Talk:Ebionites

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)

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)

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)

Gospel of the Ebionites

Have cleaned up duplicate content which appears to be junk DNA left from years ago. Curious as to why Walter Richard Cassels (1877) and Theodoret (c.393 – c.457) are cited? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No idea. Junk DNA as you said. Thanks for taking care of it. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I followed up on Theodoret, with refs from Klijn 1973 and Broadhead 2010, as well as Schaff and ed.Bromiley on the sub-group distinction which led to Theodoret's inference. I can see now why the original editor decided to include Theodoret, even if c.447AD doesn't really qualify him among "modern scholars" :) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

External Link

Michael, I took a look at the link you added to the article. Very interesting. I don't know what to make of the fact that they describe their group as a church (as opposed to a synagogue) and self-identify as Christians. There was a group I read about that was giving Messianic Jews fits in Israel, but I never learned their name. Ovadyah (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I took a second look. This looks dubious to me. April fools? Ovadyah (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I pass no judgement on the contents, beyond that readers might find it interesting as an example of a neo-ebionite group. I doubt that it is an April Fool's - the article history goes back to 2007. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ebionites at particracy.wikia.com

I copied the link over to the talk page to evaluate verifiability. So far, I don't see it. Ovadyah (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of a requirement that links be verified; remember we are not interested in truth. Anyway, it is a wiki, whose contents will evolve with time. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Links have no different standard than any other article content. Come on, you know all this already. That's why we took out the "See Also" section in peer review. It was being used as advertising space for every little group out there. And I agree with you that TRUTH is irrelevant. Verifiability is a policy, and we have to respect that. Notability, however, is a guideline and I'm willing to let it slide. Simply find some kind of evidence that these guys exist independent of them tooting their own horn and I'm good to go. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not agree with the removal of the "see also" section, nor the external links section. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The presence of the section itself was not and is not the issue. The verifiability of the contents is the issue. If you want to seek a WP:Third Opinion be my guest. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I put the question to ELN. This will be faster than WP:3 and they handle this type of guideline question all the time. If they think it's ok, I will be happy to self-revert. We have been in need of some guidance on this question more generally for awhile now. Ovadyah (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

ELN did not give a straight answer to my question. Instead, quoting from the guidelines, they said, "Unless it has a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors it is normally to be avoided." I'm not a mind-reader, but I am interpreting this as a no. Ovadyah (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I concur. Although stable, there are not very many editors in the page history. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Neo-Ebionites section

John Carter has proposed self-reverting his addition of a Neo-Ebionites section to the Ebionites article. This is not a proper subject for mediation, as there is no dispute about this over which to mediate. I am in favor of this self-reversion. As John Carter's only addition of sourced article content in the past 3 1/2 years, it seems only fitting that he remove it, so that the sum total of his positive contributions to this article are zero. Do we have a consensus to remove this content? Ovadyah (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I object to deletion, since it sourced. But it sits uneasily with the rest of the article, so hiving it off back into its own neo-Ebionite article would be better. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am only in support of the self-reversion of this specific version from the article. I think the original merged content should be restored to the article, as intended by the vote in AfD. Following that, a discussion about hiving it off back into its own article vs. leaving it where it is as a section in this article would be appropriate. Let's start with bringing the original merged content back to the article as a subsection. The source in this JC version could be retained and incorporated into the merged version. Ovadyah (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you objected, I'll leave it to you to decide the best way to proceed. I can go either way. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's go with restoration of the merged content that was lost awhile ago, retaining current content. Then we can recreate the NeoEbionite article, unless anyone objects. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that is an acceptable way to proceed. It respects the votes of the majority in AfD to merge, and it allows for further improvements to the merged content, either as a section in this article or by restoring and improving the content as an independent article. I'm currently swamped on other matters, so please proceed as you see fit. Ovadyah (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been bold and recreated the old EJC article with the new content merged in. The thought of the wrangling here, which would inevitably follow, was too much. Note that the restored content was deleted against the AfD consensus and unrestored for years. Corrected. Possibly we could rename the sub-article "Neoebionites" - I've left a note this effect on the restored talk page. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 05:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I like your solution. It allows for the development of that article without causing another excuse for disruption here. I'm going to collapse the material from the neo-Ebionite section into the Legacy section, which has stood in the article for years. Thanks again for taking care of this. Ovadyah (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, stick it in the legacy section. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed AfD

Please note that John Carter, despite a complete lack of engagement on the matter, has raised an AfD on the demerged content / Ebionite Jewish Community, which is consequently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to offer comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination).-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is deleted or not, it seems worth to try and add 1 line under Assemblies_of_Yahweh#Related_groups so I have done so.In ictu oculi (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It never hurts to try. I think you can see by now that this is only a small part of a much bigger battle over control of article content that is a long way from being over. Ovadyah (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed it until there is a consensus in AfD. A pre-merge while the matter is still under discussion could be seen as an attempt to evade deletion. Ovadyah (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Editors note

When an editor is moving content around that is properly sourced, it is your responsibility to move the references along with the text. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that here, problem was that I actually went away and tried to find a source for that particular sentence that someone thought the book of Elchesai preexisted Alcibiades of Apamea as a Jewish text. It wasn't clear that Petri Luomanen Jewish Christianity Reconsidered (2007) pp.96, 299, 331:note 7 was the source. It is now, thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. The text itself can be dated rather precisely by internal dating. The report that it was probably written in Babylon, originally as a Jewish apocalypse, is speculative of course. Luomanen is only providing an overview of other sources in the context of a discussion about the Ebionites. A lot more detail could be written, but that should probably be reported on the Elchasites article. That article is a joke, and it has been ever since I have been here. It was literally a cut and paste of the Catholic Encyclopedia. I don't see that much has changed. It's a pity really. There is a lot information about the Elchasites. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Does Luomanen cite any linguistic/content reasons? Given that Alcibiades main interest seems to be baptism unlikely that baptism would come from a Jewish text, you'd think. And yes that article is a joke.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Essenes were into bathing/baptism. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 05:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, yes, but that would have been baptismos not baptisma - this chap who turns up in 230 in Rome is talking about baptism for the remission of sins. Plus he identifies the Son of God and the Holy Ghost as having given the book -- it sounds more Christian than Jewish. But if Luomanen 2007 has specific reasons he has specific reasons.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The thinking is that the Aramaic apocalypse known as Hayil Kesai was named after one of the two giant angels. The text found its way into Christian circles, and one of the two angels became associated with Christ and the other with the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure about the baptism account because the Hayil Kesai is said to have a docetic Christology; Jesus only seemed to be human. Btw, the book was published in 2007 (not 2003), so I will fix this mistake. Ovadyah (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is what Petri Luomanen has the say about the Book of Elchasai in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered p.96:

"The Book of Elchasai has not survived but its basic contents can be deduced from references in Hippolytus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius (for an overview of the book, see Luttikhuizen 2005). It was originally Jewish, probably written by a Mesopotamian Jew around 116 CE, during Trajan's Parthian war. The book predicted an apocalyptic war in the near future, "when three years of the reign of the emperor Trajan are again completed" ... The protection was provided by a huge angel, whose measurements were given in detail. The angel was connected to, or perhaps even named, the "Hidden Power" (Pan.19.2.2; Aramaic hayil kesai > Elchasai). The huge angel-like figure was also known as Christ and "Great King" - at least in the version known to Epiphanius - but Epiphanius was not able to say if the author was referring to "our Lord Jesus Christ" or to someone else. (Pan. 19.3.4). This comment also indicates that there was nothing specifically Christian in the contents of the book."

There is more in the form of a summary of Gerard Luttikhuizen's findings about the Book of Elchasai and more summary findings by Luomanen on pp.96-98 about how all of this relates to the Ebionites. Ovadyah (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Slavonic Josephus

I believe the existing citation and cited material from this source are at best dubiously relevant to this article. First, of course, it is a primary source, and in this case it is also a primary source which says something which is not, actually, demonstrably relevant to the content of this article. Also, there is the matter of its dubious authenticity, as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 92#Slavonic text of The Jewish War. As is indicated on that page, the text should only be used in conjunction with a source citing it - that is not done in this case.

I also find its inclusion at all remarkable. I am myself unaware of any modern scholars giving the content of the Slavonic "additions" to Josephus any specific weight or citation at all, given the clearly problematic nature of that content. Certainly, I do not recall seeing the source (or Josephus in general) in any particular relevance to this topic. And, certainly, the text itself does not indicate that the material is, in any particular way, relevant to this article.

I believe it would be most interesting if someone were to examine the texts of Tabor and Eisenman, to see if one or either have cited this source in their works. If one, the other, or both did, then it might be relevant for inclusion, if the citation met WP:V requirements, in the form of "Slavonic Josephus, as cited by (author), (page)." However, in that event, there would be additional problems. Specifically, if this one citation is a faulty one, in omitting the specific source from which the material came and only citing the source used by that source, how many of the other citations in this article might similarly fail WP:V in indicating only the original source of the material, rather than including the specific work in which the editor found that material referenced? If there is one such failure to abide by WP:V requirements, I cannot see that there is any reason to automatically assume it is the only one. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up again here rather than discussing it in Mediation? Ovadyah (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

(I wrote this some hours ago, but could not post it, inbetween several garden and household tasks, because everytime I tried to, there was an edit conflict. Not that it will help)

Surely there's no harm in this Ovadyah? After all, you and I have agreed that primary sources must be titrated through secondary RS, and I note you asked Michael to do just this today or yesterday. John is only asking that this good practice be applied to the Josephus Slavonic material. I feel certain also that what John is asking (If Josephus's Slavonic material is to be used on the Ebionite page, it should only be introduced if an RS on the Ebionites makes use of it.

I haven't Tabor at hand - I don't buy popular books in this field, so can't check this there, but as far as I can see from a brief control of Eisenman's indexes and related pages, he doesn't collate specifically Ebionism with the Josephus-Slavonic material.

I think all three of you should give this page a rest, and leave it to several other editors with long experience in this area. It is still a mess, of the two parties, one is a minority of one, and never listened to, and John himself tends to allow his frustration boil over. In such cases, the cause of the encyclopedia is ill-served by what has become, for whatever reasons (and I assign no blame to any one side) an irremediably dysfunctional editing environment. Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I did raise the issue in mediation, and both you and Michael there, presumably establishing "consensus" in the eyes of you two, decided it isn't important enough to deal with now. Considering WP:V is a policy, and there is a possible failure to adhere to that policy in this article, I believe it is also relevant to post here. Adhering to policy supercedes mediation in wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And those issues have been addressed. Case closed. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the reference Tabor made to a passage in Slavonic Josephus inline to the Jesus Dynasty with a page number and quotation. I also added the complete citation to Mead's book which had previously been only a url. Now it has an ISBN number and refers to a specific page in the book with an exact quotation. There should be no problem with accepting Mead as a reliable source, and therefore, there should be no problem with verifiability. Ovadyah (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, sorry, as an observer, I don't understand why you guys are going to such a lot of stress to include a ref that has no value anyway? Okay article currently gives Tabor as the source for using Slavonic Josephus. So it be mentioned as a minority view "Tabor, citing Slavonic Josephus says" and then have Louis H. Feldman Judaism and Hellenism reconsidered -"The Slavonic version of the War, apparently made in the eleventh century, contains a number of additions ... In its notes it expresses such strange notions as that Josephus was an Ebionite Christian and a bishop of Jerusalem. " or something. But generally scholarship won't pay attention to Old Slavonic texts where the Greek original survives in several MSS. It's very rare that Slavonic translations preserve anything that gets lost in Greek, 10x more likely that the Slavonic will add/distort the Greek -- and I mean anything: Pseudepigrapha, Patristics, Classics. Slavonic texts simply are of little value. In this case the corruption of the text to suggest that Josephus was an Ebionite Christian and a bishop of Jerusalem(!!!) means that any surrounding text will also be of little use. So why mention it? Is it even mentioned on the Josephus article itself? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, you have a point, but it is mentioned by the secondary source, hence is admissible here. And here Josephus' Slavonic text - as opposed to the accompanying notes - is reinforcing something expressed in the Gospel of the Ebionites, namely John's vegetarianism, rather than an historical howler about Josephus by a medieval commentator. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, you may be interested in what Mead says about Slavonic Josephus. It seems we can't dismiss it so easily. Some scholars, at least, think that it is "therefore worthy of attention as giving a picture of an early outside view of nascent Christianity." -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: The major problem with this article is, of course, the matter of WP:WEIGHT, which has been the bone of contention in this article for at least one mediation and one arbitration already. There seems to be little if any interest on the part of Ovadyah and Michael to even acknowledge that disagreements about the topic exist, and certainly no effort on the part of either of them to produce such material. As I have said repeatedly, I recused myself from editing the article when Ovadyah challenged the accuracy of my reproduction of material at User: John Carter/Ebionites and its talk page. I also said at the time that I would withdraw my adminship if there were any substantive error in them. To date, noone has produced evidence of same - both Michael and Ovadyah have just basically ignored everything produced there that doesn't agree with their own personal interpretations and continued to ensure that the article not have the "total rewrite" tag and poor assessment. And, of course, given that they are both much more, um, "committed" to this topic (Ovadyah probably even qualifies as a single purpose account), there is no chance of me, or, for that matter, others of making the article better.

However, I believe the case is not yet closed. Far from it. It could very easily be seen to be the case that Ovadyah has attempted to skirt clear of addressing the possibility of someone, possibly himself, of having also potentially copied several citations verbatim from Tabor, without having consulted any of the sources cited themselves for weight or other factors. The fact that he has, apparently, acknowledged violation of WP:V in this one case does not and should not be seen as being sufficient to ignore the issue raised. Rather, the fact of this acknowledgement of a single violation of V should, if anything, promote a more thorough review of all other citations added by the person who added that citation, to see if they were potentially made in violation of policy as well. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is simple. Two reliable secondary sources mention a primary source - Slavonic Josephus. Therefore, it can't be an issue of violating WP:V. Now, one might argue that there are WP:SYNTH issues: 1) Do the reliable sources support the content? 2) Does the content belong in the Ebionites article? Those are legitimate content issues we are attempting to resolve in mediation. What John Carter is really getting at is he thinks Slavonic Josephus is unworthy to be used as a primary source. That is not his call to make as an editor. Repositioning this content dispute as a dispute over policy is just a way to evade mediation. He used the same argument as an excuse to blank sections of the article and for the mass-removal of references. It didn't work before and it won't work this time either. I will just add it to the mountain of evidence we are accumulating for arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

John Carter, the statement you made about me "The fact that he has, apparently, acknowledged violation of WP:V" is a total fabrication. I did nothing more than improve a reliable source that was already present in the article by adding an ISBN number and a page number. However, I will add it to the long and growing list of your knowingly false statements to be litigated in arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, you are right. I should by this time acknowledge that you as an individual are incapable of acknowledging any errors on the part of you or those whose material you support. And I will also for the record point out that in the above personal attacks at least one of the fundamental issues raised here, that whoever it was who added the information in that form violated policy, and that, on that basis, there is cause to see if the same person may have violated policy in some of his other citations, has, probably to no one's surprise, been once again completely ignored in favor of indulging in offtopic commentaries and personal attacks on others, as per your now long-established habit. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael, thanks but no thanks; you might want to read up George Robert Stowe Mead :D.

Guys I'm no expert but I am speaking from personal experience. My main exposure to Old Church Slavonic is because of singing/listening to Russian Orthodox church music, but it just happens that that makes some of the of Slavonic versions of Greek texts accessible for comparison, and basically, I know from hands on experience with the Slavonic pseudepigrapha they're not to be trusted where (as Josephus) you've got a rich reliable set of originals to work with. So okay, at some point a Bogomil scribe put "cane" in the already dubious John the B bit of War. So what? Some Egyptian Christians put "cake" in Panarion. What's the connection. What's the relevance to the article? Does Tabor seriously think that one textual change to "cake" in GMatt in Egypt in the 4thC has any connection to an 11thC change to "cane" in WarJ somewhere in the Balkans 7 centuries later? If Tabor has a point, what do others scholars say to balance that point? By all means mention two views, what's the other view?In ictu oculi (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder to read about Mead, although I not sure that being a theosophist are grounds for dismissal. Also, he was reporting he work of R. Seeberg & Johannes Frey. His conclusions seem sound to me.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, yes being a Theosophist is definitely grounds for being a Theosophist. As to Frey (1906) that's a full 60 years before the critical edition of Slavonic Josephus appeared. Is Tabor even using the critical edition of Slav.War? Do all the OCS texts agree with "cane" or do some agree with the Greek? But this isn't te issue is it. Ovadyah and Michael you want to put in Tabor's quote, John you don't. But what does it mean? To me it's as relevant as saying "In the Old Russian it says this____ " so what? And if there's a point what is it? (Sorry to be dense) In ictu oculi (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You are hardly being dense. The fundamental issue is, basically, does this meet WP:UNDUE for this particular article with this particular topic. So far as I can see, the answer is "No." There is, with the possible exception of Tabor, no discussion of a connection between John the Baptist and the Ebionites, and any issues of Christian vegetarianism would probably be most reasonably discussed fully in that article. So far as I can see, I have yet to see any good reason given for why the material deserves inclusion in this article and it more or less is the burden of those who seek to add material to demonstrate it. The fact that the refusal to provide such reasons regarding much of the content of this article supported by Michael and Ovadyah has been an ongoing problem for about a year now has clearly made my tolerance for their obfuscation and misdirection shorter, but it is still the case that they have yet to demonstrate any real reason for its inclusion, other than, basically, that they want it here. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi In ictu oculi, the relevance is that the Ebionites portrayed themselves as vegetarians. These claims were dismissed by the early Church Fathers as Ebionite fabrications, yet there does seem some basis for their claims. There are a number of sources - not just Tabor, as John Carter claims - that make this claim, some of which draw upon Slavonic Josephus. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, (a) really? Epiphanius did not dismiss that, I see he clearly says that both the Ebionites and Nasoreans were vegetarian, so which ChF disagrees with Epiphanius? (b) Still don't see the point: How does a Bogomil changing "locust" to "cane" in the 10thC tell us whether an Egyptian Christian was vegetarian (which we already know they were) in the 4thC? (c) Which modern scholars draw on Slav.War given that the Russian critical edition (sometime in 1960s) makes it clear the text is a translation from late Greek mss? (d) and what point do they make from Slav.War. .........you guys all seem to be in on the significance of this which escapes me. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the Ebionites claimed that their vegetarianism was based on scriptural authority, and as evidence they presented their gospel. This was what the Church Fathers dismissed as Ebionite fabrication. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

From my own talk page

To keep things simple I'm answering that here. Look I think you guys know, (a) I've a fairly left wing/critical view of most things, (b) more sympathetic to Hellenistic-Christianity/Judaism than the kosher version. So I don't think asking my opinions will help things here. Ovadyah did a very good job with cleaning up Gospel of the Ebionites. But Michael, there's some odd Messianicky bits on this article, and John I think you have to provide "other view" quotes rather than just deleting Tabor even if Tabor looks fruitcakey.In ictu oculi (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there are some "odd Messianicky bits" in the article, and I don't like them. In time they can be smoothed out. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The other quotes have been available for I think about a year now at User:John Carter/Ebionites and User talk:John Carter/Ebionites. They have just been pretty systematically ignored and in some cases edit-warred against by Michael and Ovadyah. And, actually, I am not sure that Tabor or Eisenman should be completely ignored. The question is how much weight to give theories which have received little if any academic support. In the case of Eisenman, one of the encyclopedias included in the pages above references J. L. Teicher, the first person to propose a linkage between the Dead Sea scrolls and the early Christians. The evidence which has over time been presented to date which discusses Eisenman indicates that it would be reasonable to add his name (or books) after Teicher, along with those of others who have subsequently done the same thing. There is a problem, in that while all of them identifiy the Lying Priest and the Teacher of Righteouness as early Christians, there is no agreement regarding who the individual claimants are. Also, the factor of WP:WEIGHT is and has been the primary point of contention. It has just been, basically, consistently ignored by both Michael and Ovadyah. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

John the Baptist

Apologies for being dense, I hadn't stood back and read what the section is saying:

---

SECTION

• The Gospel of the Ebionites might have been named after the followers of John the Baptist,
• and Jesus initially may have been amongst his followers.
• The Ebionites shared many doctrines and practices with the Essenes,
• and possibly with those at Qumran.
• In the Gospel of the Ebionites, as quoted by Epiphanius, John the Baptist and Jesus are portrayed as vegetarians.
• 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 may have mistaken for Ebionites) were projecting their vegetarianism onto him

---

I would say the problem is not the inclusion of Slavonic Josephus, but of anything in this section.In ictu oculi (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• DELETE --- The Gospel of the Ebionites was named after the Ebionites.
• DELETE --- The Ebionites do not claim that Jesus was a follower of John, do they?
• The Ebionites shared these practices with Josephus' Essenes ________ __________ _________
• The Ebionites shared these practices with the DSS Community ________ __________ _________
• In the Gospel of the Ebionites, as quoted by Epiphanius, John the Baptist and Jesus are portrayed as vegetarians. YES
• DELETE It is a matter of debate whether John was in fact a vegetarian - No it isn't.
• DELETE (a notion reinforced by the "Slavonic version" of Josephus) - reinforced if you're a Bogomil maybe :)
• or whether some Ebionites (or the related Elchasaite sect which Epiphanius may have mistaken for Ebionites) were projecting their vegetarianism onto him ------- yes.

In ictu oculi (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to remind everyone involved that we are going to address any content issues related to this section in mediation. Some issues, such as the role of pre-Christian figures like John the Baptist with respect to the Ebionites, should probably be worked on at the same time as, or after, the Essenes section (still on the talk page). As far as I'm concerned, there are no policy issues that are in violation related to this section of the article. I'm saving my comments related to the content of the JTB section for mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I don't follow. You mean there is no debate about whether John was a vegetarian? (If he ate locusts, he can't be vegetarian...) My turn to be dense! It seems to me that this debate goes back nearly 2000 years....

As for Jesus (initially) being a follower of John, yes that is exactly what some people claim. See citations given. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael, sorry but there is no debate about John being vegetarian. A group of Christians in the 370s aren't a debate. If it was a debate then someone would be debating it.

And, no, those 3 refs don't exactly claim that, it's more as Dunn Jesus remembered that this resolves simply into the question whether 'disciple' is the best term to use. And even if they did, what's it got to with Ebionites, why is it here?

What about the ___________ __________ _____________ lines. Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

But people (i.e. modern sources) are debating it. As I said, see the citations. And [1][2]

I'm not sure what you want with the ___________ __________ _____________ lines. If your asking for more details, then some can be provided.

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he can if you assume that the purpose for avoiding meat was due to a strict observation of purity laws. Skarsaune (2007) Jewish Believers in Jesus explains that Leviticus considers locusts to be clean, and that is probably why Epiphanius doesn't bring up vegetarianism when he discusses JTB's diet in Panarion 30.13. Epiphanius discusses vegetarianism in another context in Pan. 30.20, but he never associates it with JTB. Scholars like Bart Erhman however, do make this connection using Epiphanius as a source in what I have described as a pseudo-parallelism on the GE talk page. By contrast, Skarsaune thinks it is a scriptural proof text based on Exodus/Numbers or Elijah. Ovadyah (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael, Ovadyah. Please give me the name of one person who says that John the Baptist was a vegetarian.In ictu oculi (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Tabor, Eisenman, J Verheyden. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if Tabor seriously believes that first then he'd have to seriously thinks that there was a great conspiracy theory to substitute "locusts" for "cakes" in every NT mss, and only a 4thC Greek text in Egypt and an 11thC Bogumil copy of Josephus' War of the Jews in the Balkans escaped the great conspiracy. Verheyden can't believe that, he's from K.U. Leuven. Okay but page numbers please, so maybe we change the article to say:

• James Tabor and Robert Eisenman believe that John the Baptist was a vegetarian, and that the Gospel of the Ebionites and Slavonic Josephus contain the truth which has been supressed from all NT manuscripts from "cakes" to "locusts" because the idea of "cakes" was offensive. REF REF.

What are the exact page numbers? :) In ictu oculi (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Except that it's not just Tabor and Eisenman. As for page numbers, they're already in the article. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted In ictu oculi's edit which make it look like it is just Tabor's position. It's obvious that this matter is best handled at mediation, where this issue is already on the menu. See you there. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You can add Ehrman to that list as well. I have fixed up the page numbers and inline quotations. Ovadyah (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2011 (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

Copied from the archived section on John The Baptist. I'm getting tired of having to do this repeatedly. Ovadyah (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have verified the pages numbers and provided inline quotations for all the references in the article that say John the Baptist had a vegetarian diet. This can all be copied over to the mediation page when we are ready. Feel free to add more reliable sources (with page numbers and inline quotations), as it will probably take a few more weeks to finish up the James vs. Paul section. Ovadyah (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there may be a missing apostrophe from an Ehrman "Referring to Epiphanius quotation". You better correct it or else John Carter will claim you were intentionally misrepresenting a source. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. We can't have that! :0D Ovadyah (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ovadyah (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If you see any other problems let me know. The more work we do now on this section, the less we will have to do in mediation. Also, see my comments on In ictu oculi's talk page, where I am being accused of POV-pushing. Any efforts to make this section more NPOV would be helpful. That means fewer indolent editors "tut-tut"ing on the talk page and more doers would be helpful. Ovadyah (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Vegetarian JohnTB (was Please reply on Article Talk page here so all can see, thanks)

Hi guys 1. I made a change from "It is a matter of debate whether John was in fact a vegetarian (a notion reinforced by the "Slavonic version" of Josephus)" to "James Tabor argues that John was a vegetarian" based on what was presented on this page that James Tabor argues that.., etc.. It's been reverted to "It is a matter of debate". Which it still isn't. There is no debate. There is just James Tabor. I don't even say any other scholars taking him seriously enough to answer since 2006. Have they? 2. Re these quotes from James Tabor

an ancient Hebrew version of Matthew INCORRECT insists that "locusts" is a mistake in Greek

— Jesus Dynasty p.134

Gospel of Ebionites is a Greek text. There is no "ancient Hebrew version of Matthew" in existence. This strikes me as plain dishonesty. No honest academic would present GEb as "an ancient Hebrew version of Matthew". (as a side note, today is the first time I've looked as his academic track record.)

We know this

— ref 9 p.335

We know this

— 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

So his case boils down to misrepresenting a 4th Century Egyptian Greek text as "an ancient Hebrew version of Matthew". 3. These 4x quotes of Tabor don't actually clearly state the implied thesis "there's been a giant conspiracy, anti-vegeterian Paul has surpressed the truth of the matter, all NT manuscripts have been tampered with by Paulites, the truth is found in Epiphanius' quote of a Jewish wannabee group in Egypt". But okay, I agree the thesis is implied, and this is evidently what he's pushing. Back to the article. Is this typical? Is this underpinning behind the other statements in the article that John Carter is objecting to? Because if it is typical of other sections in the article (I don't know) then there may be a potential POV problem here. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you haven't read Tabor, obviously. Please stop synthesizing from quotes. And you will have to stop saying things like, "There is no debate. There is just James Tabor. " when you have been shown similar quotes from elsewhere of others also claiming John the Baptist as a vegetarian. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 00:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

Sure but I don't have to "read Tabor" do I? That's why I asked for quotes. Ovadyah was kind enough to provide them. Some synthezizing from those 4x quotes is required to reach the position you want me to reach that "there is a debate" without further evidence. So, yes, correct, if you want me to reach "there is a debate" without synthezizing, then yes, please, I would need more than those 4x quotes. It is quite possible that when I have been shown similar quotes from elsewhere of others also claiming John the Baptist as a vegetarian, and scholarly rebuttal, then I will have been shown that there is "debate". But that's what I'm asking for isn't it? Where's the "debate"? All the 4x quote show is 1x a Tabor's misrepresentation of a Greek text as "an ancient Hebrew version of Matthew" + 2x NT quotes which we know, + 1x a statement about Slavonic Josephus. Yes, evidently it requires synthesis to reach "debate" from that. Which is why I suggest that "debate" be removed from the article. Or either or

In fact I have applied after the "debate" comment in the article. I request that it be left there until it is addressed with evidence of a rebuttal of Tabor's view, and hence "debate".In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, can you suggest a better way to reword this that will relieve what you have identified as a synthesis problem? I'm not seeing it myself, but maybe a set of fresh eyes is just what we need to resolve this. Is the issue over the word "debate", as opposed to scholars having two different views of the subject? In other words, there are two different groups of scholars that disagree about whether the primary sources support a conclusion that JTB may have been a vegetarian, but they are not in fact "debating" it. Is that the issue? If so, by all means WP:BE BOLD and reword the text to take care of the problem. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this just needs to be broken up into two sentences. The pro-veggie sources would be Eisenman et al. in the first sentence. The anti-veggie sources would be in the next sentence, including Shlomo Pines (already in there) plus any additional sources we can find to make this more NPOV. Does that help? Ovadyah (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In the Gospel of the Ebionites, as quoted by Epiphanius, John the Baptist and Jesus are portrayed as vegetarians,[62][63][64][65][66] a notion reinforced by the "Slavonic version" of Josephus[67][68]. However, the conclusion that the Ebionites regarded John the Baptist as a vegetarian has been disputed. Other scholars, such as Petri Luomanen and Shlomo Pines, have questioned whether Epiphanius may have mistaken for Ebionites a group with closer affinities to Hellenistic-Samaritans<Luomanen> or the related Elchasaite sect.[35]Pines

How about this arrangement? Ovadyah (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ovadyah

Well I was already BOLD and already expressed what I understand is an honest representation of the status here:

• James Tabor believes that all New Testament manuscripts where John eats "locusts" are corrupt and that the Ebionite version "cakes" is correct, and correct to say John, Jesus and Peter were vegetarians. In support of this he cites an 11th Century Slavonic translation of Josephus's War of the Jews.

Where Michael wants

• It is a matter of debate whether John was in fact a vegetarian (a notion reinforced by the "Slavonic version" of Josephus

The trouble is (Michael) that second statement is not true, is it? It is not a fact that this is a matter of debate, since there is no scholarly debate happening. As it stands Tabor's is a view that has not generated scholarly debate. But really the point is that this shouldn't even be in this article - this is an article about a 4thC sect - if there's anything to say about John the Baptist it should be in John the Baptist.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry In ictu oculi, statements like "there is no debate" is not an open-minded request for information. When you realise that we can talk.

PS in the meantime reread Kelhoffer, especially page 20. where you will there is a contemporary debate about John the Baptist's vegetarianism.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 05:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

Couple of things:

1. You've now made 2 edits without getting agreement : which would be fine if you didn't do so leaving "Not just Tabor - see talk. Take it to mediation if you feel so strongly that you can't wait for the debate to close on the talk page Undid revision 424424698 by In ictu oculi " on the edit comments.

2. It's usual with any fringe idea to find 1 or 2 people every half century who are convinced of it. Philipp Kieferndorf (1892) is dead, so not in a debate. Robert Eisler (1929) is just citing the GE. Alexandros Pallis (one of my own bios no less) who cares. What we'd normally mean by "debate" is that people who are not dead reply to James Tabor's 2006 theory's and "debate" them.

3. Where is the "debate"?

4. And again, if we're so confident about this why not John the Baptist? I will add my edit there. If it's not received there (in the 1stC article) it shouldn't be here (in the 4thC article).

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your synth tag asked for a ref, I provided one. So? As for debate having to have living debatees, no; what you have to prove (i.e. source) is that the debate ended conclusively. I see no signs of that. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael.

Firstly, before we go on can I ask you a relevant question: Have you ever tried locust? (I've had locusts and honey and they are very tasty - a bit like crispy shrimp)

Secondly, a tag is more than a tag. The problem with the sentence is the synthesis that because James Tabor has said something therefore it's a debate. Wikipedia shouldn't say something is in debate if it isn't. All mainstream commentaries on Matt 3:4 and Mark 1:6 pass the locust verses without comment, debate for the simple reason that there is no debate. Just as there is no debate over Leviticus 11:22 "Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind"

Kelhoffer = The Tenacity of 'Vegetarian' lnterpretations: Alexander Ross and Ellen Gould Harmon White Brock notes aptly that "the urge to get rid of the offending locusts dies hard." ... so Kelhoffer isn't listing a debate, he's tabulating fringe views.

In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried ants.

See the interminable debate about WP:FRINGE applied to religion. One of the mediation topics, you'll find. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I'm glad you've eaten ants. Helps not to be a vegetarian when discussing vegetarianism. But all the same fringe is as fringe does. Fringe authors publish bestsellers with conspiracy theories. Non-fringe authors get to write the 2 Corinthians volume in the NITC or something boring. The result is that if we take 200 commentaries on Matthew and Mark (which would be doable) we won't find 1 scholar that seriously advances Tabor's theory that there's a great Pauline anti-vegetarian conspiracy. This is, frankly, is fruitcake stuff. Froooot Froooooot.In ictu oculi (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be, if that what's Tabor was saying. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well based on what was cited above it is, so for the moment this is how the article reads:

John the Baptist

The Gospel of the Ebionites might have been named after the followers of John the Baptist,[55] and Jesus initially may have been amongst his followers.[56][57][58] The Ebionites shared many doctrines and practices with the Essenes,[59] and possibly with those at Qumran.[60][61]

In the Gospel of the Ebionites, as quoted by Epiphanius, John the Baptist and Jesus are portrayed as vegetarians.[62][63][64][65][66] The idea that John was in fact a vegetarian is broadly and widely rejected by mainstream scholarship which considers Epiphanius correct to regard the Ebionites as having altered their version of Matthew. However a minority of writers, including Ellen White, have argued that John really was a vegetarian, a view which Kelhoffer (2005) describes as "tenacious".[67] James Tabor (2006) has argued that it is the sources of Matthe 3:4 and Mark 1:6 which are corrupt and Panarion 30.13.4-5 which preserves the original reading "cakes". In support of this Tabor cites the wording "canes and roots" in an 11th Century Slavonic version of Josephus' War of the Jews[68][69] However it remains the overwhelming scholarly view the Ebionites (or the possibly related Elchasaite sect which Epiphanius may have mistaken for Ebionites) were projecting their own vegetarianism onto John, Jesus and Peter.[35] {unsigned}

This is so badly written, and a misrepresentation of Tabor, by someone who hasn't even read the source, that it is laughable. So funny that I'm going to leave it in for the moment, rather than try to rewrite. Rest assured, it'll all be coming out eventually. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael

I can see exactly what is being said by Tabor and this is it. When you rewrite I expect you'll tone it down and make it appear more reasonable. But this is where Tabor is at. Conspiracy theory stuff.In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Tabor's point (and it's made by others) is that the early anti-Roman, messianic qualities were toned down to make it acceptable to the Roman gentile converts, and later the Roman upper echelons. Hardly grassy knoll conspiracy theory. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I don't know if these theories/beliefs form part of your personal belief system or not, but either way I can see you are absolutely committed to your view. It's not my intention to interfere with someone's personal conviction on a matter.

However, from a text-critical point of view, to say that 1 single 19thC citation of one of Shakespeare's Hamlet which contains a reading that none of the 100s of 17thC copies/citations of Hamlet has, and that the 19thC version is the true reading and the 17thC copies/citation is, like it or not, grassy knoll territory.

RE. REVERT : (Restoring version prior to remove inaccurate representation (where do the Ebionites describe Peter as a vegetarian, for example))

1. Re "debate". This restores the statement in the article "It is a matter of debate whether John was in fact a vegetarian" this statement remains untrue, at least untrue in terms of any mainstream debate, as the ref given Kelhoffer shows. If it said "It is a matter of debate whether John the Baptist, Jesus ever even existed" then that would be a true statement, since that's a more mainstream documented view.

2. Re Peter: This should be a reminder that just because we haven't heard of something isn't a reason for a revert. And with respect, you might want to ask yourself how broadly based and well-rounded your knowledge on Ebionites really is if someone like myself who couldn't care less about these 4thC heresies and just has a casual overview of NTA knows about the 2 Ebionite sources projecting their vegetarianism onto Peter, and you don't? The two sources should be in the index of Schneemelcher's NTA. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not claim any in depth knowledge of Ebionites. But if you have sources about Peter's vegetarianism, as projected by the Ebionites or otherwise, then please add them to the article, but at the moment the claim is unsourced. But please do not use the article as a device for rubbishing Tabor, as you did before. The article is about Ebionites.

As for "debate" - and this is the last time I will address the matter - if various scholars advance different positions in the literature (as they have), then that is a debate. Why this is such a redflag word is beyond me. Okay, so it is not such a prominent debate as, say, Jesus' existence attracts, but still a debate.

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael

Okay, but if you do not have any in depth knowledge of Ebionites, then perhaps you should use the tag rather than "(Restoring version prior to remove inaccurate representation (where do the Ebionites describe Peter as a vegetarian, for example))"

> As for "debate" - and this is the last time I will address the matter<

Can I clarify please - This means you will now let the statement that there is a "debate" be removed? or that you will revert any attempt to remove it? We still haven't provided any evidence that there is a Wikipedia-notable debate. Who are the living parties on either side of this debate, if it is Wikipedia notable?In ictu oculi (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It means I will not address your ridiculous notion of what constitutes a debate any more. Waste someone else's time. You could start by actually reading the article, since that would answer your last question. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael, what constitutes the notability (present tense) of a debate comes under the same Wikipedia:Notability criteria as the notability of anything else (for example the German vegetarian magazine cited from 1921 uses a Greek argument about shoots which has no parallel in any source before or since, hence not notable). If by reading the article you mean the book Kelhoffer, James A. The Diet of John the Baptist. "Locusts and Wild Honey" in Synoptic and Patristic Interpretation 2005, I was already familiar with it. Or do mean something else? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No further evidence for existence of a debate per Wikipedia:Notability criteria has been forthcoming, so at some point someone should fix/remove the vegetarianism debate on J the B.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Others

Michael, Others has been replaced with "Hyam Maccoby (1987), Robert Eisenman, James Tabor, Hugh Schonfield (1961) and others". The more important change is that "The mainstream Jewish view of the Ebionites" ref Maccoby, has been changed to "Hyam Maccoby's (1987) view of the Ebionites."In ictu oculi (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not just Maccoby's view that "The mainstream Jewish view of the Ebionites..". -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

To me "mainstream Jewish" is a mainstream credible scholar like Jacob Neusner, it isn't Maccoby. However if you can provide a mainstream source then please go ahead. At the moment the source that exists in the article is Maccoby, so it is described as Maccoby.In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael. Please don't revert on the strength of your personal convictions. First read around the subject. Maccoby is not 'Jewish mainstream' (whatever that tendentious phrasing may mean). To assert that Maccoby is mainstream is to ignore that Maccoby’s Pauline thesis (not particularly new) is often read as a strong view explicitly challenging the positions of earlier Jewish scholars on Christianity and especially Pauline Christianity, such as those of Claude Montefiore and Joseph Klausner. Francis Gerald Downing Cynics, Paul, and the Pauline churches, Routledge, (1988) 1998 p.253 Nishidani (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Following the "mainstream Jewish view" to a few reviews of Hyam Maccoby's 1986 book it took all of 10 minutes to find untypically strongly worded negative reviews by major academics Gager, Dunn and brief dissmissal of the thesis by Skarsaune. Although, Michael, you have put a POV tag on Hyam Maccoby article re. Gager, Dunn and (when I can add it) Skarsaune, another 30 min of searching has unearthed refs slight less negative on Maccoby's 1986 book, but in terms of direct views the reception by Gager, Dunn seems representative.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted on the grounds of clarity and accuracy. Let me explain again. It is not Maccobby's view that the Ebionites were heretics, it is his view that mainstream Jews viewed them as heretics. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael

No, with all respect if that were the case then instead of reverting "The mainstream Jewish view of the Ebionites is that they were..." we would still do better to have changed it to "Hyam Maccoby's view of the mainstream Jewish view... (etc.)". Either way it's still the view of one partisan source, a source that Skarsaune, note, who is a mainstream scholar and expert on the Ebionites rejects. The fringe sources need to be balanced with more standard SBL content, and certainly should not be represented as "the mainstream Jewish view".In ictu oculi (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with your editor? You're duplicating text at the start (in this case my own message - and elsewhere, I've noticed). -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Apropos Maccoby, Michael, where in the page range for note 4 from Maccoby is our (a) 'The Ebionites used only one of the Jewish Gospels') and (b) '(Ebionites) revered James the Just.'? It may be my old eyes, but I've reread both that passage and the abridgement and cannot find source justification for this in those pages. pp.172-183. Thanks in anticipation.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Two types of Ebionites

Petri Luomanen (2007) pp.101-102, 115; pp.101-102 - "Thus, we may have to reckon with the possibility that, from very early on, there may have been at least two types of Ebionites: (1) Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking Ebionites (= Irenaeus Ebionites?) who shared James the Just's positive attitude toward the temple, used only Matthew's Gospel and accepted all the prophets; and (2) Hellenistic-Samaritan Ebionites (= Epiphanius' Ebionites) who totally rejected worship in the temple, used only the Pentateuch, and, carrying with them the memory of Stephen's execution, perceived Paul as one of their major opponents.", p.115 - "The Jewish Christianity of Irenaeus' Ebionites involved obedience to Jewish laws (including circumcision), anti-Paulinism, rejection of Jesus' virginal conception, reverence for Jerusalem (direction of prayer), use of Matthew's Gospel, Eucharist with water, and possibly the idea that Christ/Spirit entered Jesus at his baptism. ... However, the explicit rejection of the temple and its cult, the idea of the True Prophet and the (selective) acceptance of the Pentateuch only, show that Epiphanius' Ebionites were not direct successors of Irenaeus' Ebionites. Because it is not easy to picture a linear development from Irenaeus' Ebionites to Epiphanius' Ebionites, and because the Samaritans seem to link Epiphanius' Ebionites with the Hellenists of the early Jerusalem community, I am inclined to assume that Epiphanius' Ebionites were in fact successors of the Hellenistic "poor" of the early Jerusalem community, and that Irenaeus' Ebionites were successors of the Hebrews (see Acts 6-8) of the same community."

A Luomanen reference with page numbers and quotations from the GE article. Ovadyah (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, just what exactly is this unexplained comment meant for? It has already been pointed out, multiple times, that several reliable sources have indicated that there was no clear unity of those who were called by the heresiologists "Ebionites". And, yes, as has been mentioned by Klijn & Reinink and others, and I think probably even mentioned on this talk page, the biggest dichotomy among the descriptions is between Irenaeus and Epiphanius. So, yes, if you are finally coming to realize that there are opinions other than those expressed and cited by Tabor, great. It's nice to see that you have demonstrated a willingness to consult other sources. I could point out that other sources, which have repeatedly been mentioned here and elsewhere, like Marcel Simon in Verus Israel, go further and say that there might have been "Ebionite" branches of every Jewish branch then extant. Please give some clear evidence as to what purpose is presumed for including this information on this page. Thank you.

P. S. As I and others have pointed out on this page before, it is our general practice to not cite the most recent source available, but the source which is, for better or worse, most frequently cited by other sources as a source. Doing so tends to reduce the incidence of problems created when one recent source cites an earlier work, but the citation in the article itself does not mention the work. Also, if, as in this case, the subject is not one which receives an overwhelming amount of textspace in a variety of sources, it makes sense to mention primarily the first source which makes the point repeated by others. That way, in the event someone does, for instance, "disagree with the proposal in Klijn & Reinink that (X)'s comments were based on (Y)," it would save a lot of effort to have that source cited directly, as the involved editor wouldn't have to go through those "repeating" sources to see which are specifically "repeating" the original, and which might be making other, original comments, which would not necessarily be relevant to the possibly "standard" or "somewhat standard" opinions of the broadly-consulted original source. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Luomanen source was added to supplement this suggested rewording of the JTB section:

In the Gospel of the Ebionites, as quoted by Epiphanius, John the Baptist and Jesus are portrayed as vegetarians,[62][63][64][65][66] a notion reinforced by the "Slavonic version" of Josephus[67][68]. However, the conclusion that the Ebionites regarded John the Baptist as a vegetarian has been disputed. Other scholars, such as Petri Luomanen and Shlomo Pines, have questioned whether Epiphanius may have mistaken for Ebionites a group with closer affinities to Hellenistic-Samaritans<Luomanen> or the related Elchasaite sect.[35]Pines

How about this arrangement? Ovadyah (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The source somehow became detached from the rest of the discussion about JTB. I am no longer participating in this discussion on the article talk page, but, anyway, that is the explanation. Ovadyah (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bauckham

Richard Bauckham

"We may now assert quite confidently that the self-consciously low Christology of the later Jewish sect known as the Ebionites does not, as has sometimes been asserted, go back to James and his circle in the early Jerusalem church." Bruce Chilton, Jacob Neusner, The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001 p.135.

Richard Bauckham

"The consistency of this evidence shows that a high Christianity was characteristic of the Jerusalem church. The low Christology later adopted by the Ebionites should not be projected back onto the Jerusalem church, as has often been done." Oskar Skarsaune, Reidar Hvalvik (eds.) Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries, Hendrickson Publishers, 2007 p.77.

In ictu oculi, please make clear that the author of both of the above statements in the Ebionites article is Richard Bauckham. In Skarsuane's book on p.77, Bauckham is directly referencing his earlier work, "The Origin of Ebionite Christology" in The Image of the Judeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature, which is already referenced in the article. As it stands, the article creates the impression that three independent scholars, Bauckham, Chilton, and Skarsaune, have all concluded the Jerusalem Church under James had a high Christology, unlike the Ebionites. The reality is that one scholar, Richard Bauckham, is stating this conclusion three times as a contributor to three different books. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ovadyah, but I think this was posted on my talk page by mistake wasn't it. What you say above seems completely correct/reasonable. But isn't I don't think related to what I have edited, is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. It was Nishidani who added this material. I have not been following recent changes to the article, since I stopped working on it. I will wait a few days and make the changes myself if no one else will. Ovadyah (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. By the way, I know there are umpteenth errors and stuff to change in this article (is ebyon used 61 times in the Tanakh or 58, in the Psalms 15 times or 22? etc.etc.etc.) since Michael hasn't replied, could you fix up note 4, or at least answer the point I addressed? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. I will take a look at Maccoby sometime this week (my copy is packed away somewhere). Hyam Maccoby is an important scholar in the evolution of thinking about the Ebionites as a parallel to the evolution in thinking about the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus. Ovadyah (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It caught my eye because, unless my memory is mistaken, Maccoby argued that Paul was a Greek, not Jewish and he based this on the sources that attribute this idea to Ebionites. I certainly know many sources write that Ebionites thought Paul was an apostate from the Law, but if he was, according to the Ebionites, and to Maccoby, a gentile, I don't understand how he could enter, technically, into a Jewish judgement of 'apostasy',of the kind you get in the birkat ha-minim. So I reread all of those pages, and the internet synthesis of the chapter, and found nothing corresponding to the elements in that sentence. Maccoby in that book talks of apostasy only on p.156, which is outside the given page range. I'm not challenging the sentence, I am challenging the use of Maccoby for it in note 4. (I would add that from memory, I recall many sources citing the 'ebyon' usage in the Tanakh as 58, and the psalms as 22. There's a lot of screwing up by mindless copying in biblical sources, and that should be looked at). Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The claim made by the "Ebionites" that Paul was a Greek is based on Epiphanius' Panarion 30. I use "Ebionites" in quotes here because these may be the same Hellenistic-Samaritan Ebionites identified by Luomanen that followed the Samaritan Pentateuch only. How this relates back to the Tanakh-observant Ebionites known to Irenaeus is unclear and currently a hot topic of scholarship in this field. The bit about Paul being an apostate from the Law comes straight from Irenaeus' Against heresies. I will attempt to track down the correct page number in Maccoby, and if not there, it will be easy enough to find another source. Ovadyah (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with those primary sources. One has to be careful, since everything is a minefield here (and that is why all non-specialist synthetic, old or popular sources, even Durant, should be scrupulously avoided). Take the 'Tanakh-observant Ebionites' as distinguished from putative 'Samaritan Ebionites', as per Luomanen, in this field any number of spins and conjectures are possible, but it's only Luomanen who suggests this so far, he hasn't 'identified' (as someone in a crim line up is 'identified') anything. He has made a conjecture that many, Paget for one, find unsubstantiated. In fact most of these conjectures cannot be substantiated, that is my point, because all scholars are attempting to construct viable pictures of a reality poorly knowable, given our scarce and biased snippets of material). From my general knowledge I know the Samaritans hold to their version of the Pentateuch, not the Tanakh in its Jewish entirety, whereas Epiphanius says of these same Ebionites that (unlike the Samaritans) they omit some sections from the Pentateuch. Elision is one thing, having a Pentateuch that, from memory, has some 5,700 readings that differ from the Masoretic Hebrew version does not translate into the idea that they challenged whole passages.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The biggest difference is the rejection by the "Ebionites" of all the prophets after Joshua. This is mentioned explicitly by Epiphanius as one of the defining characteristics of his Ebionites. Luomanen finds it inconceivable that a sect of Tanakh-observant Ebionites would walk away from the prophets. This is particularly true of Isaiah because so many Christian proof texts are based on the prophesies of Isaiah. However, you are right that it's only a conjecture. Ovadyah (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Epiphanius, by many accounts, has many sects under one umbrella, and depending on one's heuristic and hermeneutic principles, one can derive any number of hypotheses to 'fit' this or that detail, or explain away whatever doesn't accord with one's own 'reconstruction' of true Ebionites. I think it is generally understood that, in lieu of new caches of documents being unearthed, one can only tell 'just-so' stories here.

I take exception to the idea that texts tells us that Ebionites were 'tanakh-observant'. Irenaeus, 2 centuries before Epiphanius, can be interpreted as writing of the Ebionites that they were a group which followed the Torah (the Pentateuch), not as Tanakh-observant Jews.(Haer. 1.26.2: 'persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law.') The law here is what is laid down, 'instructed' as the 'way' in the Pentateuch, the 613 mitzvot classified by Maimonides come from there, not from prophetic books or the historical chronicles.

I'll illustrate with your example (all OR stuff, but we're just talking here). So many Christian proof texts may be based on Isaiah, but not Mark, who is the earliest Gospel (Matthew introducesd the word 'ekklesia' church. Mark knows only of synagogues and the Ebionites had synagogues) Matthew engineers the life of Jesus as prophetic resonance, probably because more orthodox Jews kept asking the followers of Jesus why, if he was the messiah, his profile as a Galilean failed to fit the expected details of a messiah one finds prefigured prophetically in Isaiah et al. Most of the glaring incongruities in the Matthean narrative (the census dates to 6 CE, Herod to pre-4 BC, though the gospel narrative takes them as contemporary) arise from attempts to make the Jesus of 'history' fit the Davidic expectations (Bethlehem, the star, the 'virgin' etc.) of a new messiah. So, were the Ebionites direct descendents of a community of followers of a Galilean messianic figure, unlike the Pauline Christians, the later 'prophetic' fulfilment narratives of Gospels that clearly reflect Pauline Christian interests would not necesarily interest them. The prophecy narratives are clearly directed at convincing Jews who, on firm textual grounds, challenged the adequacy of Jesus' family profile for the classical outline of the messiah in the early prophets. Joshua in his dual role as prophet-king, certainly would, if the messianic concept was understood by these earliest Ebionites primarily in terms of militant millenarian or chiliastic redemption. Lastly, one cannot bracket 'Ebionites' and Ebionites so simply, except in a game of conjecture, for the simple reason that historians themselves cannot agree on who or what was Ebionitism, at any specific stage. You can get anything you like if you cherrypick a source dating to 300 years after the fall of the temple, representing a melange of narratives, often confusing several sects (Cerinthus, Elchasaites, Nazoreans, Nassenes, docetic gnostics etc), and jump at one filament as the Ariadnic thread to trace your way out of the hermeneutic labyrinth back to the pristine light of Jesus's otherwise unknown reality. That is why, from the outset, I have said that the page cannot describe Ebionism. It can only state the hermeneutic problem, and the positions of mainstream and minority scholarship regarding each element of the belkiefs attributed variously to them. Since scholarship can't determine the truth, neither can wiki, though the present text gives considerable weight to minority views in order to construct an ostensible truth (that the Ebionites were the original followers of a Jewish Christ, coterminous with his times and those of his surviving brother James).Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the best evidence I know of for Torah/Tanakh observant Ebionites (excerpted from the Gospel of the Ebionites talk page):

I will list all the primary source material before Epiphanius in chronological order. All of the quotations are taken from Skarsaune, Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007):

Irenaeus

For the Ebionites who use the Gospel according to Matthew only, are confuted of this very same book, when they make false suppositions with regard to the Lord

— Haer. 3.11.7 (p.435)

Irenaeus claims they are using a gospel text that contradicts their own beliefs.

Pseudo-Tertullian

Cerinthus' successor was Ebion, not in agreement with Cerinthus in every point, because he says that the world was made by God, not by angels; and because it is written, "no disciple is above his master, nor a servant above his Lord", he brings to the fore likewise the Law, of course for the purpose of excluding the gospel and vindicating Judaism.

— Haer. 3 (pp.434-435, 438-439)

Ps. Tertullian seems to imply that they exclude the gospel (italics are mine).

In the first quotation, Irenaeus uses the word "confuted", which can be taken to mean that the Ebionites don't follow the Gospel of Matthew they claim to use. The second quotation by pseudo-Tertullian is the most interesting. It suggests the Ebionites are Law observant, even to the point of not following the Gospel. The two together can be taken to mean (my OR) that the Ebionites are strictly Law observant and perhaps use the (Hebrew?) Gospel of Matthew as midrash, i.e. they regard the Gospel as useful commentary but not scripture. How much of the "Law" they actually followed is a matter of conjecture. Irenaeus makes the additional observation that the Ebionites interpreted the prophets "curiously", leading to various interpretations by scholars including "carefully" and "diligently" which don't seem to have the same meaning as "curiously", even in Latin. Ovadyah (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Law-observant just means following the laws of the Pentateuch/Torah, not the Tanakh. I challenged the phrasing 'Tanakh-observant Ebionites known to Irenaeus.' Jewish observance of the Law has nothing to do with adhesion to the prophetic books intrinsically. It has everything to do with the Torah. Irenaeus at most can be construed to say Ebionites hewed to the Torah, (unlike Paul, who disrupted it). Such Torah-obervance does not translate into 'Samaritan' because the Samaritans were also Torah-observant, secondly. Thirdly, Irenaeus's point is that. in his view, they read 'Matthew', non-canonically. This tells us only that these Jewish-Christians approached the text of Matthew differently from the way Irenaeus's Western-community did. What the pseudo-Tertullian means by excluding the gospel is unknown, since most reports tell us that had a Gospel. Again, we see how difficult it is to 'nail down' a coherent interpretation that 'observes (all the relevant) phenomena' of patristic discourse on sects like the Ebionites. Still, I apologize. This is not the place I suppose to discuss the Ebionites, but rather resolve issues on the page. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I only returned to the page to point out a mistake in the references that is relevant to mediation. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologetics Press

Is Apologetics Press a scholarly source? They seem more interested in Jew-baiting and Muslim-baiting than scholarship. (See, e.g. http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1999&topic=44) Should we even be giving them credibility by citing them? Do they represent anything beyond their circle of reactionary bigots?