Talk:Ebionites/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Neo-Ebionites

Actually, as the person who first added this material, I have to say that, in retrospect, I have very serious questions about whether it really belongs in this article. The only independent reliable source produced to date does not link it to the Ebionites, but rather to the Sacred Name Movement. That being the case, I have to say that I think, if we were to follow content guidelines, the material on the Ebionite Jewish Community probably better belongs in the article on the Sacred Name movement, until and unless other independent reliable sources on it can be found which themselves assert a direct link between the historic Ebionites and this modern Sacred Name group. And, without that reference, which like I said does not refer to the historic Ebionites per se, the entire section could probably be easily removed as unsourced. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What does the first sentence of the ref say? --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That the group claims to be a successor of the old Ebionites. However, the article itself, in its own voice, says that the group is a part of the Sacred Name Movement. And the comments of independent outsiders are what determines content in wikipedia, not the self-made claims of groups or individuals themselves. Basically, that first sentence still qualifes, more or less, as a self-published source as per WP:SPS, as it is stating a claim made by the group without supporting it. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The article already says claims. Yawn. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please address the actual point raised, as per WP:IDHT. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Have. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael, the point raised was about moving the content to the most directly relevant article, and you have yet to address that point at all. Also, in light of that material, I believe that the existing redirects to this article for that group at Ebionite Jewish Community and possibly Ebionite Community should also be, honestly, turned into redirects into the more directly relevant Sacred Name movement article, where the material more reasonably belongs. Please address these matters specifically, however boring you find abiding by policies and guidelines to be. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

When did Shemayah Phillips "become" an Ebionite?

Right now, the article says that after leaving another group, Philipps "became" an Ebionite. Can anyone show me any reliable source which can reasonably support this statement, which very clearly seems to indicate that he became, in effect, an adherent of the Ebionites described in this article? We would, of course, I believe need an independent reliable source to substantiate this claim. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Job well done

I just read the article and the editors have done a good job . . . informative, well referenced and a pleasure to read. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that is appreciated. Don't forget to sign yourself, Prof'! --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Maybe I should change my user name to Absent Minded Prof. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Denial of the divinity of Christ

The denial of the divinity of Christ caused me some concern. I understood that they believed that Jesus was divine, but was begotten of God at his baptism rather than by virgin birth.

• In the Gospel called of Matthew which they call the Hebrew Gospel is written the following: “There was a certain man named Jesus, about thirty years old, who chose us. Coming to Capernaum, He entered the house of Simon, who is called Peter, and said, ‘As I passed by the Sea of Galilee, I chose John and James, sons of Zebedee, and Simon, and Andrew, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot; and you Matthew, sitting at the tax office, I called and you followed me. You therefore, I want to be the Twelve, to symbolize Israel.’” And “It so happened that John came baptizing, and Pharisees and all Jerusalem came out to him to get baptized. And John wore clothing made of camel hair and had a leather belt about his waist. His food,” it continues, “consisted of wild honey that tasted like manna, like sweet cake cooked in oil.” This Gospel continues: “After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into Him. And a voice from Heaven said, ‘You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.’ And again, ‘Today I have begotten You.’ “Immediately a great light shone around the place; and John, seeing it, said to Him, ‘Who are you, Lord? And again a voice from Heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ Then John, falling down before Him, said, ‘I beseech You, Lord, baptize me!’ But He forbade him saying, ‘Let it be so; for thus it is fitting that all things be fulfilled.’ - Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13

Could somebody check this? - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I checked this translation of Panarion 30.13 against the independent translation of Glen Alan Koch in his Ph.D. dissertation (U. Penn., 1976), and they are in substantial agreement, allowing for minor differences in translation. This is an example of a Separationist Christology as Bart Ehrman defines the term. The Holy Spirit is said to descend and enter into him at his baptism. Note that the Gospel of Mark also uses this same phrase into him, which is almost always mistranslated as onto him. Ovadyah (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Epiphanius goes on to explain this more fully in 30.14.4. Again quoting from Koch's translation, "For since they wish Jesus in reality to be a man, as I have said before, Christ came in him having descended in the form of a dove <and> was joined to him (as already we have found among other heresies also), and became the Christ <from God above, but Jesus> was born from the seed of a man and a woman." Ovadyah (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is some more information/scholarly view, that discusses Epiphanius Ebionites, which also covers his differences from earlier reports.[1] 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Therefore, would it be fair to say the the Ebionites felt Jesus was divine from the time of his baptism? - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean like in adoptionism? That is what Epiphanius, I think, is generally seen as having been implying anyway. I think maybe we might better use a phrase a bit more specific than simply saying "Jesus was not divine" and saying something like he wasn't divine until the descent of the Holy Spirit into him might work better. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

John, if you bothered to educate yourself on the differences between an Adoptionist and a Separationist Christology, you would realize they are quite distinct. See The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart Ehrman to understand the difference. Adoptionism need not have an aspect of divinity; it is an annointing by God to perform a special task, e.g. the kingship of David. By contrast, separationism must have an aspect of divinity, e.g. a divine possession by the Angel of YHWH, who was regarded by Israel as the first-born of creation. Ovadyah (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ovadyah, I notice that you use the language need not, which is itself far from a denial of the possibility that there was some form of transformation into the divine, which is the claim you seem to be making. es, there are some, I think genrally comparatively modern, sources which have made a point that the adoption need not have had any sort of transformative aspect; there are also souces, generally older, which took the quotes as indicating that there was some sort of implicit transformation. For the purposes of this article, however, I think that the Jesus section should probably include a direct link to adoptionism, which at present it does not. I personally think the language used "The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History," published 2008, which can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History, is probably the best to use here. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with a link to the adoptionism article, particularly in regard to the Judaic Ebionites of the second century. However, Epiphanius makes clear that the 4th century Ebionites saw the divine Christ as being distinct from the human Jesus. Ovadyah (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

By the 4th century, the Ebionites seem to have incorporated some quasi-gnostic beliefs into their understanding of Jesus. Hardyplants (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is possible, at least implicitly. Elsewhere in 30.3.4-6, Epiphanius describes the Ebionite belief that Jesus was crucified and Christ returned to heaven. That sounds a lot like the crucifiction scene in the Gospel of Peter "O Power, My Power, Why have you abandoned me?" Ovadyah (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Book of Elchesai

I removed the following entry in the "writings" section:

Book of Elchesai

It is claimed to have been written about 100 CE and brought to Rome in c. 217 CE by Alcibiades of Apamea. Ebionites deemed those who accepted its gnostic doctrines apostates.

The section would appear to be intended to be about writings belonging to the Ebionites while this appears to be an entry on an apocryphal writing denounced by the Ebionites. Ekwos (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That still makes it relevant to the Ebionite article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I would leave it in. The relationship between the Gnostic Ebionites and the Elcesaites (or a lack of one) needs to be explained somewhere, and this article is far more developed. My 2-pennies based on a recent review of the literature - they both derive from pre-Christian baptismal sects, the Nasoreans and the Ossaeans, respectively. The Nasoreans (Hebrew for snake and a symbol of wisdom) developed the doctrine of the True Prophet, expounded in the Kerygmata Petrou in the early 3rd century. Their so-called Gospel of the Ebionites was the now lost Gospel of The Twelve. By contrast, the Ossaeim are related to the Sampseans and developed the doctrine of Elxasai (hidden power) which incorporates Persian influences of astrology and an elaborate cosmology. These are in turn related to the teachings of Mani which developed into Manicheanism in the 3rd century. Little was known about these religions in Rome because they were predominantly Eastern religions in the Parthian empire. See also the Sabians. Ovadyah (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have serious questions as to how inclusion of material which indicates that a book which seems to be most closely relevant to another group, the Elcesaites, who already have their own article, should be included here. Now, granted, I see very real problems with the Elkesaites article, such as the material in the lead which indicates they were Ebionites, something which the admittedly short Encyclopedia Britannica article here does not include. This article indicates that they had "affinities" with the Ebionites, but comes well short of saying they were a branch of the Ebionites, as our article does. So I very definitely question the reliability of our Elcesaites article as well. In any event, however, that material is more relevant I believe to the Elkesaites article than to this one. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your beloved Catholic Encyclopedia disagrees. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael, please do not make insulting comments which are also completely and utterly unsubstantiated. I have never indicated that I believe it is a reliable source for this article, despite your insinuations above. Please do not engage in another edit war as per WP:EW until and unless a consensus for this addition as per WP:CONSENSUS is reached. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Neverthless, it is a source. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Michael. Wetman added that material to the article over 5 years ago, and the source was indeed the Catholic Encyclopedia. Stop simpering John Carter and edit consensually. Ovadyah (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted because it is absolutely basic policy you should not give the slightest air of indulging in original source synthesis. Two early texts may assert something, but from this to then have the article say:

Ebionites deemed those who accepted its gnostic doctrines apostates.

sourcing this to two primary texts, Hippolytus, Philosophumena, IX, 14-17, and Epiphanius, Panarion, 19, 1; 53, 1, is original research. You can only say that the Ebionites did this if modern scholarship's secondary sources, using Hippolytus and Panarion, come to a consensual conclusion that this is a defining feature of a single group, the single sect of Ebionim which the article has produced out of very thin air as a solid historical datum.Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(e-c)It seems Ovadyah must once again be asked to read WP:NPA and WP:TPG, and, perhaps, edit in accord with them. The relevant guideline is WP:CONSENSUS, and there does not seem to be consensus at this point for this material. However many insults are thrown at people will not change that fact. There is no rush to have questionable material, and this is apparently disputed material. And, as others have said, I believe specifically including Ovadyah, encyclopedias are not good sources in any event. Particularly regarding such questionable sources, there is I believe no reason not to see if there is a consensus in the academic community about this matter, which could be determined by consultation with other works. Today I do not have access to the relevant materials, but I will consult them later this week. There is no reason to rush to restore content without consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS in any event. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring JC's nonsense for the moment. Nishidani, while you are technically correct about the primary sources, the real problem is that the original tertiary source, the Catholic Encyclopedia, is no longer credited in the article. However, this can easily be remedied by checking an earlier version of the article. I'm willing to stand aside for this deletion of article content only if John Carter is willing to stipulate that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not a reliable source. Ovadyah (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have requested a reference check to restore the missing reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Obviously, if sourced content has stood in the article for five years, there needs to be a consensus on whether to remove it rather than the reverse. Ovadyah (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the tag, Ovadyah - that's how things should be done. Re the Catholic Encyclopedia, I am quite happy about using it as a source, just as I would a Jewish, Islamic or Pagan encyclopedia, after making suitable allowances for their inherent biases. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Being technically correct about details is essentially what wikipedia is about. As to the Catholic Encyclopedia not being a reliable source, my general view is that encyclopedias should only be used if their articles reflect updating to the last decade. They are very usual as vademecums for exploring comprehensively issues in any topic, but whatever points are made there should then be examined, elaborated and written according to what recent secondary sources of optimal quality say. I dislike however this singling out of the 'Catholic' Encyclopedia. There is, here, to an external observer (and pagan) like myself an air of some obscure sectarian conflict in the wings which should be avoided, wheewever one's faith, beliefs, or elective affinities lies. No to the Catholic Encycl. means no to the Jewish Encyclopedia, no to the Islamic Encyclopedia, which would be absurd. My positions on these always draw on the extended implications of one judgement.

We've never had a conflict, Ovadyah, and I hope our amicable relations continue here. Whatever your objection to John's position, it is certainly true that the way primary sources, unfiltrated, are used to document a soi-disant 'Ebionite' position constantly appears to violate WP:SYNTH. This is an extremely complex story, as are all issues dealing with Judaeo-Christianity. Good will means, also, whether one propends for a 'Jewish' or 'Christian' reading, above all to suspect one's own interests, and look exclusively to what scholars agree to (very little). That is why I suggested that the article be revised listing the main primary source content in chronological order, to clear the air, with the deductions made by various positions within modern scholarship distinct from these primar source texts. Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad and I would like to keep it that way too. I have no argument with you at all on primary sources, as I pointed out on Jayjg's talk page. The article has an over-reliance on primary sources, and most of them were added after the article reached FA. With respect to the Catholic Encyclopedia, I'm fine with replacing it as a reference with better secondary sources. The point of this dispute (to me) is to attempt to find better sources rather than deleting content. It is customary after requesting sources to wait about a week before removing content. Instead, John Carter deleted content he doesn't like and, once again, attempted to have the article locked. That is not a positive example of consensual editing. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I might add that in my judgement there should be no section on John the Baptist. If Ebionim are, per definition, paleo-Christians of Jewish persuasion, you can hardly list John the Baptist, who was murdered at the outset of Christ's mission, as part of the sect. It is placing the cart before the horse. He can be mentioned in the text dealing with background, not in a section.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There are secondary sources that do not agree with your original research, Nishidani. Also, "Christ" means Messiah, and the claim is that John was regarded as a messiah as well as Jesus. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked this same question earlier on the article talk page. However, Michael asked for the opportunity to develop the section in this article, as opposed to the Gospel of the Ebionites or JTB articles, and I am ok with giving him a chance to do that, as long as everything is properly sourced. Ovadyah (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay I created a whole new section for it. The existing section appeared to be intended to be about writings of the Ebionites. It is not simply a matter of whether an item is sourced, or relevant or whatever or not. It is also a matter of whether the article makes sense. I removed it because I thought it didn't make much sense at all in the article. It certainly didn't make sense in the context if you wanted to include it. Simply reverting it without dealing with that issue is pointless. Ekwos (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree but, whether it makes sense or not, it is clearly relevant to the Ebionites per se, so removal was never sensible. Slaping a or tag on would have been a better course, rather than removal. Let's see if we can find better sources and find what exactly is being claimed about it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Too many people seem to look at Wikipedia with an attitude of "gosh if we don't put this little bit of info here it will be lost to humanity forever". The articles should be straightforward introductions and overviews of the topic in question derived from secondary sources (unless there isn't much consensus in the secondary sources, such as here, when it is better just to list the primary material). As such there is good reason to not include every last bit of sourced material. If only because it is too minor or marginal to really merit inclusion in an introductory overview. I'd argue that a note that the group disliked an obscure text falls into that category. The question answered should be "does this help a newcomer to the topic?" not "is this something an expert on the topic might like to see?" Ekwos (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles should cater for both beginners and experts.--Michael C. Price ^talk 22:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(e-c) Agree with Ekwos, except about the point of there being little consensus in the secondary sources. There is a fair amount of consensus in the secondary sources regarding this topic, and that specifically includes that the historical references cannot be understood to refer a single unified group. Unfortunately, some of the more recent sources have taken a viewpoint which differs dramatically from the consensus academic opinion, and some of those sources are being staunchly defended on this page despite that. Much of the material about relations with other groups may more reasonably be placed either in Jewish Christianity (for relations with other obviously Jewish Christian groups) or one the pages of the other groups, if they are a bit more clearly defined and understood than this one. Also, in some cases, like regarding The Gospel of the Ebionites, whose status as "Ebionite" is open to question, that material would more reasonably be placed there. But particularly for a subject as complicated and occasionally self-contradictory as this one, it would be best to first and foremost make it clear what the current consensus academic is before making statements about the topic in a general way which can and in many cases probably do in some ways contradict the consensus academic opinions.

And, in response to Michael's statement, can he cite a specific guideline or policy which supports his contention? In general, these articles are meant to be able to be understood by beginners, as that is the primary use encyclopedias have. Experts have no reason to come to this site for information - they know more than our short articles can convey anyway. We do have Wikipedia:Books for longer, more developed material, which can go into greater depth than this single article can. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the Wikisource link to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article to this section just to make it clear that all four sections derived from that encyclopedic source (just as I said). The primary sources are inline citations within the encyclopedia article, and therefore, do not require more backup. Ovadyah (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement "Ebionites deemed those who accepted its gnostic doctrines apostates" does not appear in the encyclopedia article and is therefore still not properly sourced. Ovadyah (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the unsupported statement with the previous version which agrees with the encyclopedia. I will remove the section break since there is no longer a need for it. Ovadyah (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hippolytus fails verification

The citation for Hippolytus to support the Elcesaite material seems to fail verification as per here. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the CE entry can be found here. Please note that while there is a clear and apparent assumption that the Elcesaites were Ebionites made by the writer, the article itself falls far short of directly making that link. Also, I note that at least the CE online version does not cite sources, and Ovadyah himself has said he finds such sources unacceptable. So, now, we have a copy of Hippolytus's book which does not confirm the CE entry, and we have the CE entry itself which seems to make an implicit assumption of the unity of the groups, but makes no clear statement to support it. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hippolytus doesn't have much to say about the Ebionites because his treatise against heresies, the Syntagma is a lost work. However, it is believed to have been used a source by Filaster, ps-Tertullian, and Epiphanius. In the case of Epiphanius, the Syntagma is believed to be the outline he used to create the Panarion. I will do a bit more research on it. Ovadyah (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I found the reference to Hippolytus in Glenn Koch's dissertation on the Panarion 30 on p.291. I will add this to the article along with the primary source as a backup, since Koch quotes from it in part. Ovadyah (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff, the article is making progress again. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

JTB section

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

According to Robert Eisenman, James Tabor, and other scholars, the Ebionites originated with, and drew much of their original inspiration, rules, customs, theology, beliefs and even their name from either the alleged Essene roots of John the Baptizer and James the Just or other Essene sects. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, referred to themselves by many epithets, including "the poor".

In one excerpt from the Gospel of the Ebionites quoted by Epiphanius, John the Baptist is portrayed as a vegetarian Nazirite teacher of righteousness. It is a matter of debate whether John was in fact a vegetarian (a notion reinforced by the "Slavonic version" of Josephus) or whether some Ebionites (or the related Elchasaite sect which Epiphanius took for Ebionites) were projecting their vegetarianism onto him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiki accepts blogs from people who have already established their reliability from other sources. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you indicate specifically where Wiki says this is the policy? The inclusion of blogs is an important precedent to establish as far as reliable sources. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I changed the tag to the Tabor reference for John The Baptist to make it more explicit that it refers to the Gospel of the Ebionites and Slavonic Josephus. I changed the page numbers to the hard cover version and included the page for the relevant footnotes. Ovadyah (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the Tabor reference back to the article with corrected page numbers for this section only. It should be obvious to a rational person that a reference to the Gospel of the Ebionites is about Ebionites, but the tag now indicates this more clearly in the article. Ovadyah (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet, that assumption of yours is explicitly indicated to be wrong according to reliable sources indicated on this page itself, on 18:36 on July 17 above. Your apparent inability to even bother to check to see if the very section of the talk page you seek to add material to indicates that your assumptions are wrong is a disturbing indication of what some might consider your total disregard for anything that disagrees with your own conclusions. The only thing that is truly obvious is your own diosregard for anything but your own conclusions, and a total disrepect for even the sources cited in the same section. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a direct quotation from Tabor's book The Jesus Dynasty about the vegetarianism of John The Baptist on p.134 and direct quotations of the related endnotes on p.335 of the hardcover edition. Ovadyah (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Greek New Testament gospels says John's diet consisted of "locusts and wild honey" but an ancient Hebrew version of Matthew insists that "locusts" is a mistake in Greek for a related Hebrew word that means a cake of some type, made from a desert plant, similar to the "manna" that the ancient Israelites ate in the desert on the days of Moses.(ref 9) Jesus describes John as "neither eating nor drinking," or "neither eating bread nor drinking wine." Such phrases indicate the lifestyle of one who is strictly vegetarian, avoids even bread since it has to be processed from grain, and shuns all alcohol.(ref 10) The idea is that one would eat only what grows naturally.(ref 11) It was a way of avoiding all refinements of civilization

— Jesus Dynasty p.134

The Gospel of the Ebionites as quoted by the 4-century Christian writer Epiphanius. The Greek word for locusts (akris) is very similar to the Greek word for "honey cake" (egkris) that is used for the "manna" that the Israelites ate in the desert in the days of Moses (Exodus 16:31).

— ref 9 p.335

Compare Matthew 11:18-19 and Luke 7:33-34. See also Romans 14:1-4,31, where Paul characterises one who follows such an ascetic diet as "weak in faith."

— ref 10 p.335

There is an Old Russian (Slavic) version of Josephus's Antiquities that describes John the Baptizer as living on "roots and fruits of the tree" and insists that he never touches bread, even at Passover.

— ref 11 p.335

Michael, I'm not sure where you want to go with this JTB section, so I'm going to leave it alone for the time being. It would be very helpful if you could lay out some ideas on the talk page for how to expand it. I may take a look at the remaining material I moved to the talk page in the interim. Btw, John Carter deleted all the Tabor references from the article. I have restored the references for the two sections I worked on, this one and James vs. Paul. If you decide to add any of them back, please fix the page numbers to match the hard cover version. I can help out if needed and look up page numbers. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ovadyah, I have found some more sources for this section, which I will add. Basically they support Tabor's contention that John the Baptist was the Ebionite's first leader with Jesus, at this stage, just as a disciple. The new source is

• W. Barnes Tatum. John the Baptist and Jesus: A Report of the Jesus Seminar., Sonoma, California: Polebridge Press, 1994, ISBN 0944344429, ff. 93, Chapter 5 John and Jesus: The Two Baptists subsection: Jesus as John's Disciple; [2].

Looks pretty kosher to me, what do others think? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. We will need to get the relevant page numbers at some point, but I would add it to the article and take care of that later. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Gnostic/Essene

The Gnostic section suddenly starts talking about Essene influences. I suggest breaking the section in two and placing the gnostic stuff later (after James vs Paul) since most sources (e.g. Catholic Encyclopedia) regard the gnostic infusion of some Ebionites to have occured quite late, whilst the Essene influences are quite early.--Michael C. Price ^talk 05:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I dug a bit deeper into the literature on this, and this late gnostic infusion hypothesis is starting to look less likely (to me). Koch provides an extensive review of the literature in the preamble of his dissertation, and one of the things he points out is that it is likely that Epiphanius composed the Panarion in at least three stages. Specific to the gnostic Ebionites, Koch notes that Schmidke found a clear literary relationship between Chp. 18 on the pre-Christian Nasareans and Chp. 30 on the Ebionites. Schmidke postulated that the material on the Nasareans and Ebionites was originally together in Chp. 18 in an early draft of the Panarion. Epiphanius divided the material into Jewish and Christian sections in a subsequent draft and expanded the Ebionites section with new sources documents. He then expanded it a third time by adding his personal accounts of the Ebionites to the final draft. Ovadyah (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If Michael believes that the gnostic infusion is quite late, I would be happy to see the Reliable sources which indicate that. For what it's worth, there still seems to be a very serious question about when the Ebionites themselves started as a distinct group (Tabor, among others, says they apparently started about the middle of the second century). And, unfortunately, regarding dissertations and the like, just as a reminder, they generally aren't considered particularly reliable except in those cases when they are specifically cited as sources by other, generally more reliable sources, G. Koch's Penn dissertation, thus, would qualify as a reliable source, but other dissertations which aren't cited by reliable sources probably wouldn't. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

John, stop wasting bandwidth with old battles. Focus. The Catholic Encyclopedia says Besides these merely Judaistic Ebionites, there existed a later Gnostic development of the same heresy. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael, please yourself stop wasting bandwidth with your seemingly incessant violations of WP:TPG, as you did once again above. The CE is at best a dubious source, in any event, given its pretty much obvious bias. That source, given your quote, does nothing to address when the groups it is discussing first appeared, and, as you know, there are serious questions when the Ebionties came to exist as a separate group by that name. Ignoring those matters as you do above does nothing to address those concerns. For the material to be included, I think at the minimum we would need a secondary source, which the CE isn't, a clear indication as to when that particular source thinks the Ebionites as the Ebionites began, and an indication when it believes the Gnostic Ebionites began. Based on what I've read, personally, it is making an assumption based on the work of Epiphanius who I think may have been the first to describe Gnostic Ebionites, and his reliability is at best questionable. That makes the reliability of any comments based on him equally questionable. So, please, provide a secondary source, not a tertiary source, and, if possible, some indications that the ideas of that source have been accepted by the academic community. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW I note that Adolf von Harnack traces the name "Ebionite" back to the Apostolic Age. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ovadayh, could you post a link to Koch's dissertation here? At first glance Koch seems to be identifying the Ebionites with the Essenes, not Gnostics, in Epiphanius' first draft, since the Nasaraeans were Essenes. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Here is the link. A CRITICAL INVESTIGATION OF EPIPHANIUS' KNOWLEDGE OF THE EBIONITES: A TRANSLATION AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF "PANARION" 30 Ovadyah (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A pay site, unfortunately. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I rechecked Google Scholar, and I don't see other options. Ovadyah (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

One more thing. Be careful about seemingly small differences in English that turn out to be big differences in Greek and Hebrew. A case in point is Nasoraean vs. Nazoraean. They have completely different roots. In Greek they are Nasapaioi vs. Nazwpaioi (p=rho, w=omega). The first one is the gnostic group. They are often co-mentioned with the Ossaeans. The second group is the Judaic one we associate with the early Christian church. Ovadyah (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, quite interesting. This area is a minefield, and looks like the source of much historical confusion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'm going to add a bit to this minefield with a conjecture below. Ovadyah (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the Jewish Quarterly Review? This review article looks like it could be important for our purposes. Rethinking Jewish Christianity: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category, Jewish Quarterly Review - Volume 99, Number 1, Winter 2009, pp. 7-36. Ovadyah (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm making an OR conjecture, so take this in the spirit of stimulating further research and discussion. It has been thought for a long time that there were at least two groups of Christians from the earliest times, a group based in Galilee and another group based in Jerusalem. This is reflected in the different emphases on location of the early church in the gospels of Mark/Matthew vs. Luke/John, respectively. My conjecture is that these two groups are the Nasoraeans under Peter and the Nazoraeans under James as founder figures. Everyone was doing something before Jesus came along, so they were probably both pre-existent groups to some extent. We know from the primary sources that Peter was a Galilean and a hemerobaptist (daily bather), as were the Nasoraeans. By contrast, James is always associated with Jerusalem and a rather legalistic approach to Christianity. Both of these groups are in conflict with Paul's law-free gospel, even though they differ between themselves over the intent and letter of the law. There are also significant differences in christology between the groups under Paul (pre-existent Son of God), Peter (pre-existent Angel of YHWY/ Son of Man), and James (a mere man and the brother of James). The flight to Pella is the tradition of the Jerusalem group of Nazoraeans, as Peter's followers were already in Galilee. After the fight to Pella, the two groups are in geographic proximity, and the beliefs and practices of the spiritual Nasoraeans (prophesy and faith healing) and the more legalistic Nazoraeans start to become blended. This blending results in a modification of beliefs and organizational structure, and a new group emerges known as the Ebionites, which retains the shared hostility of the original groups to Paul's law-free gospel. Ovadyah (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I take it in this view that John the Baptist was a Nasoraean? I'm not so sure about the name Ebionite popping out of nowhere, since it may have Essene origins, but the general idea has a ring of plausibility about it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, regarding JTB. I think there were several messianic and gnostic (small g) groups of daily bathers throughout the Jordan valley and Dead Sea area that regarded JTB as a founder figure, and some of them came to regard Jesus as the messiah. We know that Apollos was familiar with one of these groups before he met Paul. The self-designation Evyoni (essentially, Poor Me) goes back to the lamentations of Jeremiah, and it was used in this way by the Righteous Teacher. I think there was an eventual democratization of the term following the death of the Teacher, and it began to be applied collectively as the term Evyonim to those who regarded themselves as the Teacher's spiritual successors. The same process of democratization happened to the Pharisees, who came to regard themselves as an elect laity, the Haberim, that observed temple regulations and dietary restrictions more faithfully than the priests. Ovadyah (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that the Essenes were not necessarily the Qumran sectarians, who viewed themselves as an elect group of holy warriors that self-identified as the Yahad. For example, I think the Covenant of Damascus was an Essene manifesto, but the sectarian version of it was the Manual of Discipline. Ovadyah (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia and four groups

Okay you've got me how this makes sense, you have the quote:

The Catholic Encyclopedia classifies the Ebionite writings into four groups:

Then you've got 5 (five) things in the ensuing list (after the colon), only one of which looks like it qualifies as a "group". This doesn't make sense so I eliminated the above sentence. It has been reverted without any attempt to make it make sense. What gives? Also, if the article isn't going to list the 4 groups the Catholic Encyclopedia gives, what is the point of presenting this 4 group factoid? Ekwos (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't "reverted without any attempt to make it make sense." However perhaps we can avoid this matter by simply citing the Catholic Encyclopedia 4 times? --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I see I haven't missed much. The problem is that the fifth "group", the Gospel of Barnabus, is not referenced in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (see Wikisource). That seems clear enough from the text of the article. Maybe we should remove Catholic Encyclopedia as a Wiki in the reference and just go with the link to Wikisource. It should not be necessary to repeat the source four times. This seems like unreasonable nitpicking to me. Ovadyah (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I kind of doubt the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is still the state of the art on Ebionite literature, so it is probably dubious to go out of the way to keep to their division. Ekwos (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Old doesn't mean obsolete, as you appear to be arguing, tirelessly. If you can come up with reliable secondary sources that advocate a different way to think about Ebionite sources, we should incorporate that new information into the article. Ovadyah (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I'm really just saying you've got a clause with a colon at the end that says 4 groups are following and then a list with 5 things in it. If you change the colon to a period it looks kind of stupid. I can count to four and I can count to five and, well they aren't the same thing. Ekwos (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That why the fifth entry says "but not the Catholic. Encyclopedia". --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we resolve this amicably by moving the GoB reference elsewhere, perhaps to the section on Islamic views of the Ebionites? The problem seems to be its position in the article rather than content or sources. Please, let's put an end to this. Ovadyah (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael, I moved the GoB material to the top of the Writings section, above the Catholic Encyclopedia. Hopefully, this resolves the issue, but feel free to rv if you strongly disagree. My opinion is that we have more important things to worry about. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Good solution! --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Weasel wording

a Jewish Christian sect that flourished throughout the Holy Land in the beginning of the Christian era.

(1)a refers to a single unitary sect following Christ's Judaism during his lifetime, and therefore implicitly we are to understand that the Ebionim were Christ's followers, part and parcel of his entourage. Indeed, giving point 2 below, it would follow grammatically that Christ was the leader of the Ebionim.

(2) In the common acceptance of the expression, Christian era refers to the assumed date of the birth of Christ, i.e,. Anno Domini, 1 AD. To say 'at the beginning of the Christian era' in talking of the floruit of the Ebionim movement is to place their origins around the birth of Christ or/and, in the decades immediately after it, during his (presumed) lifetime. Thus from the very outset, the language has been tampered with to insinuate a theory, that the Ebionim were contemporaneous with Christ. This is just one of several things wrong with the first line of the article's lead.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(3)throughout the Holy Land, outside of Galilee, during Christ's lifetime? Impressive! Nishidani (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

1. "Beginning of the Christian era" does not equate to "in Jesus' lifetime". I have no problem sticking the word "around" in to soften the chronology, if that makes you happy.
2. Sources for the claim that they were multiple sects, please.

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly unfamiliar with English usage, and the classical period under discussion, and this has always been a key obstacle in trying to exchange comments with you.

The beginning of the Christian era was fixed in the early 6th.cent. by a monk called Dionysius Exiguus, who . .began his Ist year with the Annunciation.' Mason Hammond, Anne Amory, Aeneas to Augustus: a beginning Latin reader for college students, 2nd ed. Harvard University Press, 1967 p.381

The second point is methodological, which I will return to if I can get an intelligible response to the first.

'Most modern researchers reserve this term (Ebionite) for the more extreme forms of Jewish Christianity (Robert Van Voorst, cited by Richard Bauckham, 'The origin of the Ebionites', in Peter J. Tomson, Doris Lambers-Petry (eds.) The image of the Judaeo-Christians in ancient Jewish and Christian literature,Mohr Siebeck, 2003 pp.162-181, p.165.

Please note that the source states that most authorities use the term Ebionite to designate a plurality of Judaeo-Christian groups. We don't know who the word Ebionim refers to because descriptive accounts in patristic literature (vide Skarsaune et al.) consistently describe them confusedly.

I'm not convinced by obiter dicta, or ex cathedra denials.Nishidani (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your points are irrelevant to improving the article. BTW it is news to me that Dionysius Exiguus spoke/wrote modern English. Thanks for the information. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion, and failure to engage in a rational response to both a legitimate comment, and a detailed reply to your follow up queries, are duly noted. Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't respond to your second point since you indicated that it was conditional on the first point - which was abusive and stupid. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. You are obliged, since you asked for a specific source, and I took the trouble of providing one, to clarify why, in your view, that source does not support the position I took, and which you challenged. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Yeah, whatever" says it all. I'm not obligated to respond to abuse - try it on Ovadyah when he returns. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have given the proper wiki link to Christian era. The link distorts the natural meaning of 'beginning of the Christian era', which is a calendrical concept, by confusing it with the 'early Christian period' which postdates the incipit of the calendrical period by at least 3 decades in the usual chronology.

(1)Christian Era. Definition here

(2)Veselin Kesich in his recent Formation and struggles: the church, A.D. 33-450 , writing of Hillel the Elder, says he 'was active about the beginning of the Christian era, (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 2007, p.85). Hillel died in 10CE. Kesich is using the term 'beginning of the Christian era' correctly, unlike our text. Our lead manages the extraordinary trick of having the Judaeo-Christian Ebonim flourish before Christ's maturity. There is no way around that lethal error in the way this lead introduction has been formulated.Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No lethal error at all - the term may have preceded Jesus, James and John the Baptist. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like a neutral, preferably an administrative voice, to review this interaction, without asking that content be judged. It is, in my view, not conducive to editing to have a situation where one of the parties edits, but, by appearances, refuses systematically to follow up, or answer, the other. Writing:

1. Beginning of the Christian era" does not equate to "in Jesus' lifetime". . .Cheers.
2. 'Your points are irrelevant to improving the article. . .Cheers.'
3. 'Sources for the claim that they were multiple sects, please. . .Cheers.'
4. 'I didn't respond to your second point since you indicated that it was conditional on the first point. . .Cheers.'
5. 'I'm not obligated to respond to abuse.- try it on Ovadyah when he returns. -- cheers,'
6. 'No lethal error at all - the term may have preceded Jesus, James and John the Baptist. -- cheers,'

All these are dismissive obiter dicta, that employ the editor's personal opinion as though it were authoritative. I am not interested in Michael Price's personal views on the Ebonim, but in what reliable sources say of them. So far I have his contemptuous shrugs at requests to engage in a dialogue on what RS say, capped by the ironical cheers, and an assertion that implies he will not respond to whatever I say, but I may try the other editor, momentarily offwiki, whenever he returns. One cannot edit if an active agent in reviewing the text continues to write whatever he thinks should be there in blithe indifference to input from third parties.Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please do review the interaction. Please also note Nishidani's abusive, pompous, prolix and belitting style that makes constructive progress impossible. This has resulted in numerous appearences before arbcom & AN/I and an ongoing indefinite topic ban (in a closely related area) because of "repeated and extensive edit-warring, as well as incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith". It seems he has learnt nothing from this experience.

It would be a good idea to look at content also and note, for example, that the Ebionite article says: The Qumran community referred to themselves by many epithets, including "the poor". This has a factual bearing on point 6, which Nishidani chooses to interpret as bad faith. (I could go through the other items also, but what's the point?)-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you familiarize yourself with my real record. Two blocks, 8 hours and 24 hours, at the beginning of my work on wikipedia, for edit warring 4 years ago. Until the Arbcom decision, the three administrative measures taken in a short space were overthrown almost immediately as errors. On my every appearance here, you have raised the Arbcom report as grounds for not engaging with me, and this is pretextual. I have never been cited for inappropriate behaviour on this article: you have. Now, can you please answer my question.

If the consensus (most modern researchers) are said in reliable sources to use the term Ebionite for a plurality of groups (the more extreme forms of Jewish Christianity), on what grounds can the lead induce the reader to believe, against most modern research, that the Ebionites were a single unitary sectarian reality? Nishidani (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"real record"? You somehow think your active and indefinite topic ban is not "real"? Of course you are a victim of a miscarriage of justice? Right. You were the one to call in the admins here, so what's sauce for the goose.... Anyway, since you have, for once, restrained yourself from "incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith" I will respond to your substantive point. The article already makes it clear that the term "the poor" was applied generically and therefore must have applied to more than one sect, in at least some sense. But I would like to see what Ovadyah makes of it, and he should be back in a week or two. Have you a googlebooks link to the text, in the meantime? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael, another editor's sanctions on another topic, whether real or not, is irrelevant to this article. It is also, under the circumstances, a comment which could be taken as both a violation of WP:NPA and WP:TPG, regarding off-topic comments. Please at least try to conduct yourself in accord with wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The article already makes it clear that the term "the poor" was applied generically and therefore must have applied to more than one sect, in at least some sense.

I'm afraid your point only supports mine. What you now say disinvalidates the generalization, unsourced, in the first line of the lead, which says the Ebionim were

a Jewish Christian sect.'

In English, a sect means that, a single sect. You cannot support that line by arguing that the word must have applied to more than one sect.

At stake is the simple construal of English, and the most elementary form of logic.Nishidani (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that my point supports yours. Isn't that what I said??? ... As I also said, But I would like to see what Ovadyah makes of it, and he should be back in a week or two. Have you a googlebooks link to the text, in the meantime? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 00:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, if you admit your point supports mine, the first line must be rewritten to clarify that the Ebionim, according to most modern researchers, is used to refer to sects, not a sect.

To get the link just pump in Veselin Kesich+Formation and Struggles+Hillel. I tried to get the link but I am working on a dinky computer, in a place with bad connections, and the requested page keeps jumping away. Nishidani (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Book report and a few observations

I have just about finished reading Skarsaune and Hvalvik "Jewish Believers in Jesus". It is a weighty tome in more ways than one! A few observations about the book.... It is a great read. Some of the best content I have ever read on church fathers that were explicitly known to be Jewish-Christians or who Skarsaune strongly suspects were Jewish-Christians. Among the first group is Hegesippus, who is known to be a Jewish-Christian based on Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. Among the latter group are Polycarp and Melito of Sardis. The sections on Justin, Celsus, Melito, Epiphanius, and Jerome are among the best I have ever read. I have a particular interest in Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna because Codex Bezae is thought to be a third-generation copy of the gospel texts that were brought from the church at Smyrna to Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, France in the second century. Polycarp was a contemporary of Papias, bishop of neighboring Hieropolis. Based on Skarsaune's investigation, it is clear that there were many Jews who were orthodox Christians by birth or conversion, including Count Joseph as described by Epiphanius, who were known simply as Christians. They were clearly in a minority relative to Gentile Christians, but there was no particular Jewish status or designation that separated them from other Christians.

I have been focusing on the Nazoraeans of the 4th century; who they were and how they relate, if at all, to the Ebionites. Short answer based on Skarsaune's work and Luomanen's report in "Jewish Christianity Reconsidered", apparently not at all, other than being Jews by ethnicity. Skarsaune does a detailed analysis of Jerome's references to the so-called "Gospel of the Nazoraeans", including how he referred to it by different names over time (giving specific dates). He puts it in the context of Jerome's entire career, including when and where first he came into contact with the gospel, and how he used it as an aid to learn Syriac and Hebrew from his teacher. Short answer: the gospel was written in Syriac (Eastern Aramaic) using Hebrew letters, and the Old Testament quotations within it were in the Hebrew language. Great stuff. More to come.... Ovadyah (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A short followup on the observations I made above: Skarsaune quotes Eusebius' evidence that Hegesippus was a Jewish-Christian (p.339), "He sets down certain things from the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Syriac [Gospel] and, in particular, from the Hebrew tongue, thus showing that he was himself a believer of Hebrew origin". Hist. eccl. 4.22.8. Note that Skarsaune inserts the word [Gospel] after Syriac. He seems to be implying that Eusebius was mentioning two different gospels (the GoH and a Syriac Gospel), but that need not be the case. Skarsaune later concludes (p.543), based on the analysis of Jerome, that the so-called "Gospel of the Nazoraeans", which Jerome refers to as the "the Gospel which is called According to the Hebrews" and "the Gospel which the Nazoraeans use" was written in Syriac in Hebrew letters with OT quotations in Hebrew. Skarsaune mentions the quotation of Eusebius (4.22.8) again on p.543, but he doesn't expand on it. It seems clear (to me) that Eusebius was talking about the same gospel. I will dig deeper into this possible connection. Ovadyah (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please try to ensure that any other comments actually relate to this article, which much of the above clearly does not. WP:TPG is a valuable guideline to follow. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

My above comments relate to the Ebionites article in the sense that it is not clear if a single sect or more than one were referred to as Ebionites by the polemics of the Church Fathers. It is also unclear whether the Church Fathers believed they used a single gospel or more than one. Both of these related topics are under active investigation by scholars. Ovadyah (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that the Ebionites are being considered possibly more than one group, and produced evidence to that effect, which had been ignored for some time, more than once. However, there is a big difference between citing a source to that effect, and producing a lengthy discussion relating to among other things "Jewish Christisns", who are not necessarily Ebionites per se, as there is abundant sourcing indicating that there were other Jewish Christian groups as well. I think it makes sense, to reduce the length of such comments, to limit them to the specific material being proposed for addition, and the sources to support such changes. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to restrain your comments to discussing good ideas for improving the article. Ovadyah (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

New sections

I suggest that the material in the new sections Matthaei Authenticum and Jewish Christians would be better in those respective articles? Also seems a bit preachy, but that's another matter. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 13:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This may have happened because I left a mergeto tag on the Ebionites section of the Gospel of the Ebionites article. The purpose was to merge the redundant material on the Ebionites as a sect. Talk about unintended consequences! However, it brings up a larger question of whether the Gospel of the Ebionites article should be merged into this article. All we know for sure about the "gospel the Ebionites used" are the quotations Epiphanius provides in his polemic. That's it. One possibility would be to embed those quotes in the GoE section of this article. If you decide to revert, please explain your reasoning on the talk page. Ovadyah (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue with merging the GoE into the Ebionite article is that we may be cycling here; wasn't the GoE article originally created out of material from the Ebionite article? (Perhaps it wasn't - I haven't checked, but that was my impression.) The GoE seems to be fought over less; as such it may be a natural receptacle for the less contentious material (i.e. what Epiphanius quoted from what he called the GoE). -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was created (mostly?) independently. The log file shows a different set of editors. I wouldn't worry about the level of contentiousness on this article. Rather, I would welcome the active participation of Ret.Prof and Hardyplants to expand the GoE section and work on improving the entire article. The same goes for the author of the Ebion article. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I welcome their input as well. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 00:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Christians

Most scholars today acknowledge that Jesus was a Jew. His mother was Jewish. He was raised in a Jewish household in the Jewish village of Nazareth in Jewish Palestine. He was raised in a Jewish culture, accepted Jewish ways, learned the Jewish tradition, and kept the Jewish Law. As a Rabbi he would have debated the Law at the Temple. Most scholars would further agree that his disciples, probably while Jesus was still living, considered him to be the Jewish Messiah, come to deliver God's Chosen people from the oppressive power of Rome. For one reason or another, the leaders of his people, the power players in Jerusalem, considered him a troublemaker, and when he appeared in the capital city for a Passover feast around 30 CE , they arranged to have him arrested and handed over to the Roman governor, who put him on trial for sedition against the state and executed him on charges of claiming to be King of the Jews. And so Jesus was Jewish from start to last. His disciples were as well: born and bred Jews.

Without authenticated archaeological evidence, attempts to reconstruct their history have been based on textual references, mainly the writings of the Church Fathers who clearly agree that the Ebionites were and understood themselves to be Jewish followers of Jesus. They believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures. They also believed that to belong to the people of God, one needed to be Jewish. As a result, they insisted on observing the Sabbath, keeping kosher, and circumcising all males.

Their insistence on staying Jewish should not seem especially peculiar from a historical perspective, since Jesus and his disciples were Jewish. But the Ebionite's Jewishness did not endear them to most other Christians, who believed that Jesus allowed them to bypass the requirements of the Law for salvation. The Ebionites, however, maintained that their views were authorized by the original disciples, especially by Peter and Jesus own brother, James, head of the Jerusalem church after the resurrection.

One other aspect of the Ebionites Christianity that set it apart from that of most other Christian groups was their "understanding" of the person of Jesus. The Ebionites did not subscribe to the notion of Jesus' virgin birth.

Matthaei Authenticum

These people were Jews, who understood that the ancient Jewish traditions revealed God's ongoing interactions with his people and his Law for their lives. They did not accept any of the writings of Paul. Indeed, for them, Paul was not just wrong about a few minor points. He was the archenemy, the heretic who had led so many astray by insisting that a person is made right with God apart from keeping the Law and who forbade circumcision, the sign of the covenant, for his followers.

The Ebionites did have other Christian texts as part of their canon, however. Not surprisingly, they appear to have accepted Matthew's Hebrew Gospel in Aramaic but with Hebrew Letters. Jesus himself spoke Aramaic in Palestine, as did his earliest followers. It would make sense that a group of Jewish followers of Jesus that originated in Palestine would continue to cite his words, and stories about him, in his native tongue. It appears likely that this gospel was different from the Gospel of Matthew now in the canon. In particular, it lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus; birth to a virgin;a notion that the Ebionite Christians rejected.

During the time of the Early Church most scholars referred to Matthew's Hebrew Gospel as Matthaei Authenticum (Authentic Gospel of Matthew) to distinguish it from the Canonical Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible.

Although many believed that Canonical Matthew was merely a Greek translation of Authentic Matthew it was Jerome who first pointed out that this was not likely. In a letter to Pope he pointed out that their were major discrepancies between the two. Today most scholars agree as it appears that Canonical Matthew was not written by Matthew but by an unknown redactor long after the time of Apostles, basing his work on the Gospel of Mark Q source and M source (see the Synopyic Problem.

This was too much for me to swallow in one bite, so I moved the new sections to the talk page. Let's discuss. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is now moot, as Ret.Prof no longer supports a merge of the GoE into the Ebionites article. See the talk page of that article for an explanation. However, I still think the first section of that article, on the Ebionites as a sect, is too long and should either be simplified or merged. Ovadyah (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Which? The first section of the Ebionite article, or the GoE article? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 00:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant the first section of the GoE article. It is too long and redundant, imho. It should briefly explain who the Ebionites are with a link to this article and then get right into the gospel. I don't see why that requires a separate section. Ovadyah (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent removal of reasonably added template

I have restored the weasel words template which was removed with both a clear failure to AGF with the I believe inexcusably judgemental statement that it was "intentionally inappropriate." I indicated in my own earlier edit summary my reasons for adding the template, which are I believe in perfect accord with WP:WEASEL. Failure to address those concerns is not in and of itself sufficient cause to remove the template. On that basis I am restoring the template until and unless those concerns, which specifically include how many scholars are being discussed and how representative their opinions are of the opinions of the broader community, are addressed. I sincerely hope that rather than continue to engage in edit warring the other editors involved actually address the concerns raised. I also note that in Ovadyah's edit summary for removing the template he included "see talk," when, in fact, the only comments on the matter were later added by me. Misrepresentative edit summaries that imply something that is not supported are perhaps not the best form of comments to be made. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I note in Ovadyah's most recent removal of the template, he indicated that I had added it with the specific intention of provoking an edit war. Beyond the fact that such unfounded inflammatory statements are fairly clearly violations of content guidelines, they also seem to have been used, in this instance, as a way of refusing to address the comments which had already been placed on this page. I believe that any further jumps to conclusions on that individuals part, conclusions which some might see as perhaps bordering on paranoic, considering he is apparently indicating that he thinks any indication that the article has problems are intended to start an edit war. Indicating problems exist, based on policies and guidelines, does not start edit wars. Reverging the material indicating those problems exist, without addressing the concerns raised, and making unfounded accusations against others to perhaps try to distract any onlooker could much more reasonably be seen as being intended to start an edit war. I believe that any further reversions, without providing the material requested in the comments above, will be, if anything is, the edits which might be seen as attempting to start an edit war. John Carter (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No John Carter, five independent sources are referenced that support this particular view. You were asked by the mediator during informal mediation to produce even one source that argued against this position, and you utterly failed to do so after a month of waiting. If you want to argue the five sources represent a minority view then come up with additional reliable sources that represent your (non-existent) majority view to prove it. The only failure here is your failure to edit in an unbiased manner. Ovadyah (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

First, it should be noted that your comment above about my "(non-existent) majnority view" seems to once again be jumping to conclusions which violate AGF and are themselves completely unfounded. I never said that there was a "majority view", as you have implied. I very sincerely wish you could keep your comments to statements which directly address the concerns raised, which your own comment above does not in any way due. And you are, apparently, completely ignoring the evidence which was produced months ago at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor, and the other recent additions to the page on The Jesus Dynasty by others which indicate that there is no independent reliable sources on the internet (which seems to be the only source you individually will accept) which support Tabor's views. Would it be asking too much of you to actually address the concerns raised, rather than raise what are, I believe, clearly unfounded and irrelevant insults and attacks on others. And I find it amusing that you insult me by indicating I couldn't produce sources to support my contention, when we have all been waiting for you to produce reliable sources which support the conclusions of Tabor for how many years now without having any which can be included on that page produced. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have so much evidence, let's see some of it applied (by you) to improve this article, rather than deleting content you don't like followed by locking the article and arguing endlessly on the talk page for improvements you are unwilling to make yourself. Ovadyah (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I haven't is because other editors would remove it or contest it, as the history of this page and other page indicates. Please read WP:NPA, WP:TPG, and WP:IDHT and, rather than continuing to engage in off-topic oommentaries, either address the issues raised regarding weasel words as per that page. Also read WP:BURDEN, which makes it clear that the burden of proof lies primarily on those who seek to keep or include the material. If you and others could actually address the concerns raised, rather than engaging in pointless accusations and insinuations, the environment might be better for all concerned. Also, it is hardly a new problem for this article. Similar problems were noted at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ebionites/archive1, apparently were never resolved, and were probably a part of the reason the article was demoted from FA status. On that basis, the editors involved should already have been well aware of the weasel words problems and guidelines, considering both Ovadyah and Michael C Price were actively involved in the article then as well. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I explicitly identified the scholars who hold the majority view that James The Just was considered the head of the Jerusalem Church and a founder figure by the Ebionites. Views to the contrary by reliable sources have yet to be provided, despite repeated requests. Ovadyah (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Evidently it is asking too much of some editors to bother to read other pages. Also, the use of the word "majority" in the text is so clearly unsubstantiated that I have to once again question the judgement of the editor adding it. Based on the statement "the majority", there could only be a maximum of nine authors who have discussed this subject, and that has yet to be itself indicated. Also, the recent additions seem to in at least one source, Tabor, who explicitly states in his book that the Ebionites were founded around 150 AD, and "Judaic Christianity", which is said to have "survived" in the Ebionites, is not itself clearly and explicitly linked in the quotation to James the Just. On this basis, I believe that the material added is, apparently once again, a violation of WP:SYNTH. As can be seen in the recent history of this article, this is not the first time that error has been made, so I would encourage all editors involved to read the policy in question and maybe work a bit more diligently to ensure that their actions actually comply with that policy. And, again, I believe that the use of the word "majority" in this context is completely and utterly unsupported by the material added, and is likely a violation of WP:PEACOCK. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think the description of this view as a "majority view" is too strong, please produce your own majority view (or even a minority view) that argues otherwise on this talk page. Of course you can't, so your only solution is to delete the content of the entire section. Ovadyah (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, if you think there is a problem with WP:SYNTH, then prove it here on the talk page, rather than indulging in your usual baseless accusations and threats. It should also be noted that this specific content issue has already been addressed in informal mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I very sincerely urge you to read WP:BURDEN, which clearly indicates that the burden of proof is one the editor who adds the material, in this, case, you. Policy does not require that I prove anything is wrong, it requires that the individual who adds material, in this instance you prove the material is justified. Please act in accord with policies and guidelines and do what they demand of you. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Baloney. You can't cry WP:SYNTH like a baby and expect everyone else to prove a negative - namely that synthesis problem doesn't exist where there clearly is none. Show me a specific problem and I will attempt to address it. Ovadyah (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, your rude comment above once again seems to be off-topic and clearly fails to address the matter being raised. I am sorry that you seem to believe that you can add whatever you want, whether it is supported by policy or not, and then dismiss your failure to abide by policy and guidelines as "baloney." If you believe that, for whatever reason, your edits do not have to conform to policies and guidelines, then you are of course free to make a comment at a noticeboard or through an RfC about that belief. However, until and unless you do so, it seems that I am once again forced to remind you of WP:TPG and WP:IDHT. Please make any future comments you might choose to make directly relevant to the material in question, and refrain from such clearly off-topic commentary, and actually do what policy and guidelines indicate you are required to do to defend the material you added. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You already have an incident report open for this, so take your complaints there and we'll see what the admins have to say about it. Ovadyah (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And I will be particularly interested in what they have to say about your repeatedly adding comments which do not address the matters raised, which you have done I believe more than once in this thread alone. And I did show you a specific problem, which was that you seem to be indicating that the five sources you think are relevant, not all of which honestly necessarily support your contention, including Tabor, cannot be said to be a "majority" until and unless either (1) a specific source using that word is found to describe the balance of opinion - no such source has been produced, or (2) it is clearly indicated that the number of sources does constitute a majority as per that term. And I once again point out that your assumption that Tabor's statement that the Ebionites were necessarily followers of the Jewish Christians who followed James is itself not specifically supported by the text you produce, nor, necessarily, by logic. Since you have said that you would specifically address specific issues if pointed out to you, I very strongly suggest that you abide by your word and guidelines and comment directly on the issues raised. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The "James the Just as the head of the Jerusalem church" issue was explicitly resolved in the first round of mediation, in which many pro sources were provided (some of which explicitly stated it was the majority view) and not a single con source was supplied. Obviously John Carter didn't like the answer he got so he derailed the mediation, waits a few months, and brings up the issue again. [sigh]. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is the speculative synthesis that "A majority of scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church (including Pierre Antoine Bernheim, Will Durant, Robert Eisenman, John Painter, and James Tabor) argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death rather than Peter." That just doesn't fly: none of the sources support who constitutes "scholars who have studied" let alone supports "a majority" opinion. In addition to the unsupported synthesis involved in stating "a majority of scholars who have studied", there is the problem of cited sources not supporting the statement. This isn't limited to the example cited by John Carter; Will Durant also makes no such statement or connection, no citation to a reference for Bernheim is given, and the citation to Painter doesn't mention Ebionites at all in the referenced section describing James the Just and early Judeo-Christianity and formative Judaism, nor does it depict James as being regarded as a founding figure. Other well-regarded scholars, such as Pritz, are much more cautious in how they deal with what are limited ancient sources, rather than staking unqualified claims as to what may be inferred from the little evidence that is available. • Astynax ^talk 10:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues here. First, James as head of the early Jerusalem churh, and second, the identification of this church with the Ebionites. Durant makes the connection. (And the article already explains that the term Ebionite may have only been applied by contemporary sources in their later years.) Bernheim is referenced through an interview (which is perfectly acceptable for a respected academic source). Finally there is no reason to regard James as a founder - that role is left to John the Baptist or Jesus. I shall check the Painter ref. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have restored Durant as a notable and reliable source. The removal of this reference was completely inappropriate. Ovadyah (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, completely inappropriate, but in line with N's previous habit of deleting material based on his own idiosyncratic preferences. Perhaps his topic ban should be extended from the Israeli-Palestine conflict to all Middle Eastern related topics? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Asyntax, the statement "a majority of scholars who have studied" is demonstrably true, if publications and books mean anything. There are no counter-examples in the literature. However, if you can identify one or more reliable sources, we will incorporate the opposing view into the article. Ovadyah (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Astynax and John Carter. --John (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the majority claim. However, I challenge anyone actually working on this page to produce reliable sources advocating an alternative view, as opposed to blanking the entire section and locking the article. Ovadyah (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually did bother to check the references to the statement before commenting. Durant does NOT make ANY connection that supports the statement being referenced, and the edited quote inserted into the footnote misleads as to the content of Durant's passage. Durant makes a single mention of Ebionim as a survival of Judaic Christianity. He makes no mention of James as having founded a sect, nor does he say anything at all else about the Ebionites—including anything about Ebionites regarding James as "their leader after Jesus's death". If you are going to reference Bernheim, then quote him and supply a reference to the interview. The normative view/views is that the sources are largely inconclusive. Alternatives are supplied by scholars such as Pritz who describe the Ebionites as either a later offshoot of Judaic Christianity which continued alongside it, a syncretic movement that arose in Syria even later, a conflation by later authors of multiple movements, etc. The problem of drawing conclusions (i.e., synthesis) from references, instead of only reporting what they say, has been mentioned here before, as has the problem of the article making it seem that more is known about the sect than there is. When sources in a field are limited, even scholars can easily be tempted to mix up the ingredients and put out novel postulations (to make a book a more exciting read, to advance their careers, or simply to stimulate interest in a field for which there is no new information). In many cases, they cross the line into fringe territory. If they garner wider support, then they can become notable for our purposes if treated carefully and not give the impression that they represent a consensus. But Wiki policy does not allow us to imitate them and insert our own construct, does not allow us to make connections that the references do not themselves make, and does not allow us to synthesize a consensus (although we can quote a reliable source that states that there is a consensus). • Astynax ^talk 19:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Astynax, why do you say He makes no mention of James as having founded a sect? Where does the article claim this? I've already explained that this is not the case - why do you keep bringing it up? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The article claims "the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death rather than Peter." As there are no records of an Ebionite sect prior to James the Just, his becoming "their leader" would denote a role in the foundation of this sect. Regardless, the statement is not supported, and there is no record of an Ebionite sect being in existence as early as during James' lifetime. Nor does a simple mention of "Ebionim" on a page that happens to also mention of James elsewhere in another paragraph constitute Durant making "a connection"—that is a misuse of sources. • Astynax ^talk 02:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is your synthesis from primary sources that James was their founder, and one contested by some sources. As for their date of formation, that is vague and disputed (as mentioned in article) and also very dependent on the naming issue (also mentioned in article). -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

AGAIN, the article explicitly states that "Scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church, including Pierre Antoine Bernheim, Robert Eisenman, Will Durant, John Painter, and James Tabor, argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death." That is a misuse of sources, as most of these references say no such thing. My "synthesis" isn't in the article, but the statement regarding James as is in the article and is a serious problem, as is the same general problem elsewhere in the article. • Astynax ^talk 23:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I note you say "most" refs don't support the statement, so you accept some do. Regardless, this is just the "naming problem" previously mentioned. If the statement said something like the Ebionites or the early Jewish-Christians based at Jerusalem or whatever, would that make you happy? (I shall be mostly offline for a few days.) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I would underwrite that statement fully, and it could apply to much of the article, which is contaminated by an ambition to retrieve by a selective original synthesis of a few marginal theories an image of a religious group we know little about with precision. Therefore, as I have said before, the abiding problem here is methodological - the procedures being used patently defy the limits imposed on editors as to what one can do on Wikipedia, they infringe WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

Ovadyah, I will ignore Michael Price's silly interactions with me, but, really, there should be no discussion as to the use of Will Durant, who by no stretch of the imagination, as opposed to scraping the barrell, could be classified as a 'scholar' endowed with the linguistic and specialist historical gifts to make a judgement on an obscure technical question in the Middle Eastern history of religions. He worked as a syntheziser of secondary sources, and is wholly outdated. To use him is to grasp at straws, or scrape the barrel because one might think his 'view' useful to one's own personal interpretation. Responsible editors with a good historical sense must sieve away the chaff of cheap citation, and stick to the best available up to date materials.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the sources still do not support the statement in the text, I have inserted failed verification notices. These references should be removed. As has already been mentioned, this problem appears to affect other parts of the article. References are not to be used to support editor synthesis. Again, if the reference doesn't say something, don't say it in the article (and don't use a reference that doesn't support what a statement says). • Astynax ^talk 08:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the mass tagging is that even a cursory examination of the sources shows that at least some of the sources support the text. Are you seriously claiming, for example, that a source entitled "The Jesus Dynasty" does not make dynastic claims? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not, as noted above, the references cited do not even remotely support "Scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church, including Pierre Antoine Bernheim, Robert Eisenman, Will Durant, John Painter, and James Tabor,[ argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death." The tag for the reference in the following sentence is for a book that does not appear to be notable (the ISBN fails, as well as does a Google Books search on the title). Please refrain from reverting valid tags. • Astynax ^talk 08:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Astynax, I don't know what your problem is, and I don't care. You have said nothing that addresses my statement, and I don't care to debate with people that evade issues. However I leave it to others to take this further.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the mass-tagging of all the sources. Please work out your differences over content like grown-ups. The sources should be discussed individually for any content issues specific to that source. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Pre-existence

The inline warning has been appended to the phrase ...

"...central Christian views of Jesus such as his pre-existence, ..."

... at subsection Jesus, because pre-existence does NOT appaear in the article Jesus in Christianity. The warning should NOT be removed before the question has been discusses and the question settled.
Miguel de Servet (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the wiki Jesus in Christianity with the wiki for the Nicene Creed. The point of the sentence is that the Church Fathers felt the Ebionites had a Christology that was inconsistent with Nicene orthodoxy. Pre-existence and the rest are integral aspects of Nicene orthodoxy, so that should fix the problem. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ebionite arbitration request

John Carter has filed an arbitration request about the contents of this article. You may like to review the request at here and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reapplied the expert tag, which stood in the article from August 2007 until September 2010, based on Llywrch's excellent opening statement in arbitration. Imo, both Llywrch and Nishidani are on the right track in terms of what needs to be done here. I probably fall somewhere in between them, recognizing that expert help is urgently needed (and has been for 3 1/2 years now), yet optimistic that we have the capabilities to rise to the challenge. Ovadyah (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Llywrch's analysis of the problem is completely correct, but his (& Nishindani's) solution is contrary to Wikipedia's non-expert ethos - and also unimplementable, since the disagreement would simply move to arguing over who is an "expert". The only solution is simply to report in a WP:NPOV way all views that pass WP:RS, WP:V and stop trying to use unverifiable fringe claims as a content POV filter. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right about the difficulties in defining who is an expert, and consequently, we need to be clear in advance about what the credentials are that would qualify an editor to be considered a scholar. Based on the arguments made on this talk page and in arbitration, having a tenured faculty position at a reputable college or university, even a department chairmanship, is apparently not a sufficient qualification. Ovadyah (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That, of course, is just moving the problem again - now instead of arguing about who is an expert we are arguing about what credentials they need. That won't work for the same reasons - editors will simply support credentials possessed by their favourite sources and reject those possessed by sources that don't support their POV - as we see has already happened.

"Fringe" is simply a concept not applicable to filtering out the material about an extinct minority religious movement. Searching for a mythical "expert" who will put things right is about a misguided as can be. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael, if you can indicate by a specific quote from policy or guidelines anything that supports your comment above, please do so. Also, I believe it would be extremely interesting if you could produce any evidence to support that Akers even qualifies as notable as per WP:N. I believe any independent outsider would come to the conclusion that, at the very least, a so-called "expert" would have had some individuals in the academic community give some attention to his work, and I have seen no evidence of that to this date. In all honesty, we can't even say that his work has been rejected by academia, as we can say about the work of Eisenman (through the quotation to that effect) and about Tabor's theories about the Talpiot tomb, because that material from sources exist. So far, all we have is your unsubstantiated claim that Akers is an expert, and the fact that his beliefs are not of themselves even yet notable. I cannot see how any reasonable person would say that someone who has to date been, basically, ignored by the relevant parties, is somehow an "expert." If you can produce any substantive evidence to the contrary, please, by all means do so. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The episode with Keith Akers is especially instructive. Keith appeared on the article page representing himself as a scholar, and he was given an unusual amount of deference befitting a scholar. From my perspective, he added content to the article that mostly pandered to his website while suppressing anything that contradicted that POV (you be the judge). Most of that "scholarly" content is now long gone from the article. Ovadyah (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

First, Michael makes the statement that Akers is an expert based seemingly almost exclusively on his having written and self-published a book on this subject. I fail to see how the fact that an individual is willing to spend his money to publish a book to publish his opinions automatically qualifies him as an expert, particularly as no one has produced any evidence to date to indicate that his book has received any degree of substantive support from the academic community. I believe it is extremely reasonable to ask what, exactly, the claim that he is an expert is based on. Also, I would ask once again on what basis the content from those academic sources has been so pointedly ignored by both Ovadyah and Michael. Independent reliable sources have indicated that Tabor's work has very little if any standing in the academic community. The book cited as the source for his beliefs is accordingly to the jacket blurb about the Jesus family tomb, and the book itself gives at best minimal mention of the Ebionites per se.

On the other hand, other material which is clearly relevant to the subject, such as the beliefs of the group as stated by the only sources we have which clearly deal with the Ebionites per se, have been mentioned by me earlier, and I even provided a quote from an independent reliable source summarizing them. As can be seen from the page records, when I produced a quote from a source summarizing the beliefs attributed to the Ebionites by Epiphanius, Ovadyah refused to respond directly, instead making an at-best weakly allegation that I was intending that the material be presented in list format, which I don't think I indicated. This material, which deals with the religious beliefs of the group, would be, I think in the eyes of most, among the most important information to this subject. Can anyone give me any good reason why this material has been so long kept from the article? I believe that this very selective inclusion of material could be perhaps easily attributed to the possibility that certain individuals who seek to promote the claims of existing groups to continue the Ebionite "heritage", and I would believe that would be a very serious indication of problems. I as an individual believe that, based on the behavior I have seen to date, this is a very serious concern, although I would be very gratified to see it change. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry John, I can't get past the first line. Where did I call Akers an expert? Extremely puzzled. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course, you didn't call him an 'expert', you included him in a laundry list of scholars you defined as being at the tip of scholarship. I suppose there's wriggle room to deny the obvious implication here, by arguing that an 'expert' is not necessarily someone on the cusp of the relevant scholarship. Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt John had that passing mention in mind. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing is wrong with Charlesworth in that diff. Forget about Larson and Akers. That battle is ancient history. Ovadyah (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Your doubts about what anyone has in their minds are not relevant. You doubted you had ever called Akers an expert, casting a shadow of suspicion on Carter's representation. I showed by a diff Carter's ref. was a fair statement of your position, and now you psychologize. This is one of the many reasons why I am convincd engaging in mediation with you is meaningless. It's just a sequence of precise diffs by your interlocutors answered by dodging and dodgy asides. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an excellent discussion topic for formal mediation. Why don't you bring it there and we can discuss it, rather than engage in soliloquies on the article talk page. Just a suggestion. Ovadyah (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And your response is an even better exaqmple of how you as an individual have once again engaged in problematic behavior which may only be resolvable by arbitration, in this case behavior which seems to violate WP:IDHT, by once again refusing to directly address subjects that you as an individual might object to based on your own opinions. Just a suggestion, why don't you deal with questions as they are raised, rather than trying to palm them off elsewhere? In the past, when specific responses were requested, you have at times chosen to not respond but instead make your subsequent comments elsewhere. It will be interesting to see if that problematic behavior continues here, or whether you will actually abide by guidelines and directly address the subjects raised. If you could be bothered to directly respond to these points when they are first raised, there would be no need to make such lengthy comments. The question is, are the editors here really interested in directly dealing with improving the article through relevant reliable sources, or in continuing to avoid dealing with material which they, as individuals, might find disagrees with them? The evidence to date much more clearly indicates the latter than the former, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have had interaction with Ovadyah & Michael in the past and can say they are both great Wikipedia editors who do not engage in problematic behavior. In the current debate, their position is strong and well referenced. For a full discussion please go here. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would request that people also review the history of this page to see the number of occasions when they have engaged in unfounded insults, evasion, and other unacceptable behavior. Please see the numberous comments to that effect from seveal editors, not just myself, in the history of this page. And I would also be very interested in a more detailed indication of your previous history with them. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ret. Prof, nothing good can come from responding to this insult. John Carter is slyly asking if you are a co-conspirator (in some kind of nefarious plot), so that he can undermine your credibility. Don't take the bait. Ovadyah (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

All of us can get caught up in the heat of the moment and be a little harsh. We must put the past behind us and focus on presenting "referenced material" from a NPOV. A fresh start, an open mind (and a thick skin?) is what we must strive for. Remember the topic is a difficult one. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of rewrite template

I have restored the template to the top of the article which stated that I believe the article needs a complete rewrite. I added the template because I believe, as per the majority of the most recent reliable sources as can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, particularly the encyclopedic articles, that the article does still refuse to address the issues of the beliefs attributed to the Ebionites, as well as the matter of whether or not the Ebionites were one group or many. Also, I sincerely hope neither Ovadyah nor anyone else sees to remove the template without the consent and approval of outside editors. On a possibly related point, I believe that on at least two recent occasions Ovadyah has reverted the input of other editors with an edit summary saying the edits were made to provoke an edit war. It is not the place of any editor, even one so "devoted" to this article as Ovadyah, who has rarely edited anything else, to make such summary judgements of the actions of others, as both policy and guidelines indicate. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I would concur with the restoration of that template. I think it has been generally acknowledged by Ovadyah that a series of structural rearrangements (like titrating all Primary Source references through secondary RS) are indeed required, and to do that constitutes a rewrite task of no small order. Therefore the template seems to reflect, whatever our specific disagreements may be, a general consensus that a major revision is required.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I just checked the 113 references, and Tabor and Eisenman, who are indeed fringey, are cited 12 times (7+5), i.e., 10 percept of the refs are to two scholars whose books promote theses that do not find any significant support among their mainstream colleagues. Given the huge amount of controversy and the volume of available mainstream articles and books available, this is clearly one of the elements that require reassessment in the proposed rewriting.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

John Carter, I don't care if you apply a cleanup template, especially if that encourages other editors to help out. However, I do care that you, once again, appear to be violating copyright laws, and directing other editors to view those potential violations with links to this talk page. You were already instructed by an admin to clean this up. diff diff Please clean up any violations today, or another admin will do it for you. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate "tag spam" but in this case the templates should stay until the process is finished. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, I find it amusing that you, who first accused me of falsifying the material contained therein, are now accusing me of the exact opposite. And I find it equally amusing that you, who have been told repeatedly by several people to act in accord with guidelines, have pointedly refused to do so. The information on those pages is submitted as evidence. Any reasonable editor would be able to cull the appropriate information from them, and cite them as sources. The references could be improved later. Also, as has previously been mentioned by me, I recused myself from editing the article after your allegation that I had falsified the information contained on that page. On that basis, presenting such evidence in this format, which I believe even you are now agreeing is accurate, is the only way I have available to me to ensure that it be seen. As we both know, the material has been available for some time, and yet, somehow, for your own reasons, you and the others who have not recused yourself from editing have ignored it. If you wish to challenge their reliability, please do so at WP:FTN or WP:RSN. If you wish to challenge the accuracy of the reproduction of information, please do so at WP:Fact and Reference Check. Otherwise, I believe that such sources, have to counted as among the most reliable, and that there is no reason for them to be ignored as they have been. The ball is, basically, as it has been for some time, in your court. And I believe that it is relevant for the arbitration which has been accepted. However, if one of the arbitrators, or Jayjg, or some person of similar experience and involvement, requests that the information be removed, or altered, I would have no reservations to remove the quotations, leaving only the page numbers, titles, etc. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I never accused you of "falsifying" any material. Prove it right here on this talk page, and then you can apologize to me when you can't do it. You recused yourself because you are unwilling to put in even a minimum of effort adding content to this article. What was your excuse three-and-a-half years ago? You did next to nothing then too. Ovadyah (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A review of the contents of the talk page archives for this page will reveal that you said something along the lines of "how do we know that these are real" after I first presented the information? I acknowledge right now, however, that, given the length of the archives, and my limited time, I do not have the time to review the records. I will attempt to do so in the next few days, but, as I think is evident from my recent reduced activity, I do have other concerns, even in wikipedia, which I believe an editor like you, who has devoted roughly 80% of his total article edits since the establishment of his account to this single article, might have difficulty understanding. I believe that you are once again in your above comment displaying the telepathy, attempting to read the minds of others, which you have displayed repeatedly in your blind reversions of changes to the article which you have dismissed as trying to start edit wars. And the clear evidence, Ovadyah, is that you are once again trying to avoid directly dealing with the matter of the presented evidence, and once again trying to engage in some sort of misdirection. I believe that clearly qualifies as a violation of WP:IDHT. Please make at least a bit of an effort to actually address the matter of reliable sources, rather than continuing to engage in these attempts of misdirection through personal attacks. The record will show that the information presented has been available for some time, and that, since its introduction, it has been basically ignored by you and Michael. I hope it isn't asking too much of you to actually deal with the reliable sources presented, rather than engaging in unacceptable behavior. Thank you in advance for making the rest of your comments on this page adhere to talk page guidelines. John Carter (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about the use of tertiary sources in general, and reading right from the guidelines about the use of Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary sources here. Try to read what is written. Ovadyah (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tabor

JSTOR so far as I can tell doesn't allow links to its "Search results" pages, so I am going to have to request independent confirmation from another editor. However, when I ran for a search of the "books received" columns in the Near East and Religion "fields" for the period from the beginning of 2005 through April 2006, when Tabor's book was released, I came up with a total of 83 matches, most of which are lists of books received for review. When I ran a separate check for the words "Jesus Dynasty" in all fields, the total number of returns were two, one an article by Tabor and another an article about the Talpiot Tomb. It is, basically, unheard of for a purportedly "academic" work to not be submitted for peer review. On the basis of this information, I believe it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that this book was not considered by either the author or publisher to be an "academic" work. Rather, the obvious conclusion is that the book was what an independent RS once said, and what Tabor himself said in at least two interviews, an attempt to "cash in" on The DaVinci Code. I would welcome anyone confirming the JSTOR resoluts I mention above. I would also note that searches of ProQuest and Infotrac return basically similar results as the JSTOR results, and would request that someone else confirm them as well. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman's two best-selling books, Lost Christianities and Lost Scriptures, were intended to be popular works. Yet you don't seem to have any trouble using those books as reliable sources. I guess they don't conflict with conservative Catholic dogmatism. Ovadyah (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can verify that they received no reviews in academic journals, please do so. And it should also be noted here that not only did I check the Saint Louis University library, which is, as I said elsewhere, one of the best relisious libraries in the world according to Gordon Melton, but also the libraries of Webster University and Washington University. The latter is counted as one of the ten best academic libraries in the world. In neither of the latter did I find any reference sources regarding the Ebionites that were not at SLU. There were also several other reference books in the SLU library and others, on such topics as Hinduism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, and other groups, as well as reference volumes on Baptist, Anglican, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Stone-Campbell Movement, and others. None of them contained any entries on the Ebionites, but I could produce them if required. And, as you have been told repeatedly by numerous people now, article talk pages are not appropriate for making personal attacks, such as the one you made above. Please at leaat make a bit of a discernible effort to adhere to talk page guidelines. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of template

The template indicating that the page needs to be rewritten, which had been placed on the article by me, was subsequently removed by another editor, partially on the basis of mediation regarding this article taking place. As of yet, there has been no mediation regarding the article. My concerns regarding the article's over-reliance on sources which clearly qualify as fringe as per WP:FRINGE and comparative neglect of other, more generally reliable sources, still remain unaddressed. I am on that basis restoring the tag, as the concerns which caused the template to be placed in the beginning have not yet been met or to my eyes sufficiently addressed. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else, apart from JC, support the insertion / retention of the template? --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, excessive weight and prominence is given to the theories of Tabor and Eisenman, both of which clearly meet, according to the review material on those works indicated here and elsewhere, as fringe per WP:FRINGE. Comparative disregard is given to works which have been received much more favorably by academia. The fact that this article has been in arbitration and mediation multiple times indicates I believe that the current group of editors involved cannot reach a conclusion which adheres to policies and guidelines, barring successful mediation or other steps. Therefore, I cannot see how a flawed consensus that fringe theories should be given this much weight qualifies as a reasonable consensus as per policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not asking if John Carter agrees with John Carter, but whether anyone else agrees. --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I concur with John Carter. The template should stay in place. I may be in a position to comment more extensively in late February or early March.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else not canvassed by John Carter? --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael, please read WP:CANVASS. Also, I do not believe it is the place of any editor, specifically in this instance including yourself, to attempt to disqualify outside input in advance, as you seem to be doing in the above comments. If you can find that I have violated the terms of that guideline in my requests for input, I would welcome it. I would also call to your attention that this is, believe it or not, the Christmas season, and that there are a number of editors who may not be editing immediately. I believe, in light of the evidence, it would be unreasonable to attempt to remove the template until and unless outside editors, not including those involved in the mediation, comment. I am also frankly surprised by your apparent rush to attempt to resolve a matter which is pending mediation in what might seem to outsiders as a somewhat rushed and perhaps cavalier manner. Why are you apparently in such a hurry about this? John Carter (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The usual wall-of-text justifications that aren't. --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael, please indicate to me how the above comment, which obviously draws conclusions without providing a single piece of evidence to support them, is even remotely appropriate as per WP:TALK. Should you perhaps not be able to do so, then is it really asking too much of you to cease to make such comments? Also, is there any good reason you can give why your own comment utterly failed to address anything substantive? John Carter (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The article needs work. The lead doesn't summarize the content. The article relies too heavily on primary sources (and thus features OR) and on questionable sources (e.g., a 100 year old Catholic encyclopedia). JC didn't canvass me. Leadwind (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, I'm sure it was well intentioned, but I have reverted most of your changes; such deletion of material is not acceptable and looks like drive-by disruption. For instance your removal of historically well attested gossip about Paul's motivation is not appropriate. (Please familarise yourself with the subject a bit more before making further sweeping deletions.) And this nicely illustrates why we should cite all acceptable sources, not just what one particular editor considers the best (see earlier talk discussions).

Thanks for deletion of the "now kiddies" nonsense.

--cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Blanking sourced content without discussion is a no-no. The lead was recently rewritten by Ret. Prof., and there may now be some adjustments required to align it with the main body. However, the answer is not to delete the sourced content. Agree completely about the overuse of primary sources, unless they are explicitly cited by reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Ovadyah (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This would include, of course, the theories which are primarily sourced in the works of Tabor and Eisenman, wouldn't it? And, by the way, as can be seen in the material at User:John Carter/Ebionites and the accompanying talk page, the historical sources are regularly discussed in the literature. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The article does require work, and the tag was appropriate. I'm familiar with many of the sources used, some of those in dispute, and mentions by other scholars regarding the Ebionites. I do not think that anyone questions that contemporary evidences for the Ebionites are extremely slim and say very little. Much of the scholarship is able to offer little more than conjecture, and are self-admitted hypothoses in absence of more evidence. The article does seem to suggest that we know more about this sect than we do, and some of it based on popular literature such as The Jesus Dynasty which are both sensationalistic and have been widely denounced as fringe, as John Carter has demonstrated. Hypotheses from scholars which do not enjoy wide consensus need to be clearly identified as such and clearly attributed in the text itself. There are still uncited statements in the article, and although most of the primary sources are appropriately used, some are used to support synthesis and this also needs to be corrected. • Astynax ^talk 08:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A proposal has been made in the opening arguments of mediation to begin with the primary sources and document exactly what they say. However, this is an unacceptable way to proceed, as primary sources are by definition unreliable sources. It is accurate, imho, to state that "much of the scholarship is able to offer little more than conjecture". Our job is to document that conjecture, as long as it is made by reliable sources, not to decide for the reader what is "truth". Ovadyah (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Primary ancient sources which have been published are RS when limited to documenting what those sources say. This is widely done in historical articles, even articles which have GA/A/FA status, for just that purpose. They are not, however, acceptable citations for statements which contain synthesis, which must be cited to secondary sources. Documenting conjecture is fine, as long as conjecture is clearly labeled as such and attributed. Otherwise, the line between hypothesis and fact becomes blurred in the reader's mind (as happens too frequently in "popular" non-fiction titles). There is also a matter of WP:Weight, which requires that the article present various scholarly views "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". By overloading the article with various hypotheses, the material for which scholarly consensus DOES exist gets overwhelmed by speculative minority viewpoints, which is mixed in with the other text. If documenting prominent hypotheses, then it would be clearer to place those into their own section with each view clearly attributed in the text to the supporting scholar(s) so readers do not have to sort out what is generally accepted from minority views. • Astynax ^talk 19:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The above comment clearly responds to Ovadyah's inappropriate description of the only historical sources we have on this subject, which are the works of the church fathers, provided that they are limited to saying what is said in those sources. It should be noted that my proposal to start the article with such sources would either repeat what the sources themselves say or use secondary sources neutrally describing the content of those primary sources. I have to say that Ovadyah's comment above strikes me as being almost laughable. In this instance, it seems to me that it is he who is seeking to indicate that the theories of two sources which have been described in reliable sources as "rejected by the academic community" (Eisenman) or "irresponsible" (Tabor) deserve much more regard than they have been given by the academic community. As per wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it is our objective to reflect the academic opinions of the community, as per WP:WEIGHT, WP:FT, etc. I have said before that I have no objections to adding material regarding religious beliefs which are out of step with the academic opinion, provides those alleged religious beliefs can be clearly indicated by reliable secondary sources and are notable enough to be included. Any individual can create an internet church and say that they have hundreds, if not millions, of followers, when, in fact, the truth may be that only the person creating the page actually ascribed to those beliefs. We are most or less obligated by policy to base content on what reliable independent sources say, and I have yet to see any such useful information regarding any extant potentially relevant internet churches produced. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There are relevant historical sources other than the works of the church fathers. Please familiarize yourself with the concept of confirmation bias. Ovadyah (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate what they are then. In this sense, I believe to be "relevant" it would also be required that they actually discuss the group by name. For my purposes, I was thinking of the fathers through I think Epiphanius, maybe further. I am aware that there are other sources, but to the best of my knowledge it is only a supposition of some that they are directly relevant to the Ebionites, as they are not named. Also I cannot see how saying "there are other sources" than the church fathers is reason for the rather little weight as per WP:WEIGHT which the article currently gives to what are, basically, the only sources which can be said to deal with the subject without additional speculations. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

John Carter, it is not your call, or any other editor, to decide which primary sources are relevant by putting conditions on which sources should be allowed and which should be excluded. The very act of doing that is analysis and interpretation. As I already pointed out below, that is a clear violation of WP:OR. It is up to the reliable secondary and tertiary sources to decide which primary sources are relevant. Your inability to see this simple point, imho, results from a type of confirmation bias. When I stated there are relevant primary sources other than the church fathers, I did so based on my recollection of the secondary literature, not because I personally think they are relevant. Ovadyah (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I note that once again I asked a direct question as to what the "other sources" to which Ovadyah has now repeatedly referred to are, and how they are demonstrably applicable, and how that matter has once again been ignored by him. And it is not the "recollection of the secondary literature" which matters, as that is not a reliable source. I hope it is not actually asking too much of you to indicate what those sources are. As per the encyclopedic articles I have reproduced, I am aware of no other secondary sources indicated in them (unless I overlooked something). On that basis, I myself have no idea what they might be. I believe it would be reasonable to actually have Ovadyah say what those sources are, and what the secondary sources which cite them are. As I have indicated previously in this discussion, and here again, I am aware of a few sources which some secondary sources say might be relevant. Other secondary sources apparently disagree, and certainly tertiary sources seemingly do. I hope it is not asking too much of Ovadyah to indicate what these primary sources are, which recent reliable sources indicate they are relevant, and what specific material from them is deemed relevant. I think this question has been asked by me before, with no clear response of any kind that I can remember seeing. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that you can "document" the contents of primary sources as long as you don't interpret them in any way ("Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."). The proposal in mediation was for certain editors to decide on what should be included in the article based on their interpretation of what the primary sources say. That is a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I also agree that conjecture should clearly be labeled as such and attributed. WP:WEIGHT is a guideline, and what constitutes WP:UNDUE is often ambiguous and subjective. The proper balance between majority and minority views can only be resolved by community consensus. It has been stipulated by all parties from the beginning that the works of Eisenman and Tabor represent minority views. We differ on the degree of weight they should be given. Ovadyah (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, we differ in providing any support from independent sources regarding the matter, because few if any sources from reliable sources as per WP:RS have been provided. Seeing such support as is postulated above displayed would be welcome, but has, for whatever reason, never been produced. Without such evidence, any statements regarding the views having even minotiry support are themselves not demonstrably founded by any reliable sources which have yet been produced. and, as per WP:BURDEN, the burden of proof to include information is on those who seek to include the information. I don't think we have yet seen any substantive support of either Eisenman or Tabor in reliable sources produced to date. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Tabor, I have been very conservative in how I use Tabor as a source. I have restricted my citations to Tabor's direct references to primary sources, usually quotations, to support his interpretations. As to unfavorable reviews of Tabor's work in SBL, SBL is a religious magazine pretending to be a scholarly journal. Some of its content is religious propaganda that can't be taken seriously, particularly the editorials. Ovadyah (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This statement is truly extraordinary, and almost literally laughable. Tabor's beliefs have been basically entirely rejected by the academic community. As such, as per WP:FRINGE, they deserve little if any discussion in this main article. The fact that the above editor is once again seeking to completely ignore relevant content guidelines to support his pet theories is a serious and ongoing problem that this article has. And the almost total disregard of sources which have received much more regular and substantial support in reliable sources is the other problem. To the best of my knowledge, you yourself are the one who has been insisting that Tabor, whose work has been fairly universally decried, has to be included not only regularly in the content, but as one of the few to be listed as a reference/further reading. I cannot see how anyone can say that their insistence on using a source, when there is clearly relatively little support for it being reliable, qualifies as "conservative". John Carter (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have taken a closer look at the request by John Carter that brought you to this article, please also see WP:CANVASS#Campaigning. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ovadyah, please indicate how that qualified as campaigning. I did nothing to indicate what I thought the desired outcome would be, and, on that basis, I have no reason to believe it qualified as campaigning. Please indicate exactly what you see that causes you to make that conclusion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply: If you are implying that John Carter has been campaigning, the message posted to me did not attempt to sway my comments, other than to request my input. I do participate when able in the Religion and Christianity Wikiprojects and respond to requests for comment when I'm able. S/he mentioned there was dispute was over the tag, which is how I knew in which area comment was being requested. Regarding being careful as to how Tabor is used, I noted, in reading through the article prior to commenting, that there was at least one citation where he is the sole source (apart from a primary source which cannot be used to support synthesis). Again, if you wish to cover minority views, the best way to cut through the disagreement about weight is to either discuss them only in a separate, clearly labeled section on minority hypotheses, or in each instance to both clearly attribute to the minority scholar and label as a minority viewpoint. In highly contentious cases, those qualifiers need to be within the text and not relegated to footnotes where most readers will not notice them. As I mentioned above, in reading the article, I came away with the impression that I was being led to believe that there is much more information on, and wide consensus on details regarding, this sect than exists. That was due primarily to the lines between minority hypothoses and majority scholarly consensus not being clear. I have no idea whether that is the objection which prompted the tag to be added, but in my view that is a serious problem which would support keeping the tag until it is addressed. • Astynax ^talk 03:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I had myself raised the possibility of the relevant guideline myself to Michael. This is now twice when other editors have accused me of violating a guideline without providing any substantial support of such allegations. Such behavior is itself a likely violation of guidelines. I would be very heartened if such unsupported allegations made by editors were to cease. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you insist on pushing the point, allow me to instruct you. Requests for input are supposed to be made in a neutral manner, rather than in a flagrantly biased manner as you have done here and here. However, if you wish to take the matter to AN/I, the admins there can instruct you further. Ovadyah (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And, as you seem to be once again refusing to get to the point above, and have simply once again repeated allegations without indicating anything regarding the specific user talk page comments to these individuals, I believe that there may well be violations of WP:IDHT in this continuing repeated assertion of allegation based on your own conclusions about what specifically drew these individual's input, rather than your own personal opinions. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

James D Tabor

James Tabor is a well known popular author and is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he has taught since 1989. It would be fair say that we in the academic community look down upon his work. His journalistic style and flare for the dramatic has not been well received by his peers. Yet he has sold quite a number of books and done extensive research on the topic at hand. Nor is he likely to go away.

His first book was a study of the mysticism of the apostle Paul titled Things Unutterable (1986), based on his University of Chicago dissertation. The Journal of Religion named it one of the ten best scholarly studies on Paul of the 1980s.

In 1992 Tabor turned to an analysis of attitudes toward religious suicide and martyrdom in the ancient world, the results of which appeared as A Noble Death, published by HarperSanFrancisco in 1992 (co-authored with Arthur Droge). Although the book is centered on the history of such ideas in antiquity, the results of this research have had immediate application in the discussion of the ethics of volunteer death and assisted suicide. Prof. Tabor's book has been used as a standard by ethicists, lawyers, and physicians. Tabor has also published a wide variety of scholarly and more popular articles in books, journals, and magazines.

In 1997 he wrote in the United Israel Bulletin (Vol. 52, Summer 1997, pp. 1–3) writing that he is "tentatively convinced that the Los Lunas inscription offers solid evidence that ancient Israelites explored and settled in the New World in the centuries before the Common Era.

In 2006 Tabor published The Jesus Dynasty that focuses on the Jewishness of Jesus, whose extended family founded a royal dynasty in the days before the destruction of Jerusalem in year 70. It is based on archaeological data as well as textual interpretations of biblical texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and ancient historical sources. Also in 2006 Tabor completed an edited volume with Prof. Eugene Gallagher, Crossing the Bounds: Humanity and Divinity in Late Antiquity (E.J. Brill, 2006).

Last year he published The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings That Passed from James the Just and in 2012 will release Two Communities: How Paul transformed the Gospel of Jesus.

Since he has written extensively on the topic at hand, the fringe issue must be resolved. My request is for each of the parties to sum up their positions. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary of John Carter

Please check the archives of the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 19#The Jesus Dynasty, which directly addresses this issue. I also believe that, as per the cover blurbs and other material of the original edition, that the books focus was, rather, on attempting to establish some credibility for the Talbiot Tomb as being the burial place for Jesus, a theory which has been basically rejected by academia. I also believe that the fact that the largely negative comments from all other reviews of the book are relevant. I am unaware of any similar weight of opposition to the books by Bart Ehrman and others which were introduced as, I believe, fraudulent parallels. When a book receives largely negative reviews, as well as the comments to be found in the archived page above, I believe that the matter is, to a large degree, basically resolved already. John Carter (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Response to Ovadyah - Can you provide any reason why you cite Tabor rather than reliable sources themselves directly? Also, although you have apparently decided, perhaps on your own, that it is "judicious" to do this, do you not also realize that you are, in effect, using Tabor as a tertiary source in such instances, and that use of such tertiary sources is not recommended? Of course, there is the very real question as to whether those individual sources, such as the Slavonic Josephus and the Clementine literature, are necessary themselves reliable sources, or whether they are simply sources which Tabor elected to use to support his contentions.
And, finally, there is the fact that for whatever reason it is Tabor which is included in the bibliography, not the direct sources themselves. Part of the purpose of constructing an article to use the best sources possible from the beginning. As has been argued against my proposal to use encyclopedias, even if only for a short time, any future revisions based on changes in academic views over time, should the academic opinion change, are likely to look at the references first to see which have been found to be less reliable over time. Tabor is already considered an at best dubious source, and such unnecessary and gratuitous overuse of him will serve, in such instances, to only make the effort of improvement later harder. For all these reasons, which are based on policies and guidelines, I believe that Tabor should be removed from references or citations, except for the very few instances in which he is himself the original source of the material being referenced. John Carter (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary of Ovadyah

I checked the archives to find where I had already discussed this with Llywrch, and I have reproduced that discussion here. Summarizing my position briefly, I only use Tabor as a source when he directly cites primary sources and provides a summary of what those sources say. I advocated for the judicious use of Tabor (staying away from his conjectures based upon conjectures) to prevent the suppression of the knowledge of those primary sources. They may be an embarrassment, but those primary sources are part of history, even if some editors wish they could be made to disappear. Ovadyah (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary of Michael

Since Tabor (and Eisenman) are established academics with scholarly publications that are well received, they count as reliable sources and authorities on Ebionites, James the Just etc. Authoritive established academics can be sourced from their scolarly publications and also their less scholarly publications (e.g. popular books, blogs etc). Of course on the details some of their views are not mainstream, but with such a controversial subject, that is not surprising.

The question of primary and secondary sources was debated many moons ago (with Arbcom oversight) and it was decided that primary sources and secondary sources can be cited together (along the lines that Ovadyah has mentioned). I see no reason to revisit that decision.

The question of judging fringe views on the Ebionites I do not expect to be settled any time in the next thousand years, I and suggest we should refrain from making such judgements here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• When a contested source cites primary documents and summarises them, isn't it, in terms of method, simply more efficient to cite a standard secondary source. All the sources Tabor cites are surely cited and summarized in the secondary RS whose status as reliable no one contests? Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • No, since Tabor has conducted original research. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Frivolous oneliners that miss the point in their haste to be 'clever' are not adequate. By definition, all scholars conduct original research. I did not contest this. I asked a simple question of Ovadyah, who likewise did not talk of original research. He wrote 'I only use Tabor as a source when he (a) directly cites primary sources' (direct citation is not 'original research') and (b)provides a summary of what these sources say (summaries are not 'original research'). If you are not interested in logical dialogue, please refrain from intruding on exchanges between third parties.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
    • So only Nishidani has the right to reply to Ovadyah? LOL. BTW By definition, all scholars conduct original research. - glad you understand my point. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Again. Frivolous oneliners that miss the point in their haste to be 'clever' are not adequate. I am not exercising a unilateral right to reply to Ovadyah. I am asking a question of Ovadyah, and you are interrupting it with fatuous distraction.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

**Please guys, comments such as "If you are not interested in logical dialogue, please refrain from intruding on exchanges. . ." are not helpful.** Let us focus on the references and the issue at hand issue at hand. Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• That is another distractive comment, since it uses the plural, but indicates me as the problem, ignoring the disruptive comments I wish Michael would stop introducing into an otherwise urbane history of my interaction with Ovadyah. I did not come here to waste time on Michael's usual games of chiakking disruption. I came here to pose a question to one person, who made a comment. That is the issue at hand in this section.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Nishidani. With all the words flying back and forth above, I missed that you asked me a question. The answer is "yes", if a more widely accepted source (let's say Skarsaune as an example) can be found that cites the same primary sources and makes similar summary statements, I'm fine with substituting that source for Tabor. I told Llywrch the same thing back in July last year. My only reservation about removing Tabor completely is losing primary sources in the process. That's why I am vigorously opposed to removing Tabor en masse as a wiki policy decision. It should be done on a case by case basis, as in any content dispute, by carefully examining what the sources say that are potential substitutes for Tabor. John Carter has, at various times, argued for the removal of Tabor's works (all of them) because they are a) vandalism, b) intrinsically unverifiable, or c) intrinsically fringe. That line of argumentation is patent nonsense, and it won't happen. Ovadyah (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, thank you for so clearly indicating that in your eyes, despite the fact that you as an individual have failed to address WP:BURDEN and provided no exteranl reliable sources to indicate that Tabor is reliable in this instance, that despite your own failure to abide by policies and guidelines you will draw a line in the sand based on your own opinions. I find it hard to imagine a statement that might be more useful to the Arbitration Committee regarding your actions and attitudes. You yourself seem to be arguing that, simply by his reputation, every statement he has ever made, whether it has any support or not, has to be held as having academic weight. As can be found in other discussions elsewhere, even experts have, at times, produced some really bone-headed works, and those works are not held to be reliable sources. Yet, somehow, at least in your eyes, the exalted Tabor is intrinsically free from any such review of his work on an item-by-item basis. John Carter (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You are obviously intent on subverting this last attempt at mediation. Please abide by WP:TPG and refrain from WP:PA and WP:TE, if you can. Ovadyah (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I also need to confute John Carter's last point because it is a misrepresentation of my position. You don't deny that you have said at various times that the works of James Tabor are 1. vandalism, 2. intrinsically unverifiable, and 3. intrinsically fringe. That is good because I can prove all of them. I disagree with your absolutist claims. However, you go too far in saying this proves that I am advocating the exact opposite - that Tabors works are intrinsically verifiable. That is yet another "mistake". If fact, I stated that Tabor can go, as long as the primary sources he quotes are preserved by other secondary sources. Ovadyah (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, please do not attempt to put words in my mouth, as you explicitly do above. O do not have to "deny" any random, unsupported allegation you or others may choose to make against me. The previous discussion regarding The Jesus Dynasty has already been referenced on this page. What I said, based on the comments there, was that the source qualifies as "fringe" as per that discussion. At no time did I say "inherently", as you do above. In fact, I am and always have been well aware that the book is a qualified source for its own statements. Please cease what seems to me to be a regularly, and now rather consistent, effort at prejudicially rephrasing the comments of others to achieve some sort of gain, and rather, if possible, adhere a bit more closely to WP:TPG. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Good (no apology needed). Then we are (a) particularly interested in isolating precisely those primary sources, cited by Tabor, which are not cited by his colleagues in the mainstream secondary literature. (b)I think John has a case for arguing that Tabor's position is highly idiosyncratic, and, if so, then the obvious next step is simply to clarify why Minorityrather than WP:Fringe applies, in the light of:-

A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position

and if accepted as Minor, how do we apply WP:Undue.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you already laid out the pathway to do this on my talk page (and Llywrch has made similar statements). 1. Begin by understanding what the sources say (major and minor) for each topic area and the primary sources underpinning them. 1a. Using the strongest reliable sources (determined by community consensus), summarize what they say. 1b. Add the supporting primary sources inline in the references to those secondary sources. (Please see the GE article as an example of how I have been doing this.) 2. Next, check to make sure all relevant primary sources have been included (again determined by community consensus). If some are contained only in minority sources, they should be included as part of a minority view. 3. Only then, add in the tiny-minority views which are not widely supported, but may be thought-provoking for the reader.

Remember, plate tectonics, dinosaur extinction by an asteroid, and dark energy were all once thought to be tiny-minority or fringe views. This goes for authors like Eisenman in particular, who Nishidani and I have both described as a brilliant and idiosyncratic scholar. Eisenman is a non-linear thinker who can see things that other people don't see. There is a fine line between a genius ahead of his time and a crank. That can usually only be determined in hind-sight. Ovadyah (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If he's "ahead of his time", then there is no reason why we can't wait to include him until his time comes. It is not our place to attempt to judge the material based on our own WP:OR, and saying his material should be included on that basis may well qualify as such. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dbachmann has already suggested a way to handle Eisenman as a source here and Nishidani has more recently suggested another. I can support either one of these alternatives. Only you reject all of the alternatives presented because they conflict with your desire to delete article content and sources that you don't like. Ovadyah (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, I am once again struck by your repeated statements which indicate that you believe you can read minds, such as are made above. And I note that your refusal to address any of the discussion regarding the sources at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites in any substantive way could just as easily be taken as an attempt to ignore the preponderance of academic material clearly and directly relevant to this subject that you and Michael, seemingly, do not like.

I also note that since Dbachmann made that suggestion, several things have happened which might be relevant. And note I have not, as you claim, rejected them. This is, I believe, unlike you, who have gone out of your way to ignore material you don't like for over a year now. Personally, despite your clearly inflammatory and dubiously founded accusations above, I don't have, and never have had (I think) any real reservations to having some of the fringe theories included in the article. However, I do believe that it makes much more sense to present the information which is, more or less (acknowledging the question of Epiphanius' reliability) acknowledged by reliable sources as directly relating to the Ebionites, and theories advocated by others which do seem to qualify as fringe.

Also, I call to your attention that the single respondent on the last RfC at Talk:Ebionites/Archive 9#RFC, the first respondent, User:XKV8R, regarding fringe sources is in fact, according to his userpage Dr. Robert Cargill, who has himself worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and has also been published by independent reliable sources and whose work is even mentioned directly in the body of the main Dead Sea Scrolls wikipedia article itself. You will note that he also said that fringe theories should not be presented. I tend to think the opinion of an individual who has been published on the topic of the Dead Sea Scrolls would tend to carry more weight than that of anyone else. However, as per that individual, whom I think many people might reasonably consider to be a qualified "expert" on the Dead Sea Scrolls given his having worked on them himself, I am now of the opinion that, if any fringe theories are to be presented at all, it makes sense that they be presented as fringe theories, probably in a separate section. I would be more than willing to ask for further input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views for clarification. However, I do find it remarkable that once again you, Ovadyah, seem to be taking the position which might be seen as violating WP:OWN. Everybody can and should, if they see fit, have input. At this point, I tend to think that, given (AFAIR) none of the encyclopedic sources on the subject mention Eisenman directly, and only one of the others mentions Teicher as a related theory that has been basically rejected, that there is basically a more pressing need to address the material in those articles which has been basically ignored in this article, and that those matters should probably take priority. And, yet, somehow, you among others seem to be making no effort to address those matters. May I ask why? John Carter (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I accepted the asteroid theory as fairly rational and plausible when I first heard about it in the sixties, untroubled by the attacks on it. It was a theory that lent itself to empirical verification, and indeed soon was accepted because the geological and fossil record indicated that happened. Eisenman however is a different kettle of fish, because (this is my own assessment), most of what he says cannot be verified from sources, since he is essentially rewriting the given sources according to a counter-factual conjectural vision of what must have happened. I don't think we have any authority in wiki protocols to insert that kind of work (I'm tempted to do this with many things I know or have read about or done research on, but invariably refrain from doing so because the covenant between wikipedia and us forbids such things). I must admit I haven't read Tabor's book except through googling, and looking through websites that explain it. But I would repeat that (a) 10% of quotations referring to both these authors is excessive and (b) if Tabor cites a primary source not covered in other, mainstream secondary sources you may have a case for using him on it (c) and therefore, the practical step to take would be to indicate what Tabor cites which we cannot source to texts that all would accept as RS.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You bring up an important point that relates to the application of WP:FR; the work must be subject to empirical verification. The quotation you showed above specifically mentions scientific subjects. I talked about the inherent limitations to applying FR to religious articles during informal mediation.

I give Eisenman all the more credit because he was bold enough to posit a conjecture as a hypothesis; in other words, it was possible for it to be proven false by physical evidence. The weakness was not in putting forward the hypothesis, but afterward, when he refused to modify his views in the face of the evidence. By contrast, virtually all other scholars in the field build their careers on unprovable conjectures. His counter-factual conjectural vision is as valid as any other. Remember, even though his hypothesis - that James the Just was the same person as the Righteous Teacher - has been discredited by the physical evidence, that is only a corollary to the main conjecture, which remains intact; that the forms of Christianity and Judaism we know today have come down to us because they are the only forms the Romans were willing to tolerate. Ovadyah (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, make your own statement (all the rest of you) and stop using mine as an excuse for an edit war. Sheesh. Ovadyah (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I did not mean to upset Nishidani. He missed the point of what I said. What is important is not whether he (or Michael) are "nefarious editors" but rather references and the issue of WP:FRINGE. All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Those arguing that Tabor is fringe have to overcome Tabor's track record. He is a tenured professor at an accredited university. Indeed, he is the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. He has published several books. Nishidani and John need some powerful sources to discredit him as a reliable source. Keeping an open mind. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to adopt a source. One must show that Tabor's 'conjectural reconstruction' has 'received critical review from the scientific community'. If it has generally been 'rejected' it 'may be included in an article about Ebionism only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position.' That is my understanding of what the section of policy I quoted above means here. Having tenure or a chair is not enough. John Allegro had a long university career, but no one would quote him on an article dealing with early Christianity for his thesis about mushroom cults.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If "The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to adopt a source", then that will strengthen your position. Please cite your authority. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As I have said before, all the relevant reliably sourced comments I have found to date which have been made regarding Tabor's theories in the book The Jesus Dynasty (barring such things as abbreviated "wire pickup" versions of stories published elsewhere, letters to the editor by non-notable citizens, etc.) can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor, which I have temporarily restored for the non-admins here. The most extensive discussion of the source to date, which is also itself the one "review" of the book most frequently referred to, is the first, with the shorter journal, magazine, newspaper, etc., articles later. Although Ovadyah has in the past attempted to dismiss the extended comments in the book based on his allegations of the bias of the author, those have been, basically, expressions of his own opinion, and I think are on that basis discountable as per WP:OR or WP:POV. Regarding whether Tabor is a reliable source, I believe that is a clear misinterpretation of the policy. It is not about whether each and every written word by an individual on a subject is necessarily reliable, it is about whether the specific work in question is. The clear emphasis on the Talpiot Tomb in the relevant Tabor book in question, and the fact that that theory had been basically dismissed by the academic community even before he wrote the book, makes it to me clear that the reliability of this particular work in and of itself is very much open to question. I am also somewhat surprised that the editor with the least seniority here seems to be attempting to tell the rest of us how to interpret policies and guidelines we have been dealing with rather longer, and why he seems to believe that somehow convincing him as an individual is relevant. This matter has already been accepted by the ArbCom, on a thirty day delay. I believe it would be in the best interests of all involved if all the matters of contention, including among others, Tabor, Eisenman, Akers, Skarsaune, the Slavonic Josephus, the Clementine literature, and whatever else is contended to either the RSN or FTN (possibly all on one page, with a link on the other to that?), to get the greatest degree of input from the entire community. In fact, I believe that failure to do so or resistance of same might very well itself be taken as an impediment to progress by the ArbCom. It is not our place, as the only parties who have agreed to the mediation, to arrogate to ourselves the belief that only our opinions are relevant to this content.

Finally, in clarification of Itsmejudith's statements on the FTN, that is rather careful phrasing similar to that regularly used by others there to indicate that the book is a reliable source for the information contained in the book, but that the book is to be treated as a fringe theory for anything beyond the book itself. We do have a few articles devoted to particularly notable fringe theories, like those about the Kennedy assassination for instance, and the differentiation is basically made to indicate that the theory is to be treated as "fringe" regarding the main topic, but that the book can be used as a source for information in an article on "alternate" theory or theories regarding the topic. As someone who has himself rather regularly in the past made input there, I can say it is rather stock phrasing. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Skarsaune, that is a more difficult issue. I believe I e-mailed Nishidani the comments I was able to find on the databanks I have access to, hoping that he would use them to build an article on the book. If I didn't, I hope he tells me that to say as much. So far as I can remember, the book was in general well-received, although no particular comments were made regarding Skarsaune's theory about possible earlier Ebionites. The book Verus Israel by Marcel Simon is included in the bibliographies of more than one article about Ebionites in encyclopedic sources. The only original point I can find there is his contention that there may have been an "Ebionite" branch of every Jewish group extant at the time of Jesus. There is also the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls community, which is generally considered to be separate from the Ebionites described in the patristics, used the term as a self-description. There is also the fact that one of the most recent encyclopedic sources, in its rather short entry, explicitly states that the patristics themselves were not all referring to the same Ebionites. Given this apparent belief in what is already a multiplicity of Ebionites, it seems to me anyway that all that Skarsaune is doind is saying that this multiplicity may extend earlier than has yet been indicated. That to me seems to be, even if a belief that has not yet been specifically endorsed by anyone, only a slight logical extension on the theory of multiple Ebionites that has already received wide support. As such, I, as an individual, cannot see any reservations about mentioning it, although I acknowledge it might be best mentioned in a context similar to that I outline above. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not yet entirely convinced. Indeed my reading Wikipedia Policy is that the "burden of proof" is on the editor who wishes to establish that a source is fringe. However, I am finding your comments at User:John Carter/Ebionites helpful. They have moved me in your direction. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

John Carter, it might be helpful for the other editors that are a party to this mediation to know what work you are willing to undertake yourself, not lecture and bully all the other participants ad nauseum on the talk page, but actual contributions of content that you personally intend to add into the article. The rest of us are not your thralls to be ordered about. Please let us know your intentions for personally making improvements to the article. Ovadyah (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you believe my interpretation of policy and guidelines (they are both relevant) is mistaken, then I believe the proper place to have such decisions made is at the WP:FTN, which is frequented by editors who have a significant history of applying the relevant guidelines and policies. I believe it would also be useful if Ovadyah ceased the ongoing ad hominem comments and confined his statements to those that directly address the article. My intentions at this point are, basically, to engage in the relevant discussion, which, given the comments of others, seems to me likely to result in failure, and see what ArbCom decides when the case is taken up after thirty days. Upon resolution of arbitration, should it take place, with whatever results it might have, we would all know better what the extant groundrules are. If I, however, am banned from the article and talk page, clearly I would be taking no role in the future development of the article. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

John, please clarify what you meant by "I am also somewhat surprised that the editor with the least seniority here seems to be attempting to tell the rest of us how to interpret policies and guidelines we have been dealing with rather longer, and why he seems to believe that somehow convincing him as an individual is relevant." Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I do get the impression, for better or worse, that you have a rather short history as an editor. On that basis, I believe that it is certainly possible that you might be interpreting policies and guidelines in a way which differs dramatically from the existing consensus on such matters. I have taken part rather frequently at discussions at WP:FTN, WP:RSN, and other such pages, and believe that we would best involve the input of individuals who are best able to apply these policies and guidelines in a manner consistent with the other applications that have been made of them. And, yes, I do get the impression that you seem to think that personal opinions are relevant. They are not. The weight of academic opinion seems to me to be the primary guideline for content. So far as I can see, there are no subsequent reliable sources, specifically including some of the most reliable reference works, which indicate that Tabor's theories deserve much attention. That is to me probably more significant than my own personal opinions. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This crap has gone on long enough. I just changed my vote to reject. See you in arbitration John Carter. Ovadyah (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is not going as well as I had hoped. But I will wait until John 'clarifies his comment' before I join you. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I wouldn't be in such a rush to abandon mediation. Going to arbcom is like turkeys voting for Christmas - you don't always get what you expect, I can assure you. You imagine that you are right and that arbcom will back you up? Guess what? Arbcom will not see matters in the same light as you.

Just address the factual points and ignore all the "crap".

E.g.:

John Carter cites a negative review of Tabor's "Jeses Dynasty" which claims that Tabor's "facts" are not facts. What is the basis for this criticism? Reading the review we find that the reviewer's objection is that Tabor argues that a Hebrew version of Matthew (found amidst a Hebrew text) may preserve a more accurate version of the hypothesized Q source than the more familar versions of Matthew. Try as I might this objection just makes no sense. Why shouldn't the Hebrew Matthew be a translation from an older Greek Matthew which contains material since lost from, or garbled in, the synoptic versions? Just wondering, of course, but it does look like much of the criticism of Tabor is POV based, not objective.

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The basis of much of the complaints is that Tabor's statements seem to be based on his own now-unique conjecture, which disagrees markedly with the existing academic opinion. I believe the fact that there seems to be no evidence to date to support such conentions of multiple Matthews as you make above is at best a weak argument, until and unless there are independent reliable sources that support that or it is demonstrated in fact. Otherwise, can't we also come to the conclusion that it all might be based on, maybe, a work of fiction written by the Martians millenia ago? We do need to have content based on evidence, and saying "maybe they're wrong" isn't evidence. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The above statement by John Carter demonstrates a profound ignorance of the subject matter. Far from relying on evidence from Mars in support of the existence of multiple versions of Matthew, one need look no further than a quotation of Jerome which I have excerpted from the Gospel of the Nazoraeans article:

This bears great significance because higher criticism argues that the canonical Gospel of Matthew is not a literal reproduction of Matthew's original autograph, but was rather the production of an unknown redactor, composed in Greek posthumous to Matthew. This aligns with Jerome's assessment, in which he stated, "Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetime publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain."

— Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men Chapter 3

Your lack of knowledge of basic Gospel traditions is one of many reasons why you are unqualified to work on this article. Ovadyah (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

By this logic, Ovadyah, your charge would apply to your fellow editor Michael Price. The passage you cite from wiki has it that the Matthew we have is a version redacted in Greek from (vide Jerome) an Hebrew original. John responded to a query Michael posed as to 'why shouldn't the Hebrew Matthew be a translation from an older Greek Matthew?' If Michael allows that Matthew in Hebrew may derive from a Greek version, while a primary source like Jerome says Matthew's autograph was originally drafted in Hebrew (Jerome elsewhere writes: 'excepto apostolo Matthaeo, qui primus in Judaea Evangelium Christi Hebraicis litteris edidit.' (Praefatio in Quattuor Evangelia) = Matthaeus qui. .primus in Iudaea, Evangelium Christi Hebraeis litteris verbisque composuit,') where does that leave you with regard to Michael Price? Surely non-partisan neutrality would oblige you to inform your other co-editor also of his 'lack of knowledge of basic Gospel traditions'?

Probably this needs to go to arbitration because the unfortunate tendency has developed of focusing on the politics of numbers. Michael Price backs you now. If he says silly things, and Carter responds to them, you challenge Carter and ignore Price's patent ignorance. The mechanism repeats itself, and it looks to an outside observer as though, just as Michael met with objections shared by yourself, myself and Carter in 2007, now Carter is met with objections shared by Price and yourself. The appearance (whatever the reality) is that exchanges over time on this article line up in terms of momentary alliances, while the substance of the problems is ignored in favour of eliminating the opposition. The fact that this appears to be going on is one reason why, despite our amenable relations, I prefer to stand aside. The historical scholarship is far more complex, and more interesting, than the rather patent enmities which now govern relationships here, and which seem to constantly skew the sober evaluation of problems.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad luck, Nishidani, Jerome himself says that the authorship trail is unclear and unknown to him. Nice try, though. :-) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael, since four years of watching your edits to this page have only convinced me you haven't the faintest knowledge of early Christianity and the Ebionites, but only hang in here to make silly statements, like the one just above this, I'd appreciate it if in future you made a minimum effort to ground your obiter dicta in some sort of book knowledge, rather than inspired repartee. Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Suppose, Nish, just for the sake of argument, that my ignorance is as complete as you believe. What relevance has that? Wikipedia is intended to be edited by non-experts.... -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael, we have policies and guidelines in place to make matters more objective. To date, about all that you have indicated is that someone who died about 1,000 years ago said something, and that you, as an individual, consider his clearly outdated statements as somehow the decisive opinion in this matter. We are an encyclopedia, as per the first of the WP:PILLARS, and, as such, we are supposed to primarily reflect the existing scientific opinion. To date, all you have demonstrated is the "scientific" opinion of someone who died about a thousand years ago. Is it honestly your contention that we are to take the conflicted comments of someone who thought he should have been elected pope, like Saint Jerome, as an indication of the neutral scientific opinion regarding a group with which his church disagreed some one thousand years later? John Carter (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

To underline the point. What is your source for the statement, 'Jerome himself says that the authorship trail is unclear and unknown to him'?Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

One, wikipedia is not a reliable source per se. We would need to have material from the sources directly. Two, your clear and obvious failure to recognize that the comments were intended, at least in part, as just indicating that anyone can say anything - that does not mean that we include on that basis. The fact that you did not recognize that, or perhaps intentionally attempted to indulge in gratuitous insults, is also significant. If you were to cite examples more current than Jerome, examples that might better reflect the existing academic consensus, that might help very much. In fact, I think all parties would welcome you actually producing reliably sourced statements, for the novelty if nothing else? John Carter (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

John, you just don't know when to stop digging, do you? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael, please read and at least try to adhere to WP:TPG. If you have anything of substance to say, rather than just engaging in such irrelevant insinuations, please do so, but such comments as the above in no way adhere to talk page guidelines, and are in no way useful or contribute to the development of the article. Maybe if you could actually give some attention to the numerous sources that have been ignored by you and Ovadyah for, what, about a year now?, that might be a step in the right direction. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, John, just look at the example here: I refuted a point made a reviewer that you presented as refuting Tabor's credibility. Your response is to question the existence of multiple copies of one of the gospels, which illustrates your complete ignorance of gospel history and biblical scholarship. When corrected by Ovadyah, with a quote from Jerome, you questioned the validity of the quote (without offering any alternative, of course). Rather than display your ignorance of the subject any further I suggested you stop digging your self in deeper. And you accuse us of WP:IDHT!??

If you want to be taken seriously here, you need to raise your standard of debate and actually start making an effort, instead of just trying to rubbish everything you hear that you don't like.

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Michael, you did not refute claims. You pointed out how one clearly conflicted party one thousand years ago said something. I do not think that anyone here, other than perhaps you, view such opinions as necessarily decisive. May I say, if you want to be taken seriously, maybe providing a more neutral, more current source would be reasonable. That is, unless you want to be taken as saying that the authority of clearly conflicted sources is to be taken as a given. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I refuted a point made (by) a reviewer that you presented as refuting Tabor's credibility.

Once more, Michael Price inadvertently makes the case against himself by thinking that one of the functions of an editor is to refute (WP:OR) points made by an RS source, a reviewer critical of Tabor, who is fringe. So WP:OR violations are used to validate the use of WP:Fringe opinions otherwise ignored by the mainstream scholarly literature. The situation here is so bad that bold declarations by people with no scholarly background in this area that they can challenge RS by using their own personal views to rebut them, go unnoticed.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, please go back and check the history. John Carter was using that source to claim Tabor was fringe. I am perfectly entitled - on a talk page - to point out that the source's reasoning is full of holes. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am actually unaware of any policies or guidelines which support your contention above, Michael. And no where have you even remotely established that the argument is, as you put it, "full of holes." The proper place to make statements questioning the reliability of sources are WP:FTN and WP:RSN. To date, you have apparently filed no requests for input there. Nor is it the obligation of each and every reviewer to point out each and every fact to support their contention, as you seem to inherently believe. I regret to say, if anything, it is your own position which is, according to policies and guidelines, "full of holes." John Carter (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

John, please cut out all the obfuscation and irrelevancies. You claimed that there is "no evidence to date to support such conentions[sic] of multiple Matthews", and we have Jerome mentioning multiple Matthews, over a 1000 years ago. Ok? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael, it is endlessly amusing that you are criticizing others for obfuscations and irrelevancies, considering the quote you are arguing against is not (and I can't see ever has been) included in this article, but rather in another one, The Jesus Dynasty. Your initial comment challenging that quote is itself a clear irrelevancy, at least to this article, and yet you seek fit to criticize me for asking you to provide a more contemporary source for your statement. Unless you want to take the writings of the each and every other patristic writer as a statement of proof as well, I would have to say that there is good reason to question Jerome's statement. And, of course, there is a question as to whether Jerome's statement of 1000 years ago still qualifies as accurate today. Honestly, if you are suggesting making changes to that article, or challenging the content of it, why not make the comments on the appropriate talk page, which this page is not? John Carter (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

After several years here, editors are supposed to understand that they are not supposed to object to the ideas, conclusions, arguments of RS, as you do here. We follow RS, we do not challenge them, with indeed a WP:OR violation. All textual criticism is POV, a point of view, however, that aims to satisfy the heuristic criteria all members of a scholarly community underwrite. Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, with all respect, how, then, do we make sense of these two diffs diff diff? In the first one, John Carter tells SlimVirgin, who was asked by me to give a Third Opinion, that Tabor is a reliable source, and the problem is rather that Tabor is intrinsically unverifiable. Jayjg already shot down this (mis)application of WP:V in informal mediation and on his talk page, and I notice that John Carter has more recently abandoned this line of argument. In the second diff, John Carter concedes to Llywrch that the problems with Eisenman and Tabor are no different than disagreements over other minority sources. Ovadyah (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

One further point. Notice what Stephen Hodge says in the last diff. In his review of James the Brother of Jesus, Hodge states that "Eisenman's hypothesis, regarding James and the TOR, has largely been rejected by the academic community" - not Eisenman as a scholar, not Eisenman's works, but that specific hypothesis. As I have already explained, that hypothesis is only a corollary to the main conjecture of the two volumes of Eisenman's opus, James the Brother of Jesus and The New Testament Code. There is nothing in the article that is dependent upon that hypothesis, therefore, the point of the criticism is not relevant to the article. Ovadyah (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am responsible for what I write, not what other editors over time have written. My understanding (independently of my private views, esp. on Eisenman) is that both Tabor and Eisenman wrote works that the general academic community of specialists ignore or regard as highly idiosyncratic, or eccentric. I don't like to fuss too much over what the rules can be made to allow or not. I read them pretty straightforwardly. Point 2 is a quibble, distinguishing '(working) hypothesis' from the details.

Look, Tabor is making very large speculative deductions from material no one can manage to agree with certainty on. It is just common sense to, at best, keep him in reserve while one works the article according to the lights of the best contemporary scholarship. Keep the controversy to the last. In checking the 12 cites from Eisenman and Tabor, many of them are unnecessary, and could be dispensed with, without harm to your cause, if you examine them case by case. On Eisenman, the danger is simple. Effectively to use him, the editors are required, given the fact that there are not many scholars who rebut him in detail, to harvest the book itself, as Michael tried to do, disastrously in 2007. I've never made much of a point of this but the number of question-begging assumptions, obscurities, contradictions in that book (James the Brother of Jesus at times is alluded to as perhaps the real Jesus, but the letter in his name twice recognizes Jesus as someone other than the epistolarian etc.etc.etc.) are such that it really should be off-limits on a question already as vexatiously intricate as this We have dozens of very good sources over the last 2 decades on thje Ebionites, and I do believe that all of the complications that have arisen over the last two years arise because Tabor and Eisenman have got in the way. I would not say outright they can't be used at all. I simply say the article and the scholarship it should be based on is much much larger than those two scholars, whose work should only be considered when some stability has been achieved and a workable relationship among all of you, as editors, has been reestablished.Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Eisenman and Tabor are, as per sources, said to be representatives of a very minoritarian view.

Agreed. I will pick up on this thread below with respect to my statements toward the use of Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus in this article. Ovadyah (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize that Michael, but I have had enough of John Carter's Pharisaic misuse of Wiki policy - insisting that other editors strictly adhere to even the smallest Wiki policies and guidelines in order to dominate and control them, while he violates the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia with impunity. Enough is enough. Ovadyah (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood, but rushing prematurely to Arbcom will only make the matter worse. Patience. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 13:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You raise a valid point. I am willing to reconsider mediation, but only if we go to formal mediation (where we were headed anyway). That means everything that is said there is privileged and can't be used in arbitration. That will minimize what John Carter is trying to do here - grandstand for the arbitration committee and try to score points he can use later in arbitration - and return the focus to where it should be, on resolving a dispute over content. Are you willing to participate in formal mediation? Ovadyah (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to favor mediation. However all of us must stop personal attacks. It is ok to be harsh on the sources, attack weaknesses in the arguments, etc . . . but to be polite to each other. Cheers from the "editor with the least seniority here who seems to be attempting to tell the rest of us how to interpret policies and guidelines" and "still seems to believe" he as an "individual is relevant" - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ret. Prof. You and Michael have convinced me. I have agreed to participate in the mediation process on the condition that we resume formal mediation. If we can all agree to that, you will need to add yourself to formal mediation as a participant and make an opening statement. I am all for focusing on the content of the article. Ovadyah (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, yes, of course I am willing to participate in formal mediation? My acceptance is still on Jayjg's talk page. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I am going to explicitly ask Jayjg to reopen formal mediation with Jayjg as the mediator. Ovadyah (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Where do I add myself to the formal mediation as a participant and make my opening statement? - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You should make your interest in participating in formal mediation known to Jayjg on his talk page. It will be up to him to undelete the mediation pages. If he agrees to do that, you can make your initial statement on the opening page. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I notice once agin the prejudicial nature of the language of the aspersions against me made by parties above, and how, somewhat surprisingly, they seem to be of the opinion that there should be no external involvement of other editors, who have not taken part in this discussion per se (and might thus be considered neutral) but have a long history of application of the relevant policies and guidelines. Basically, I have already said I believe input form frequent FTN and RSN editors would be very valuable. Yet, somehow, that point, which seems to me to be very relenat, has been well ignored to date. May I ask why? John Carter (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus as a source

I'm picking up on my last thread with Nishidani, where he stated, "Both Eisenman and Tabor are, as per sources, said to be representatives of a very minoritarian view." Ovadyah (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have consistently articulated the same position regarding the use of Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus in the Ebionites article. As you can see, I stated in this diff on June 1, 2010, and repeated again verbatim in this diff on August 29th, 2010 the following:

Eisenman's first book is useless. "James The Brother of Jesus" has a lot of controversial things to say about James The Just, but practically nothing about the Ebionites, that is unless you are into the conspiracy theory that Essenes = Nazarenes = Ebionites. We hashed this out on the article talk page long ago.

I reiterated my previous statements as recently as February 16th, 2011 in this diff where I said:

With respect to Eisenman, I will go back and check the pages you mentioned. As I said previously on the article talk page and Jayjg's talk page, we can probably agree to leave out "James the Brother of Jesus", with one important exception: the relationship between the Ebionites and previous Jewish groups. All of that content was moved to the talk page in Oct. 2007 due to concerns over synthesis. It is still sitting there waiting to be resolved. That is where I need your help most of all.

I have been advocating this view consistently since June 1, 2010, which is, I believe, a stricter position than Nishidani has taken about the use of Eisenman as a source. Ovadyah (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I also reproduce here, for your convenience, this link Reception of Eisenman to a previous discussion, where Dbachmann articulates his views on the proper use of Eisenman as a source. Ovadyah (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)