Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ignocrates (talk | contribs) at 12:34, 17 June 2013 (added 7th quotebox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gospel of the Ebionites

Gospel of the Ebionites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Gospel of the Ebionites/archive1

• Featured article review/Gospel of the Ebionites/archive1

Nominator(s): Ignocrates (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This GA article has recently been through a 2nd peer review to prepare it for FAC, and it is now ready for FA review. Ignocrates (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by ColonelHenry

I haven't taken an in-depth view of the article (more to come, possibly), but on first glance, I am not quite taken with the different two different systems of notes/citations. From how I see it, this would run afoul of criterion 2c's call for "consistent citations"--and I think it a salient point considering notes, citations, sources and further reading takes up 60% of the article's spatial arrangement.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. In fact, I originally had the sfn citations outside of and immediately preceding the notes. I decided to embed them at the beginning of the notes for the following reasons: (1) it gives the main body a cleaner look, (2) the sfn citations are just as visible whether they are inside or outside the notes, and (3) there is no ambiguity about which sfn citations and notes belong together. Thanks for your comment. Ignocrates (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, (4) I used the reference format of the feature article George Harrison as a template for this article. Ignocrates (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Although the reference format chosen would not be my own preference, it seems to me wholly proper. Separating informative footnotes from verifiabilty citations is good practice (letting the reader know whether clicking on a ref will bring up a nugget of information or just a citation) and I don't think there is any conflict here with the "consistent citation" criterion. – Tim riley (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Support – I peer reviewed this article. My few, not very substantial, queries were dealt with then. The text seems to me to be well-shaped, balanced in content, very readable and (so far as I am capable of judging) comprehensive. An additional image might enhance the look of the page, but perhaps there's nothing relevant to this very specialised topic. As I have mentioned, above, the referencing strikes me as fine, and is both full and varied in range of sources. In my opinion this article meets the criteria for FA. It is a credit to the nominator and to Misplaced Pages (I have done a spot of Googling and found nothing else on the web anything like as good on the subject). – Tim riley (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment Capitalization and links seem erratic. Why "East" of the Jordan (twice) for example? Bible refs would be better linked via the templates we have. There's some repetition, & probably not enough background context. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

"East of the Jordan" is a place-name and a synonym for the Perea (region). As for the rest, please add more detail to your quick comments and I will attempt to address them. Ignocrates (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no sign it is capitalized in google books or JSTOR, even in things like this. I suppose we have West Bank so East Bank might be acceptable. I think there's enough detail to be getting on with frankly. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I changed East --> east. What else, specifically? Ignocrates (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to play that game. It says "Bible refs would be better linked via the templates we have". I suggest you read through the not-very-long article looking for the points mentioned above. Frankly it's not a subject I'm very interested in, probably not enough to read it through again correcting them, which would take less time than laying them all out here. If people can't be bothered to bring articles to a near-FA level of polish before FAC, not all reviewers are willing to do the basics. I've done the 2nd para, which may explain why I'm not going to do the lot. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing an example. Now I know what you are talking about. There was no need to get nasty. Ignocrates (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added quite a few more links; hopefully, these improvements are satisfactory. Ignocrates (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything else? You mentioned something about repetition but I'm not seeing it. Please be specific. Ignocrates (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, "Epiphanius mistakenly refers to the gospel used by the Ebionites as the "Hebrew" gospel and the Gospel of Matthew" comes up at least twice, also the differences with the Ebionites as described by earlier patristic writers - generally the article seems to circle round its target a bit, though I understand the topic is somewhat nebulous. Perhaps consider merging the last two sections (Relationships and Inferences) in higher up? I'm not opposing, but won't support, if only because I don't fancy a thorough read-through. It's certainly pretty near FA standard, & maybe at it. It isn't an easy read, but I'm sure that is inevitable. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'll take a look and see what I can do. Thanks for checking back. Ignocrates (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I reworded the material in the body that was quoted to make it a bit clearer. However, it's normal to have some degree of overlap between the lead and the body, since the lead is summarizing the contents of the body. I personally would not combine sections as suggested because they are covering distinctly different aspects; "Relationships" is about texts and "Inferences" is about people. Ignocrates (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you merge them together, but into the different places earlier in the text where the issues are touched on. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Support – I reviewed this article at WP:GAN and commented there that this article appeared to have the potential of getting through WP:FAC. I'm willing and able to add more detailed comments here, but I can't start before 29th May (2013). Pyrotec (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by llywrch (talk)

First, I find this article fairly covers the subject in most aspects; you've done a brave job of pulling together a number of sources & presenting this in a unbiassed way. However, there are some matters I believe need attention to for this to be considered a Featured Article.

(1) ColonelHenry makes a good point about the notes/citation system being confusing. I think it could help if the citations were presented in the Harvard style -- e.g. (Paget 2010, 325–80) -- but this should not be considered an objection that would prevent this article from FAC status, just a suggestion.

(2) A minor point: the first block quotation in the section "Composition" is italicized. AFAIK, block quotes do not need to be italicized, unless there is a reason for it. (Which there is in another extended quotation below this.) Again, not critical but it offends my sensabilities. ;-)

(3) More important, yet still minor, is that sometimes this article makes a statement which in knowledgeable eyes is clearly a theory or opinion without stating who asserts it. This usually appears to be a style choice, so there is no reason to suspect bad faith. However, our factual knowledge of the "Gospel of the Ebionites" consists of seven excerpts, comprising less than a few hundred words, upon which a mountain of inference & speculation has been raised; it is easy for even experts to confuse fact with opinion in cases like this, so identifying & attributing theories & opinions is very important. A few cases I noticed were:

(3a) "Epiphanius is believed to have incorporated the text at a late stage in the composition of Panarion 30, primarily in chapters 13 and 14." (First sentence of the section "Composition") -- Who believes this? Or does Epiphanius state this somewhere?

(3b) "The baptismal scene of the gospel text (13.7) is a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, but one in which the Holy Spirit is said to descend to Jesus in the form of a dove and enter into him." (First sentence of "Christology") Here you need to explain what is meant by a "harmony". (It is a blending of 2 or more gospels into a single narrative, the best known example being Tatian's Diatessaron.) Even better would be to explain how this is a blending of three gospels, as this passage quotes each of the Synoptic Gospels for the words allegedly heard at this event (Matt. 3:17, Mark 1:11, & Luke 3:23), as Bart Ehrman points out in Lost Christianities (2003, p. 102).

(3c) "Epiphanius mistakenly refers to the gospel in his possession as the Gospel of Matthew and the gospel "according to the Hebrews", perhaps relying upon and conflating the writings of the earlier Church Fathers Irenaeus and Eusebius, respectively." (First sentence of "Relationship to other texts) The phrase "mistakenly refers to" is obviously an opinion -- an expert opinion, to be sure, but still one needing a citation. I'd suggest that one way to solve this would be to discuss explicitly that at least two of the fragments show this work to be gospel harmony. One book you cite, James Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, makes this argument on pg. 67, & two other books I have consulted also state that it is a gospel harmony, thus suggesting this is the scholarly consensus. And a gospel harmony, by definition, obviously could not be either the Gospel of Matthew or some clear variant of it. But a citation never hurts.

(4) A major point that needs to be in this article is in discussing "Christology" there is no mention how one fragment of the Gospel indicates they have an Adoptionist interpretation of Christ's divinity. (Bart Ehrman makes this point in Lost Christianities, p. 101.) For this reason the Ebionites are commonly lumped with Judeo-Christians, who according to the latest theories, minimized Christ's divinity & saw more as a man who lived a perfect life (Ehrman, Lost Christianities, p. 101; Fred Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha (T&T Clark International: 2003, p. 86), & was a major reason why Epiphanius considered them heretics.

(5) Another major point is explaining why this lost work is of importance to scholars. You seem to sense this need with the final section "Inferences about the Ebionites" which explains who the Ebionites were, but this material is not integrated with the rest of this article. (Okay, now I'll give you the answer. ;-) It is important as a possible primary source for the Jewish Christian branch of Early Christianity, but scholars disagree if its information truly reflects the ideas of that branch, or if it reflects beliefs that have changed, perhaps greatly, from that early group thus failing to help us any closer to those early Jewish Christians. (Think of the Ebionites as an evolutionary dead end of religious belief.) In any case, the Ebionites are a shadowy presence in the fragmentary picture of Early Christianity, & these fragments offer us one of our few glimpses into their world. -- llywrch (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Llywrch, I numbered your bullet points in the interests of clarity so that I can respond to them by number below. Ignocrates (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(1) I'm going to plead CITEVAR on this one for now, since I patterned the reference format after a recently promoted feature article. Point noted though, and I will tinker with the format after the FAC dust settles. Ignocrates (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed the embedded citations to the Harvard style. That should make all the citations more readable and less confusing. Ignocrates (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't consider this an important issue, just throwing out my opinion, but Y. -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(2) I thought the italics gave the look more consistency, but I have removed them from the first block of quotations. I hope your sensibilities are now eased. Ignocrates (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I didn't consider this an important issue, but Y. -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(3) Regarding your comment about assuming good faith in identifying & attributing theories & opinions, I have thoroughly reviewed the relevant literature, and I am reporting what I understand to be the consensus position, unless I specifically cite an individual author. Of course, I could be mistaken, so don't hesitate to call me out on it if you disagree. Ignocrates (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(3a) I have credited scholar Glenn Alan Koch with this insight. He continues to set the standard for elucidating the internal structure of Panarion 30. While numerous scholars have commented on his work, none have improved upon it. I will track down the relevant page numbers and include them in a citation. Ignocrates (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I added a note and citation for Skarsaune (2007), who provides an independent summary based on the earlier work of Schmidtke (1911), as well as a note and citation of Koch's 1976 detailed academic analysis. I removed the credit solely to Koch, since he clarified and expanded on the earlier work of Lipsius and Schmidtke (standing on the shoulders of giants). I'm going to call this one done. Ignocrates (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Y -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(3b) I did both. I have added a note explaining what a gospel harmony is to the first use of the term in "Composition", and I added a note and citation there for Ehrman. The definitive scholarly work on the subject is Klijn (1992), but I believe his gospel quotations are in the original Koine Greek. You are correct (3c) that this is a scholarly consensus. After Klijn's 1992 magnum opus, it is simply stated by many scholars as though it was an obvious fact. I'm going to color this one done, unless you think more clarification is needed. Ignocrates (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Y -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(3c) I added another note and citation from Skarsaune (2007) explaining the reason Epiphanius' made an error, and I softened "mistakenly" --> "incorrectly" (which is how Cameron describes it). I think that covers the point adequately. Ignocrates (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Y -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(4) I reread Ehrman and Lapham, and I think we can do better. Both are problematic in that they are written to be brief overviews; consequently, they give an incomplete treatment of the subject. We need a comprehensive source that describes what Adoptionism is and why it matters, and how the Lukean baptismal theophany in 30.13.7 ties back to Psalm 2:7 as a fulfillment of prophecy. I will put my data-mining hat on tomorrow and review the literature. Ignocrates (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I simply provided cites to Ehrman & Lapham so you could use them to backup the assertion that Adoptionism is present in this work. If you can find better sources to use, please do so! -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I went with Lapham after all. I think he made an important contribution to the field by grouping these Christian sects by geography, so I wanted his work to be represented. I tried to find the perfect source, but no luck; and as Voltaire said, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Hopefully, the additional content based on Lapham will suffice. Ignocrates (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Y --llywrch (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(5) I will address the last point today. Please consider this to be a work in progress. Ignocrates (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I added an intro to smooth the transition between a discussion of the gospel and who the Ebionites were as a group. You are correct that this paragraph is supposed to tie the preceding information together and summarize what can be learned about the Ebionite sect from the gospel fragments preserved by Epiphanius. I'm still working on a killer ending. Ignocrates (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I supplied a concluding summary to the Inferences section. It may not be a killer ending, but it's an ending nonetheless. I think this is the best I can do before FAC closes. Ignocrates (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Y --llywrch (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I will respond here rather than break up your comments. Thanks for all of your helpful insights (and making me work hard to address them). Ignocrates (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If you need help researching the material, let me know & I'll see how I can help. (I do have access to a few books on the matter.) -- llywrch (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the generous offer to help out. I will speak up if I get stuck. Ignocrates (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Three more points I noticed as I reviewed your changes:

(3d) "Epiphanius gives no indication of concern for vegetarianism in this part of the Gospel text, and it may instead be an allusion to the manna in the wilderness of Exodus 16:31 and Numbers 11:8, or to 1 Kings 19:6 where Elijah eats cakes in oil." (end of first paragraph of "Vegetarianism") I think it might be better to directly credit Koch in the text with the speculation this may be an allusion to manna, instead of in the footnote.

(6) Writing about the fragment quoted by Epiphanius at 13.2b-3, you state "Although twelve apostles are mentioned, only eight are named", yet I count 9 persons: "Simon, surnamed Peter" (where Jesus is said to speak), John & James the sons of Zebedee, Simon, Andrew, Thaddaeus, Simon Zelotes, Judas Iscariot, & Matthew (whom Jesus is speaking to). I can see how you arrived at 8, by either omitting Peter or Matthew, but you need to explicitly say "not counting" & add either Peter or Matthew.

(7) Just something I stumbled across, that you may want to add. Concerning the fifth fragment, where you write, "The fifth quotation (14.5) appears to be a harmony of Matthew 12:47–48 and its Synoptic parallels. However, Jesus' final proclamation shows a closer agreement to 2 Clement 9:11 than any of the Synoptics", I found Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1990), points out this same blending is not only found in 2 Clement & the Gospel of the Ebionites, but also in Clement of Alexandria (Eclogae ex scripturis propheticis 20.3). He concludes, "2 Clem. 9.11 thus presupposes a more widely known document or a tradition in which this saying already appeared in a harmonized version." (p. 351) -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I will respond to these three new points below:

(3d) I directly credited the insight about Elijah in 1 Kings to Glenn Alan Koch in the body of the article - that was his unique contribution - but not the others, since several scholars have pointed out the Exodus/Numbers connection to manna in the wilderness. Ignocrates (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Y -- llywrch (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(6) You counted Simon Peter twice, the first time when his house is mentioned and afterward associated with Andrew in the list of apostles. Kloppenborg, in a footnote in The Complete Gospels, p.438, confirms that only eight are named. I added a note and citation to make this clearer. Ignocrates (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops! (I did pass grade school math! Honest!) Y -- llywrch (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(7) I added a note and citation for Koester, per your suggestion. Ignocrates (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not needed, but thanks! Y -- llywrch (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Responses to new points as indicated. Ignocrates (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I found a few more minor points. (Not trying to jerk you around, but thought I should mention them while I'm here.) But even if they aren't fixed, I'm going to say Support.

(3e) Section "Composition", last sentence of paragraph 5: "The appearance of a great light on the water may be an echo of St. Paul's conversion or an additional harmonization to the Gospel of the Hebrews." Any reason not to change the last six words to "to this work"? (My edit finger is itching to do just that.)

(3f) Last paragraph of this section, last sentence: "The immediate context suggests the possible attribution of the quotation to a Clementine source." According to the note, this is Skarsaune's interpretation; any reason not to rewrite that sentence as "Based on the immediate context, Skarsaune suggests that this passage may come from a Clementine source"?

(3g) Last paragraph of the article. The last sentence repeats information already present at the beginning of this section. I know you're trying for a recapitulation in order to signal the end of the article, but I'd delete it. IMHO, ending the article with the penultimate sentence works. -- llywrch (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I will respond to these three new points below:

(3e) I clarified the wording to read "an additional harmonization of the Gospel of the Hebrews to this work.", since the reference explicitly mentions this possibility. I hope this change is sufficient to scratch your itchy edit finger. Ignocrates (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Y --llywrch (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(3f) Several scholars have made this observation; Skarsaune was just a convenient example to use as a reference. Crediting him makes it seem like his unique contribution, which it isn't, so I would propose to leave the sentence as it is currently worded. Ignocrates (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I extended the sentence a bit to indicate the relationship is uncertain, and I added another reference which makes that point. Although several scholars have noted the similarity, correlation does not equal causality. Ignocrates (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Y --llywrch (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(3g) I did intentionally add the last sentence to recapitulate the beginning of the section. I hope you will grant me this wee bit of artistic license. Ignocrates (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Y --llywrch (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Responses to new points as indicated. Ignocrates (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I left a note on Pyrotec's page encouraging him to make further comments, but he hasn't responded. I think this nomination may now be in the hands of the delegates. Ignocrates (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I nominated this for GA earlier at Ignocrates' request, not really knowing anything about GA/FA process but knowing something about the subject field. I haven't read the article since too long to remember and will do so today hopefully. One immediate comment. The "seven quotations" (ie what exists) aren't picked out clearly. I quoteboxed 6, not sure where the 7th is. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a quotebox for the 7th fragment at 30.22.4 to keep the format consistent. Thanks for weighing in! Ignocrates (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments

• I don't see an image review here, though one may have taken place in a PR; also I'll want a source review, which I'll request at WT:FAC.
• Ignocrates, I gather this is your first FAC so I'd normally want a spotcheck of sources for accurate usage and avoidance of close paraphrasing but the extensive footnotes seem to render that somewhat redundant -- any of the reviewers have an opinion on this?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is my first FAC. I could use a bit of hand-holding in terms of knowing what is expected, since the whole process is new to me. Ignocrates (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-age). 1 image and a caption need improvement (tweaked some licenses to include US).

• File:Epiphanius-Kosovo.jpg - copyright is OK, but the caption is a bit detailed for an introductory lead image. The second sentence could be removed (info is already in main text). Also, the part about "... was also known as 'Against Heresies'" should be added to the main article as well (missing in "Background").
• File:Matthew_the_Evangelist.jpg - (replaced with a better image) an iconic image, but still needs some kind of source and author information (completely lacking). Or replace with a better sourced image.
• File:Baptism-of-Christ-xx-Francesco-Alban.JPG - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

First image: This caption is one of the few bits of article content I didn't contribute. I shortened it to a single sentence. I removed the 'Against Heresies' factoid, since it is almost trivial (there are many heresiologies with this name); it is near-universally known as the 'Panarion'. Ignocrates (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Second image: I lifted this from the Matthew the Evangelist article assuming it was ok, perhaps naively. How do I find this source and author information? I could use some guidance here from the experts. Ignocrates (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I did some checking and the image on the Wikimedia Commons is lacking the proper source and author information. The easy thing to do would be to replace this image with another one for purposes of this review. The right way would be to find the missing information and add it to the image on the Commons. How do we do that? Ignocrates (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The easiest and faster way is to use another one of the Matthew images from Commons (see Commons:Category:Icons_of_Saint_Matthew, if you like one of those) or the Internet (a quick google search reveals many hits, though it would have to include valid source info). Mind you, i believe the present image is an old work, but missing reliable info it's not our "best work" in images. GermanJoe (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Expedience triumphs over virtue - I swapped images. That should take care of the attribution problems. Ignocrates (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Done - all points addressed, thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this so quickly! Ignocrates (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)