia article about the Ebionites? Instead it states "there is no archeological evidence they ever existed" and "almost everything known about them comes from patristics", mentioning a few classical documents thought to be Ebionite connected, but not even a word about Qumran or Dead Sea Scrolls. What's up? Does the whole article have to be re-written now to reflect a reality that is easily verifiable? Or has this previously been determined to be "irrelevant"? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It amazes me what unread people come up with. The Essenes referred to themselves collectively as the Yahad (Unity) in their own literature. They also sometimes called themselves Aniyim (the Meek). In a few instances, the leader of the group was called the Poor One (singular). Ovadyah 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not so, according to my books on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Well yes, actually this is true, but if you are implying that that is the whole story and that they also did not frequently refer to themselves as "Ebionim" in the plural, then no, not so. (By "Essenes" in your comment I presume you mean the DSS authors of Qumran, since that's who we're talking about in this section) Specifically cited are 4Q434 and 4Q436, and even the very same phrase from the Beatitudes, "the poor in spirit" is used in War Scroll xi. 10 and Community Rule iv. 3. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered book includes whole chapter that is a lengthy discussion about how these references must have been to the same Ebionites later associated with James and described by Eusebius et al., pp 233-236. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Barki Nafshi (4Q434) was the text I was thinking of specifically. I'm pretty sure "the poor" is singular in Hebrew, even though it's never translated that way in English (For he has delivered the soul of the poor.) Eisenman explains this in one of his books. I can't say for sure about the others without access to the Hebrew text. Ovadyah 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's strange that Eisenman / Wise state twice, on p. 186 and 234, that the term Ebionites is used throughout the DSS corpus, but the only Hebrew text example they give for this, 4Q434, is as you say in the singular... But they do mention the War Scroll and Community Rule and also Ebionei-Hesed in Hymns v. 23, but they don't provide the Hebrew for those... I don't know, strangest of all is that they devote a whole chapter to talking all about the Ebionites and how they are mentioned in the plural, just before they present the Barki Nafshi where it only appears as a singular... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Both the Essenes and early Christians described themselves as "the Way". However, the scholarly consensus is that Essenes and early Christians were unrelated groups which undoubtedly drew their doctrines from Jewish ideas circulating in their respective time period. Many would argue that the same could be said of Essenes and Ebionites. Regardless, I am not opposed to a minor mention of a possible connection between Essenes and Ebionites as discussed by Tabor. --Loremaster 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This section was about the Qumran community calling themselves Ebionim, I didn't say anything about Essenes in this section, but both you and Ovad actually, all three of you responded as if I had. Are you assuming that the Qumran Community were Essenes? Because I know that if there's one thing that is uncertain, it's that the Qumran community were Essene. But there is a lot of professional opinions about if or how the following four 1st century groups were interelated: Essenes, Qumran, Ebionim, and Early Christians. (And that's not even bringing in others like Nazoreans or Gnostics into the equation.) I don't even know if there is any such thing as a "consensus". Some like Larson would say that all four were different stages of the same thing, others (who?) might say Essenes, Qumran, Ebionim and Early Christians were all distinct and unrelated groups. But I think the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls make numerous self references to Ebionim, coupled with the fact that much of secondary Dead Sea Scroll literature eg. Eisenman & Wise' Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, discusses this fact and can be quoted as saying that they were the Ebionites of James and Eusebius, p. 236, is significant enough to warrant a mention at least that the Qumran Community (not necessarily Essenes) referred to themselves by this same title. That fact is so commonplace it would just make the article look silly to try to cover it up or deny it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying that both the Ebionites and Qumran Community referred to themselves as "the Poor" isn't a problem in itself, unless you plan to argue that this proves Qumran Community = Ebionites. Then you run into the same problems as "the Way" mentioned earlier by Loremaster. Over-enthusiastic religious scholars tried to use this common terminology to "prove" a connection between the Qumran Community and early Christians. Ovadyah 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see the value of mentioning that both the Ebionites and the Qumran Community referred to themselves as "the Poor" IF there is no evidence that the two groups are directly related. There are numerous examples of early (Pauline) Christians co-opting Jewish names to refer to themselves. So what? --Loremaster 04:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the entire section 43 in the 7th chapter of Eisenman and Wise's Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered discusses the evidence thoroughly. I'm only bringing in an expert source that is readily available. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have access to it this weekend. I'm looking forward to reading through it again. Ovadyah 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good find, I'll check my Dead Sea Scrolls library as well. Hmmm... I see that the Essenes, like the Ebionites, were vegetarians. Coincidence? --Michael C. Price 17:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites were said to be vegetarians by Epiphanius. To imply that is an undisputed fact would be pushing a POV. That being said, to answer your question, yes and no. Many Jewish ascetic groups may have embraced religious vegetarianism but this obviously cannot be automatically considered evidence that all these groups were directly related to each other. --Loremaster 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How amusing. Facts, it seems, are only "undisputed" when you agree with them (such as your claim that the divinity of Jesus was debated prior to his death).--Michael C. Price 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if I am mistaken about the divinity of Jesus being debated before his death. However, even you agree with me that is fact that the nature of the divinity of Jesus was debated after his death. --Loremaster 02:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I still fail to see the point you're trying to make here. I mean, of course Jesus's divinity was debated later, viz the First Council of Nicaea, whose past existence really is undisputed. --Michael C. Price 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thepoint is that CS didn't want a sentence in the article to reflect the fact that you just mentioned. That was the real issue not this tangent about whether or not there was a debate about the divinity of Jesus before his death. In other words, we have been on the same side of this issue from the beginning. --Loremaster 09:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The canonical Gospels make clear testimony that Jesus' divinity was hotly debated even before his death, eg the 'Who do men say that I am?" conversation etc. and many others... But the canonical Gospels, or at least 3 of them, as we know them, also make it clear what their authors' own standpoint is on the debate, which we can assume is the standpoint of that group that became dominant enough to make these texts canonical. It's also undeniable that the same question of Jesus' divinity was hotly debated by various groups of followers after his death. But the canonical Gospel testimony is that the central disciples who became the core "dominant group", the ones whom you were contrasting the Ebionite faction with in that sentence, had already come to this conclusion before his death, and didn't "come to that conclusion" afterwards. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If by the 'Who do men say that I am?" conversation you refer to Luke 9, then (as I explained to Loremaster) I can't agree that they were debating Jesus's divinity. They were debating Jesus's messianic claims, which is something entirely different. Only the Gospel of John (the last written) places claims about Jesus's divinity before his death.--Michael C. Price 15:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, imho, that's exactly right. Jesus was regarded to be a prophet (and a false prophet by his enemies), but what is much less clear were his messianic claims or claims made about him. If the canonical gospels give clear testimony of anything, it's Roman power. The victors get to rewrite the history books and decide what is in or out. The central disciples, as you put it, are depicted as uncomprehending dolts and doubters prior to Jesus' death by the Pauline gospel writers. What do you suppose is the reason for all the appearance stories afterwards, where the risen Jesus has to convince them that he is for real. Ovadyah 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Give precedence to modern sources

In general, I would suggest using only modern secondary sources in the construction of the article. How to weight the primary sources is something no one will be able to agree upon. How can we weight the reliability of a 2nd century source from a critic who regarded the Ebionites as heretical-- there will be no way to agree.

The best bet, therefore, is to see what modern scholarly views of the Ebionites exist-- let the modern scholars sort through all the primary source discussions, and let us just summarize the major POVs held by modern scholars. If you want to answer "Who were the Ebionites?", that's the only way to do it.

Now, the one exception to this would be if you wanted to create a very thorough sub-article that details all the major ancient sources that describe the Ebionites. That would be a very big undertaking, and one which would have to be done very well in order to comply with NPOV. i.e. You'd have to make an article that discusses practically all extant sources, not just the ones that agree with any one particular points of view. I think that such sub-article wouldn't be worth the effort-- at least not until the main article is good enough that it's a featured article.

In the end, it's not important what Epiphanius or Clement or Origen believed about the Ebionites-- all that's important is what reliable scholars today believe about the Ebionites, having taken all the existing evidence into consideration and weighed it. Mentioning the existing debates among major modern sources is fine-- by and large, it will mirror the debates that existed among ancient sources. But we should be citing 20th century scholars, not 2nd century ones.

So, did the Ebionites view Jesus as an arch-angel? I don't know. Epiphanius apparently says so-- but does anyone trust his viewpoint? If that's an active debate we can find contemporary published sources arguing about, then mention it. If it's not something that is seriously considered, then don't give it undue weight by mentioning it.

The thing is-- it's important not to do our own Original Research using the primary sources. The Qumran thing is a perfect example-- it might be easy to conclude that if the dead sea scrolls use the term Ebionite, there much necessarily be some connection-- but in practice, I've never head anyone make that speculation before that the Qumran group were the Ebionites. It makes sense-- but that's the dangerous of original research-- we might wind up decided that thousands of non-christian greeks were gnostics just because they self-applied the term "gnosis", for example. :) ..

So, I guess my argument is to _try_, as hard as possible, to just present in a straightforward way what things ARE known about the Ebionites, without having to go to the primary sources or quote from them directly in the article text. If you really really want to go into full detail about all the primary sources, make a sub-article on it, but it's going to be difficult to do well. :)

Just my two cents. --Alecmconroy 11:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for your input. --Michael C. Price 11:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. However, proceeding in this manner argues against putting inline quotes from primary sources in the article. As Alec just mentioned, that would be doing our own original research using the primary sources. I think this also settles the issue of connecting Qumran / Essenes to Ebionites, ie. don't do it. Ovadyah 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that including inline quotes is the only way to avoid endless future debates. Also I don't read Alec as banning this proposed practice (which is common across Misplaced Pages) -- he's just objecting the text appearing in the article text directly, but I (and everybody else, it seems?) was happy for the quotes to appear shunted off into the reference section. But heck, I'll ask him.--Michael C. Price 14:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not MY speculation... I have stated repeatedly the book where I found that idea, where the case is made: Eisenman and Michael Wise, the Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, section 43, p 233 ff. and p. 186. Since it seems no one else has located this yet, let me provide some direct quotes:

From p. 186: "The movement that seems subsequently to have developed also came to be called the Ebionites (i.e. 'the Poor Ones'), a term of self-designation running the gamut of Qumran documents..."

From p. 233 ff: "It is important to see the extent to which the terminology Ebionim ('the Poor') and its synonyms penetrated Qumran literature... It is clear from the Pauline corpus that in some sense the community following the leadership of James the Just (known in the literature as 'the brother of Jesus', whatever is meant by that designation) - the so called Jerusalem Church or Jerusalem Community - were called 'the Poor' (Gal. 2:10, also Jas. 2:3-5)... As tradition proceeds, it becomes clear that the Ebionim (the so-called Ebionites) or 'the Poor' is the name by which the community descending from James' Jerusalem Community in Palestine goes. In all likelihood, it descends from the one we are studying in these materials as well. This movement, called by some 'Jewish Christianity'... honoured the person and teaching of this James..." (he then goes on to discuss Eusebius and several other aspects of what we know about the Ebionites)

Gentlemen and / or Ladies, the above extract is not my own personal view or research... what we have above is a secondary source, quoting the primary sources, to make the argument for the school of thought out there, that says the Qumran community who called themselves "Ebionim" were at least connected with the later "Ebionites"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It does look that way. --Michael C. Price 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, so the idea is to find everywhere in the NT where the word poor appears and say they must really be talking about the Jerusalem Church. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and poor just means poor. This is just pseudo-scholarship. Ovadyah 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I told you before that Eisenman is completely discredited as far as his views on Qumran, yet you don't hesitate to use the same material to "prove" that Qumran = Jerusalem Church = Ebionites. You can't be serious. Ovadyah 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Whenever it gets to this stage, I like to call it 'raising the bar impossibly high'... no matter what standard is met, just raise it a little higher... you say there is nothing to connect the Ebionites with Qumran... except when something is found in a primary source, and a secondary source comments on it, ot's still not good enough... So what would it take? If saying "we are the Ebionites" in the Dead Sea Scrolls is not good enough, what hypothetical standard would satisfy you? I suppose it doesn't count because they didn't say "Mother may I" or "Simon says" "We are the Ebionites"... What if they had written "We are the Ebionites" and then signed it? Ah, but they forgot to dot the I, so it's invalid... Come on... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

CS, I was ok when we were talking about the texts themselves. You know what the issue is there, whether "the Poor" is really singular or plural. In the one example we talked about, it was singular. We don't know for sure about the others without access to the Hebrew. That's just a fact. We also considered the example of "the Way", and how Christian scholars deceived themselves in trying to find a link between Qumran and the early Church. Alecmconroy commented on this very point regarding the Ebionites. And now we have Eisenman. Go read the reviews of his books for yourself and of him as a scholar. Some of them are scathing rebukes of his findings and his methods. All I am doing is summarizing what I understand to be the majority view. Go look at some other encyclopedias. Do you find this kind of thing in the Catholic or Jewish encyclopedias. I doubt it. And why? Because it's fringe research. So again, we come down to undue weight and how to weigh minority sources. There is no easy answer, but there has to be a reasonable limit. And there's no reason to get snotty. This is not a test of wills. It's about having some kind of minimum standards. Ovadyah 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and NOR

Ignoring for the moment definitions, process issues, style issues, and Loremaster's actions, what are your specific objections as far as the content of the article, if any? I want to be able to lay these out and address them one by one. Ovadyah 19:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Said another way, what are "the long-standing and widespread violation of WP:NOR going on here" and "a gross violation of WP:NPOV" as they relate to the specific content of the article? Ovadyah 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As I explained above, Michael's assertion that Tabor's views are not being respected is ridiculous when he is one of the few scholars mentioned by name in this article *and* the one only one who has two paragraphs based on his views. However, the article cannot be about every single opinion that James Tabor has about Ebionites. That would not be NPOV. It is clear to me that Micheal adhere to the belief that John the Baptist was the first leader of the Ebionites (rather than someone they revered as a forerunner to Jesus) and wants to push this POV that is not supported by primary sources. --Loremaster 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me Loremaster. I would like to hear directly from Michael. Michael, other than Loremaster-related issues, what are your issues with the content of the article? Ovadyah 00:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood. However, I am concerned that Micheal is engaging in Misplaced Pages:WikiLawyering. --Loremaster 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) --Loremaster 01:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I am concerned that you misrepresent core, non-negotiable Wiki policies whenever it suits you, despite the repeated corrections offered.--Michael C. Price 01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ovadyah, I'd rather discuss the generic effects of the long-standing and widespread violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV here and leave the discussion of specific content issues to the rest of the talk page (which is its function). The generic problem with the article is that rather than presenting divergent multiple viewpoints of a topic the article often attempts a topic synthesis (prohibited by WP:NOR) which presents every viewpoint incorrectly or incompletely (violation of WP:NPOV).

For reference I quote (with added emphasis) from Misplaced Pages:Five pillars about WP:NPOV:

Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics.

--Michael C. Price 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Ebionites should sthrive to respect these guidelines. So in regards to Tabor's views on John the Baptist as Ebionite leader, I have no problem it being mentioned in the History section since the Lead should be a general overwiew of the content of the article. --Loremaster 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you propose as the way forward? Ovadyah 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Generically,

1. include quotes from the Panarion where they are required to support a statement in the article (hide the quotes within the reference string if need be to prevent them being too obtrusive, while still being immediately accessible to the reader).
2. make the existing notes/refs much more specific. At the moment they are very vague: we need article/book titles, page numbers and quotes where required.
3. expand syntheses of multiple viewpoints into separate viewponts with their own referenced sources.

--Michael C. Price 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I only object to including quotes from Panarion for reasons I've explained several times in the past. The rest is fine with me since I was the person to suggest it in the past but chose against it. --Loremaster 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you objecting to the quotes being in the reference string? If so why? --Michael C. Price 01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with 2. and 3. We were just getting ready to revamp the Notes and Reference sections when CS turned our attention to other matters. I'm not sure I'm there with 1., but I wouldn't mind seeing a working example laid out on the Talk page to compare before and after. This is a long-running battle between you and Loremaster, but I'm not sure the rest of us understand it completely. Ovadyah 01:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I mean something like:

Some believe the Ebionites worshipped aliens

Clicking on the reference takes the reader to the 3rd reference:

3. Erich von Däniken, Chariots of the Gods "the Ebionites worshipped the star-gods from Sirius", page 100, paragraph four

.

And the reader can return to the same place in the article by clicking the reference carat. --Michael C. Price 02:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood what you meant from the beginning since I have no problem with this. On the contrary, it's what I've been encouraging all along. --Loremaster 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Because you guys have been going at each other for so long over this, would you mind if I get the RFC (ie. Alec) to comment on this too? Ovadyah 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The more feedback the better.--Michael C. Price 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll let Alec know, and then I'm taking a break from editing to hear what he has to say. Ovadyah 02:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the irony in this? Maybe it's just me. :) Ovadyah 02:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you mean, is it ironic that we've now agreed to insert quotes from the Panarion that were so laboriously removed months ago? Well yes it is ironic. And a few other words spring to mind as well.... but you probably mean something else. --Michael C. Price 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am still opposed to having quotes in the text of the article itself. However, I have no problem with them being mentioned in the footnotes like you suggest so there is no irony. Both Ovadyah and I were opposed to suggestion because you didn't explain yourself clearly enough from the outset. --Loremaster 09:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The irony I was referring to was all of the back and forth accusations and recrimination vs. how quickly we all came together once the actual reasons for the dispute were made clear. Ovadyah 14:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC Comments

Alec can you add any insights to the above discussion on NPOV and NOR, particularly the last suggestion about inline references? Ovadyah 02:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of inline references now that I understand what Micheal meant. --Loremaster 02:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I support it too. Ovadyah 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I already dropped a note on Alec's talk page, are there any other outstanding issues, or can we beat our swords into ploughshares? CS, any other issues we need to bring to RFC? Ovadyah 02:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Alec is far from a natural party. A review of the archived pages make this point very clear. He knowingly gave false imformation during a deletion hearing that directly effected the Ebionite artical the deleteion log can be found here.Ebionite Restoration Movement Considering Ovadyah's and his extream POV I do not see how any input from these two would help to correct this artical and pull it out of its frudulant articl status in which he acted along with Ovadyah as Meatpuppets. Considering Ovadyah's and his extream POV they had no bussiness voting in the hearing let along give the false witness they gave as reasons for thier vote. I do not see how any input from these two would help to correct this artical and pull it out of "frudulant artical status" On my talkpage you can see he even asked to join our group which he did and knows first hand there are about 400 members in only one of a half dozen groups we run.

Most of the online public domain references of Scholars mentioned in the article counterdict and or broaden the narrow prospective of their POV and this is why the article almost entirely relies on citations that are beyond the ability of most readers to verify. Even down to the outdated Ebionite reference by Birtanica the artical is linked to in no way reflects the changes they made after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. DO a SEARCH of Ebionites and scroll down till you find the Birtanica artical and then let these biased editors explain why they have the outdated artical linked. If this artical was less obscure the insane tactics used to form this artical would not had been allowed that let an religous follower of the articals featured group eather surpress much material,misrepresent cited scholars,and ad disclaimers ot the few ideas mention in the artical that are contrary to the teachings of his president.

There are many lose ends still remaining in the artical. Schopes for one thing. What can be found on line supports a totaly different Ebionite Then Ovadyah 's religous POV will allow so instead of using what can be found in the net we must rely on this editors personal libarary.

The online reference given to support leaving the Barnabus text actual named as many scholars that claimed it was based on a Gnostic text as an Ebionite text but keeping to the frudulant nature taken throughout this artical the mention of it maybe being based on a "Gnostic or Ebionite" text was removed.

Keith Akers, a Scholar cited in the artical was so pourly misreprented in the artical he wrote an artical about this artical in his website.

On this talk page someone said not mentioning a Scholar's claim that the Clementine writings were wrongfuly atributed to Ebionite's would be biased it is also biased to site such scholar while at the same time citing "Schopes" in a summery mannor that would lead the reader into thinking he also agrees with such nonsence. Read the artical and what does it APPEAR that he claims? does it look anything like this? http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28195203%2971%3A1%3C58%3AAFZRU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N&size=LARGE

As far as the subject that created the current dispute debate not only wasthe issue in question problemic to a certain religous group but most all the early christian witnesses including the earlest ones claimed He was the Messiah because he forfilled the law and when Ebionites forfill the law THEY TO BECOME messiah. This no dough is a problem for the articals featured group and the reason for its surpression. It is very clear these sources make such claims and it is also clear this is in direct conflict with Yah's religous dogma.

As regarding thw law that made them into Messiah's the Literal Written Torah had little to do with it.

Quoting Epiphanius: The Ebionites "do not accept Moses' Pentateuch in its entirety; certain sayings they reject... stating Christ has revealed this to me, and will blespheme most of the legislation" (Panarion 30.18.7-9).

I know Epiphanius is a main target among the POV headhunters envolved in this artical even to the point some scholars that do not see him as problemic are made to appear so with the summery style artical.

(Origen, quoted by Schliemann). Yeshua/Jesus, they asserted, "was justified by fulfilling the Law. He was the Christ of God, since not one of the rest of mankind had observed the Law completely. Had any one else fulfilled the commandments of the Law, he would have been the Christ." Hence "when Ebionites thus fulfill the law, they are able to become Christs, for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in like sense with all humanity." (Hippolytus, Refut. Omn. Haer. vii. 34).

While some use the dead sea scrolls to support parts of the artical a very important reality that agrees with Schopes, clements, Akers, church fathers and others is Dead Sea Scroll expert Prof. John Allegro in is book, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of Christianity, he writes: “It is a fact that the Qumran Library has profoundly affected the study of the Johannine writings and many longheld conceptions have had to be radically revised. No longer can John be regarded as the most Hellenistic of the Evangelists; his gnosticism, and the whole framework of his thought is seen now to spring directly from a Jewish sectarianism rooted in Palestinian soil, and his material recognized as founded in the earliest layers of Gospel traditions.”

While Schopes was not able to study these documents it is worth noting the very spiritual Hebrew text he mentions is not only disregarded as scriptures but Jews and Christians They were among the most abundant fragments among the dead sea scroll!

No one from the Spiritual Ebionite prospective has attempted to add POV into the artical but only to correct the artical to present an accurate factual Ebionite artical.

If you look in the archive pages you will find Alec, tell me citing P.H.D.ed religous scholars reprinting articals written by Allan Cronwshaw as a type of first hand research of MINE since im one of his group but this susposed "Good Artical" presently has the king of Yah's religous group as a reference source and this source is dorectly from his won works.LOL

Many Many lose ends. NazireneMystic

• Peer review requests not specifying archive
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Old requests for peer review