Talk:Ebionites/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Ebionites. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

How I see it

In response to a dispute that has been moved to Archive 3, Metamagician3000 writes:

Sigh. I suggest everyone stop using the word "vandalism" and its cognates. You have a content dispute, and no one is acting like a vandal, whatever else they may be doing. I can't impose my will on you - well, I could protect the article and force you to find someone else to unprotect it, but that would not be constructive. I suggest that Ovadyah and Loremaster stick to the plan of not editing it until 1 March. At that time, you can see what Michael has done, draw your own conclusions, and do whatever editing you think is needed. (And indeed everyone including Michael will retain all their normal rights.) The article is semi-protected, so you don't need to worry about stray vandals while you're away. If Michael does anything that strikes you as really egregious, let me know and I'll be prepared to put a "disputed" tag on it (and remove its good article rating on the ground that it is not stable), but let's all be optimistic that it won't come to that. I'll also watch the article myself to ensure that no other party makes obviously inappropriate edits.

If the above is not acceptable to everyone, I don't know what to suggest. I don't have the patience to act as a mediator, but this is how I'll approach the situation if it's acceptable to everyone else. Metamagician3000 06:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Meta, that's fully acceptable to me. BTW I have long urged people to stop assuming vandalism (= bad faith).--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait for the others, then. Metamagician3000 09:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As I had already explained several times before, the proposal made by Ovadyah, Micheal and now you are acceptable to me. --Loremaster 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually you had not said it, but I'm glad you now accept it without reservations. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

From the Archives:

Loremaster, is this proposal acceptable? Ovadyah 14:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. [The Ebionites/wip page exists primary for his contributions. :)] --Loremaster 15:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that, nevertheless I would like to see the ground rules here made explicit. So, is that a yes or no? Is there an agreement amongst us all, or shall I request Meta to reapply full protection? --Michael C. Price talk 07:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes we have an agreement. As long as it is understood that you are only improving and/or expanding the sections you previously stated you wanted to work on, and/or adding inline quotes in the Notes and References section. --Loremaster 07:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I shan't embarrass Loremaster any more by asking why he felt it necessary to edit the talk page history shown above, to produces the appearence of a conversation that never occured, nor shall I enquire as to the contents of [...], both of which give a rather different take on events. Nor shall I enquire as to why he selectively excluded my response to his final extract. I shall merely note that he has finally, elsewhere, given his acceptance of Ovadyah's proposal without reservation, and that I expect him to abide by his agreement not to edit the article during February. Ovadyah also requested no talk page editing, but I'm happy to take whatever feedback is offered here, from anybody at any time. So, Loremaster, no more edits to the article and (hopefully) I should be finished before the end of Feb'. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to be embarrased about:

I moved the bulk of the content from the talk page to the Archives (which can be easily found) upon Roger's suggestion (see section below). However, I will edit the intro of this section to make it clear that Meta's comments are in response to a conversation that is now archived.
Before Meta unlocked the Ebionites article, I took Ovadyah's proposal as refering to the Ebionites/wip page. Now that it has been unlocked, the proposal unambigiously refers to the actual article. So I removed the contents of [...] to avoid a new reader being confused. That being said, I've restored the missing content in the interst of full disclosure.

--Loremaster 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fully acceptable to me too. Maybe vandalism is not the right word. All I know is that it's not helping the article. Other people are obviously interested in contributing but are put off by the incivility. Please follow the roadmap laid out by Slrubenstein and Alecmconroy. We had a good plan in place to reach FA. We just need the discipline to follow it. I will stay in touch with Michael on his talk page, so there's no reason for totally disputed tags. Applying these tags, imho indiscriminately, is what got me talking about vandalism in the first place. I think the criteria for applying them has become much too loose. See y'all in March. :) Ovadyah 15:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of vandalism, I was refering to actual acts of vandalism by anonymous users in the past before the article was first locked. I suspect that they will eventually resume once the article's semi-protection is removed. --Loremaster 20:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Serious editing

Given the admitted fragmentary nature of our evidence of the Ebionites and the speculative nature of Italic textmany of the comments, it seems to me that an article intended for the benefit of readers rather than of editors should not be expanded, but shortened. Thirty lines including references to the more imaginative writers on the subject should be enough. I do not think that the inquisitive, but general reader is helped by the failure to distinguish between what people know to be more probably right and what is impossible to show to be the case. However fascinating the debate may be an encyclopaedia probably not the place for it. I forebear from doing any editing because of high temperature. Roger Arguile 09:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For all I know, you may be right. But I think it's wise to forebear for at least a while, in the circumstances. Metamagician3000 09:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have two suggestions, one less controversial than the other. First that the bulk of the above material be archived. As an example of a style of debate it may be helpful, but much of it seems to have been more generative of heat than of driving steam. Secondly, I have placed two asterisks (**)in the article itself, in a fairly arbitrary place, with the intention that someone be invited to delete all that follows. This leaves us with the torso of an article that could be gently pulled into shape with any essential material from that deleted added, and any duplication removed. Irenaeus's views can be dealt with once and not repeated and so with others. (I would have placed the asterisk much earlier but discretion forbids.)

Finally, may I repeat: we really need to pay attention to the needs of those who use WP. Calling someone a scholar because they have written a book does not make their judgement reliable. I trust that no one ever cites a source which they have not read; if they do, then they need to walk as on egg shells.Roger Arguile 14:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll seriously consider your advice for such a drastic prune of the article. Thanks.

I agree with the archive suggestion for the talk page. I think the various subjects have been pretty much flogged to death. If others feel likewise then by all means, someone, archive away.

Regards the scholarship of authors, you're absolutely right that publishing a book does not make someone a reliable source. However the two sources I was considering using, James Tabor and Robert Eisenman, both possess professorships and impressive pedigrees in the relevant fields at respectable establishments.--Michael C. Price ^talk 15:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Roger for your comments and suggestions.

I've archived the bulk of the talk page.
Although I agree that the article should be improved rather than expanded, I am totally opposed to the suggestion that we should delete the majority of the content of the article. The content, whether it be speculative or factual, meets Wikipedia encyclopedic standards. I am therefore removing your arbitrary marker.
Although I agree that the article should avoid the speculation of scholars, Micheal has explained ad nauseum that a Wikipedia article must present multiple points of views even if they are speculative as long as they are from a verifiable and credible source.
Every individual mentioned in this article that is described as a scholar is in fact a scholar.

--Loremaster 16:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have got into trouble before for suggesting that WP rules are less important than a proper scholarly approach which meets the needs of readers. I am simply asking editors to notice the possibility that they have got so close up to the subject that they have forgotten just how little is known about Ebionites. There is at present something of an industry in Christian origins and while the reaction against pious scholarship is understandable and justified, even professors have to be able to convince. I have not read the books by the scholars you all mention. I want to know, probably not in the article, how they know what they claim to know. The article says that some of the scholarly conclusions are speculative. In a short article this may be grounds for omission. I am just a passing stranger. I have no desire to get tangled up in the arguments. I fear that too much is now at stake, though I am glad to read of the moratorium. I am also glad that it has been noticed that some people are put off by the somewhat proprietary tone. (If you left the marker in, it might enable more people to agree or disagree with me. I thought it the least offensive way of editing; but apparently not. Roger Arguile 19:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Roger, I do take your point about the dearth of primary material on the Ebionites. And I agree that the goal is a good article that meets of needs of the readers (that is what WP policy is designed for). Where I might disagree is on the need to exclude any speculation from a short article. Virtually everything we say about the Ebionites is speculation at one level or another: naturally there are differing interpretations and views about the nature of the Ebionites; if that requires a *slightly* longer article then I don't see that at a problem, provided the intro / lead are clear and compact. But hopefully it be clearer what I mean as the article develops.--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

PS The removal of the marker before many people could see it does rather indicate the tone of the debate. I think I shall just watch. Roger Arguile 19:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the removal of the marker is rather indicative of the problem here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are both wrong then. As both Meta and I explained below, adding a marker to an article is not appropriate according to Wikipedia guidelines. I was therefore completely justified in promptly removing it. --Loremaster 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Since our goal is to get Ebionites featured article status, we had no choice but to expand the article in order to meet lenght requirements. As for the issue of some editors getting to close up to the subject that they have forgotten just how little is known about the historical Ebionites, I can only speak for myself when I say that this isn't something I have forgotten. However, I would ask you to notice that the Ebionites entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia is quite detailed while several scholars have written quite extensively on the subject as you can see in the Notes and references section. As for the accusation of a somewhat proprietary tone, you would have to understand that it is a lingering reaction to attempts by one user with a religious agenda who was trying to co-opt the Ebionites article to promote his movement. Lastly, I don't think marking the article is a wise idea since Wikipedia articles are often copied and mirrored by other online encyclopedias which cannot be edited. You can simply write here your suggestion as to where the article should end. Most of us are smart enough to understand. --Loremaster 20:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the goal featured article status? I ask in all seriousness, since the basic sense of this talk page is that there is not a lot known about the Ebionites. If we are trying to add stuff just to meet FA status, what's that say about the quality of what we are adding? Won't the reduced quality negatively impact achieving FA? Not all articles are intended to be featured articles - I think it's like 1 in a 1000. --DaXiong 07:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My advice is to ignore FA status; just concentrate on adding value to the article, make it informative, follows the sources and follow the guidelines. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you. Even if we don't get featured article status, simply trying to get it improves the quality of the article. That being said, although there is not a lot known about Ebionites, scholars seem to be able to write a lot about them. The article should reflect that. --Loremaster 21:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the removal of the marker issue, as I explained above, you are making a big deal out of nothing since it would be quite easy for you to simply say here that you think that all content below the first paragraph of the History section should be deleted. --Loremaster 20:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Loremaster is right on the last point (he may be on the other points as well, but I can't confirm that). We don't go around putting markers like that in articles. I realise it was done in good faith, but the right way to do it is to put an appropriate tag on any section that is disputed or needs sources or needs cleanup, or whatever - or else simply put a comment on the talk page in the way that Loremaster describes. Metamagician3000 22:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Essene section

I've updated and expanded Essene section of the article. It duplicates material elsewhere but I've decided to leave the other sections untouched for the moment, to see what others think.

I would hope that eventually we can remove the seperate sections on at least John the Baptist and James the Just.--Michael C. Price ^talk 23:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the material you have added as it gives a short POV-based history of Ebionites rather focusing on the reasons why some scholars beleived that Ebionites were Essene revivalists. Some of the material regarding John, Jesus and James should simply be moved to the sections created for these individuals if we choose to keep this format. --Loremaster 23:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree we can expand on each POV section to state why each POV is believed. There's no problem with POV material as long as it is identified as such; representing multiple POVs is all part of WP:NPOV.

The problem with moving much of the material as you suggest is that then each person-section has to have each POV represented, which is rather confusing and disconnected (e.g. John the Baptist has to contain a Gnostic subsection, Essene subsection etc). Easier to talk about all the charcters within a POV section, how they relate to each other etc.--Michael C. Price ^talk 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This section is about views and practices not history. Therefore, I've moved most of the material you have added to the History section where it belongs. The Essenism sub-section is now a stub which we can choose to expand to focus on it's real topic. --Loremaster 13:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1) I might have known you'd break your agreement to wait until March before resuming editting the article -- was waiting 3 days really so hard? Or can you just not bear to see the article without your stamp on it?

2) You should discuss major changes first -- I refrained from editting the other sections out of deference to the views of others while seeking feedback. You should learn to do the same. A bit of consideration for others would be appreciated; something which it is increasingly clear you are simply incapable of. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, Michael. I assumed you were done and therefore there was no need to wait for the end of February. For the record, I can bear to see the article without my stamp on it since I spent months (if not more than 2 years) without contributing to the article until Ovadyah convinced me to come back. However, now that I am back and have invested a lot of time in getting this article good status, I can't stand the quality of the article being diminished with clumsly contributions which don't respect the logic, style and format of the article. That being said, I will wait until March 1 before re-editing the article. If my concerns haven't been addressed or worse other contributions have diminished the article even more, I may feel justified in reverting the article to the last version I edited. --Loremaster 14:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology over 1). However I note you fail to address 2). I hope your last sentence does not indicate that you intend to revert to your previous non-consensual edit barrages style. Two can play at the reverting and I assure you neither of us will be satisfied with the result. Now, how about responding my last point about article organisation wrt the POV sections, instead of rushing off and making changes???? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't care what you do, I will do whatever I think is necessary to make sure this article remains a good one. Although I hope it doesn't trigger a revert war, I won't refrain from engaging in one if it comes to that. And to answer your question, I simply disagree your accessement of the person-section POV format. Ultimately, the Views and practices section should focus on Ebionites practices and their views of the historical figures important to them. Once all these sub-sections are completed, we can remove the titles so that this section becomes one solid text. --Loremaster 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat, seek consensus first and the article will progress; if not it won't. And that's a promise. As for your view about the article's structure, it has proven impossible to present a unified approach, which was why we all agreed to present the different POVs seperately. So, your approach will only work if we all (you and me and everybody else) seek consensus first before making controversial changes, as Meta suggests (and policy requires).

If you agree to this then we can discuss changes to the article. Personally I am not adverse to most of the changes you suggested, although I do not think removing some of the subsection titles is a good idea. They should remain, if only to present a synopsis of the evidence for each POV. --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Although the article was progressing fine before you came along, I've always sought consensus with everyone except Michaeal because of the antagonistic environment he created but and will try my best to seek it with him in the future. However, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages guidelines doesn't make it an absolute requirement that a contributor discuss major yet non-substantial edits first. I haven't made substantial changes. I've only moved information to its appropriate section and deleted whatever was irrelevant. That being said, I wasn't proposing that we present a unified approach. My point was simply that I will not tolerate clumsy contributions which do not respect the logic, style and format of the article. As for removing the subsection titles, I don't care either way. However, they are not necessary to present a synopsis of the evidence for each POV. Most encyclopedias only use subsection titles when the amount of content for each POV demands it, which it doesn't in this case. --Loremaster 15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether the article was progressing fine before I came along ia a matter if opinion, although I doubt whether this concept means very much to someone who insists that his edits are "irrefutable". As for tolerating changes that you regard as "clumsy contributions which do not respect the logic, style and format of the article" do you understand that this is a subjective issue? That discussing changes beforehand will lead to more permanent changes? If you start making controversial, nonconsenual changes changes then why shouldn't I? That's how edit wars start.--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

1) The fact that this article went from a stub to an article with Good status mostly because of my contributions over the years is evidence that the article was progressing. 2) I never argued that my edits were "irrefutable". I said quote "I've tried to avoid an edit war by explaining my actions in the talk page and providing edit summaries whose arguments are unrefutable." You in fact never refuted those specific arguments. 3) I am fully aware about the subjectivity of interpreting the quality of some other user's contributions. However, an objective case can be made that some information should be in one section rather than another. 4) I'm not interested in permanent changes since I would love for an expert to come along and radically improved the article without my prior consent even if he eliminated all the hard work I've done, especially if his contributions made the accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style of the article meet featured article criteria. 5) However "nonconsensual" they may be, my edits (which are often but not always supported by Ovadyah) are never controversial except to someone with a strong POV. --Loremaster 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Loremaster, you did agree not to edit the article during February, but I take it from your comment above that you only edited it beforehand because you thought Michael was finished. I can understand that, and I'll make that point to Michael. But, yes, please let him finish and don't do anything more until 1 March. It would also be good if people could find ways of debating and resolving whatever changes have been made, as of 1 March, rather than getting into a revert war. You are all editors in good standing, and you need to find ways to ccoperate. Metamagician3000 23:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood. --Loremaster 12:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael, will the work you had in mind actually be completed by 1 March? The answer to that question might help us all work out how we proceed from here. Metamagician3000 23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the work definitely will not be finished by then (nor was there any requirement for it to be), simply because there is always more work that could be done, but I am satisfied that the material I've added forms a coherent block.--Michael C. Price ^talk 02:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The point of the agreement that no one besides Michael edits the article during the month of February was to simply see if he would rather than only criticizing the work of others. See Talk:Ebionites/Archive 3#February proposal and a hypothesis test. --Loremaster 15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Still, once you've had a few days, I might have a look myself at how the article seems - simply from the point of view of style and structure - and make any edits, or any comments, that strike me as obvious. I know nothing about the subject of the article, so I'll at least be neutral on that. I'm only interested in doing this if there's a prospect that it might take out some heat, not if it will add more. Metamagician3000 07:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I should also add, re Michael's most recent edit summary on the article, that it would be best to avoid writing things in anger as appears to be done there. That applies to everyone - and God knows, I am certainly not perfect in this regard ... we all feel frustrated from time to time, rightly or not. Still, we should all try to assume good faith from other established editors. Metamagician3000 11:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"The"

In many places, we say "Ebionites did this/ Ebionites did that", where it would seem much more natural English to say, "The Ebionites ..." as in the very first sentence. Is there a reason for this? Metamagician3000 08:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you replace Ebionites with "the Christians", you will quickly see how strange that sounds. --Loremaster 12:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What if I replaced it with "the Carvakas" or "the Epicureans" or "the Aztecs"? Those would be better analogies, as Christianity is still a going concern. We talk differently about the members of historical movements, religions, peoples, etc., that came and went, perhaps because we are referring to a finite, closed number of individuals who existed in the past. E.g., when we say "Greeks do this and that" we mean people from the present day and continuing country of Greece; when we say "the Greeks did this and that" we mean the finite number of people who belonged to the historical Hellenic civilisation that existed in antiquity. Similarly, we are likely to say "Mexicans celebrate this and that festival every year" (to say "the Mexicans" would sound strange) but "the Aztecs worshipped such and such gods" (which doesn't sound strange at all). Metamagician3000 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article to add "the". --Loremaster 02:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not a big deal - just something that struck me when I looked at the article to see if there was any copyediting I could do. I thought I should raise it here rather than leaping in, in case there was some sensitivity I was unaware of. I'll have a run through the article again later. Metamagician3000 02:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving on

So now that Michael has finally shown his good faith by contributing content to the Ebionites article, can we move on to finishing the work that needed to be done, specifically including inline quotations and standardizing the citation of sources? --Loremaster 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Only "finally" because you were reverting my earlier attempts. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your earlier attempts deserved to be edited or even reverted for the same reasons that your recent attempts had to be edited. That being said, you spent more time criticizing contributors to the article before you ever made those earlier attempts. --Loremaster 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the contributors insist on ad hominem speculations and refuse to assume good faith, instead of debating the issues. They also are (still) woefully ignorant of what original research means. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously lessons from you on ad hominem attacks and refusal to assume good faith are a joke. As for the issue of original research, virtually eveything I have contributed to the Ebionites article is supported by a secondary source. Some of the sentences you were most critical of (simply because they contradicted your POV) were almost copied and pasted from the sources you hold so dear. --Loremaster 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

More ad hominem speculation: you assumed I objected because it contradicted my assumed POV, rather than actually debate the issues.--Michael C. Price ^talk 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that debating with you is pointless since you insist always adding an ad hominem attack with your substantive argument. It's sad really. --Loremaster 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What's sad is your own lack of objectivity; you entire previous response was an ad hominem. BTW please don't make substantive changes to previous comments which have been replied to. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone remind me why I am wasting my time debating with you? I don't care what you think or say nor should anyone else. The end. --Loremaster 18:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I know the idea of debating an issue out is foreign to you, but I didn't expect you to be so brazen about it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

;) --Loremaster 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we put an end to the debates and go back to the system we had in place when Alec was acting as RFC. Let's decide what goes into the article by simple majority concensus. A majority vote among those recently editing the article will suffice. Loremaster, Michael, Meta, what say you? Ovadyah 18:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, stick to policy, which means debating things out, providing sources etc. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, Ovadyah is simply suggesting that debates can obviously go on forever and must end with a simple majority consensus. --Loremaster 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikipedia operates. Perhaps if people stuck to the issues instead of indulging in ad hominem attacks the debates would conclude in some time less than forever. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL How can we when you can't resist indulging in ad homimen attacks every chance you get? Anyway, I must go back to focusing on more important things and ignoring you as I've promised myself. --Loremaster 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am no longer debating personal issues with Michael. I'll let you respond to his comments on the talk page. As for your consensus suggestion, I approve. --Loremaster 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What Michael is painfully slow to realize is that NOR and NPOV must be applied together. Ovadyah 02:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I recall telling you this. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources of the Sermon on the Mount

The caption for the Sermon on the Mount image isn't the right place to discuss the origins or the sermon itself. The caption should serve as a way of relating the image to the Ebionites otherwise its relevance will be legitimately questioned. --Loremaster 02:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The previous version did this as well. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, Loremaster is probably right that the caption is too long and too tangential, whoever made it that way in the first place. Long captions sometimes signal that the connection to the text is obscure. Is there a way to shorten the caption while retaining the relevance of the image? Metamagician3000 11:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if length and relevance are the issues then delete the reference to Moses from the previous version. That way all the caption relates directly to the Sermon on the Mount.--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Moses comes directly from a previous version of the Sermon on the Mount article so it is relevant especially since Ebionites may have viewed Jesus as the Prophet like Moses, whose sermon on the mount emulated Moses coming down from the Biblical Mount Sinai with the commandments of God. --Loremaster 23:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Metamagician, I hope you realize that I was refering to the version of the caption that Michael edited which focused on the origins of the Sermon rather that its importance to Ebionites like it did in its previous version. I think the lenght and relevance of the current content of the caption is reasonable. --Loremaster 23:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what was in the previous version of the Sermon on the Mount article. The relevance of Moses to it is far from clear to the casual reader, whereas the historical significance of the sources of the sermon is immediately relevant. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree but I made a mistake: The content comes from the Expounding of the Law article rather than the Sermon on the Mount article. Regardless, the article is about the Ebionites not the Sermon on the Mount. So discussing the obscure origins of this sermon is completely irrelevant if one does not explain why the sermon and, more specifically, the expounding of the law may been important to Ebionites. That being said, I agree that the mention of Moses might not be clear to the casual reader so I will remove it. --Loremaster 00:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have to thank both Michael and Metamagician because I've now reformulated the caption under the image in a way that is far more clear and relevant. Something simpler is better. :) --Loremaster 00:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So, is everyone now happy? Metamagician3000 05:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I still think we should mention the debate by Ebionite scholars as to the origins of the Sermon on the Mount material. There was no valid reason for its removal; it was sourced and relevant. Saying the Ebionites were simply following Jesus' expouding of the law is simplistic and ignores the POV that much of their teachings reflected in the sermon may have come from Essene sources (the beatitudes) and John the Baptist (the Lord's prayer).. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You want all this in a caption? Or do you just mean it should be in the artlcle somewhere? I have no opinion about the latter (except any such claim would have to be sourced, etc.), but as to the former I do think that captions should be simple; if a loooong explanatory caption is needed to tie an image back to the article, I question whether the relationship of the image to the article may not be peripheral. I.e. is the image really necessary? Back to you. Metamagician3000 07:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

One, sourced, explanatory sentence is hardly looooong. At the moment the caption is factually incorrect and biased, since it states that the Ebionites were dedicated followers of Jesus, whereas the secondary sources emphasize also the roles of their founder John the Baptist and the Essenes generally. All I'm asking for is a bit of historical balance in the article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, the article is about the Ebionites not the Sermon on the Mount. So discussing the superfluous origins of this sermon is completely irrelevant if one does not explain why the sermon on the mount and, more specifically, the expounding of the law may have been important to Ebionites. Only a few secondary sources emphasize the influence of John the Baptist and the Essenes on the Ebionites. That vast majority of secondary sources (and primary sources) emphasize that the Ebionites were dedicated followers of Jesus. Your pushing of the controversial point of view of a few scholars is actually undermining the historical balance in the article! Regardless, the obscure origins of the Sermon on the Mount are better discussed in the actual Sermon on the Mount article. Ultimately, the current caption is based on a secondary source and is therefore appropriate. --Loremaster 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Metamagician, you have a point about the relevance of the image; a better image would be of the baptism of Jesus into the movement by its founder John the Baptist -- the Two Messiahs, as Tabor dubs them. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's always keep in mind that this article is about the Ebionites (and their views of Jesus and John the Baptist) not about John the Baptist and Jesus.
It is factually incorrect and biased to suggest that John the Baptist and Jesus were Ebionites or that the fomer baptized the latter into the Ebionite movement. I would therefore be strongly opposed to any such image or, more precisely, any caption that would suggest this.
Since there are no paintings of Ebionites nor any images of Ebionite artifacts, the only relevant images would be paintings of the followers of Jesus. Since the Expounding of the Law during the Sermon on the Mount may have been a great source of influence for Ebionite views and practices, an image of the Sermon on the Mount is highly relevant to this article. --Loremaster 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What evidence do you have for the claim: It is factually incorrect and biased to suggest that John the Baptist and Jesus were Ebionites or that the fomer baptized the latter into the Ebionite movement. or is this just your own opinion? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The lack of evidence for such a claim. --Loremaster 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, just your opinion. I can cite secondary sources that contradict this, e.g. Larson, Tabor, Eisenman, Eisenman and Wise -- and they all draw extensively on primaries. For example, four of the twelve apostles, including Peter, were originally John's followers, remember? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Micheal, no one is denying that some of the followers of John the Baptist became followers of Jesus (while others considered Jesus a false prophet and possibly became the Mandeans). My point is that it is speculation to suggest that the Ebionite heretics discussed by the Church Fathers were direct spiritual descendants from these followers or that these followers self-identified as Ebionites. You seem to forget that there is a strong possibility that the Ebionites were a sect which arose decades after the death of John, Jesus and James with no direct connection to them anymore than the philo-Semitic Mormons do. In Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, A.F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink explain that it is an open question whether they can have been direct descendants of the earliest Jerusalem church. To suggest otherwise (in light of the fact the nature and history of Ebionites cannot be definitely reconstructed from surviving references) is pushing a speculative POV. --Loremaster 19:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, go ahead and report what Klijn and Reinink think, I have no problem with that.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Loremaster 20:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Identifying James the Just as an Ebionite is fraudulent

If James denied the divinity of Christ, why was he not denounced as a heretic? Why would the Jews have killed him? Why would the Church have him as a saint? The fact is is that this position is only advanced by champions of Gnosticism and by those (Eisenman & Tabor) who want to re-write history into Jesus founding a "family dynasty" that was snuffed out by Paul (and his followers) and his "invention" of Jesus' divinity, views that exist well outside the concensus of scholarly opinion. This is a highly misleading article. --John G. Beckett 76.185.248.215 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that identifying James the Just as an Ebionite is misleading and well outside the scholarly concensus, Beckett's arguments are fallacious: 1) James' denial of the divinity of Christ could have simply been unknown or ignored by the members of the church who made him a saint decades after his ministry and death. 2) The Church beatified (or demonized) several fictitious and historical figures when it served their interests even it meant falsely portraying them as a devout Christian when they probably were not. One arguable example of this strategy is Saint Constantine. It's called pious fraud. --Loremaster 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, examples of pious fraud are well known. In fact, when Constantine personally added the words describing the nature of Jesus' divinity to the Nicene Creed, he was still an unbaptized pagan. Ovadyah 15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My arguments are not fallacious. There is no evidence whatsoever that James denied the divinity of Christ. None. The evidence (NT and Patristic writings) show that James was a Christian who maintained ties to Judiasm and the Temple. He, along with Peter and Paul and the other apostles, settled a dispute over whether Gentile Christians should be bound to circumcision and Mosiac Law. These disputations can in no honest way be extrapolated into James denying Christ's divinity. In fact, the evidence mitigates against it; why would the evidence we have go into such great detail over quibbles over the proper practice of their new faith and yet be silent about James denying the key tenant of Pauline (and NT) theology? You could say that "it was left out" or "it was edited out" or "he denied it but subsequent writers and scribes covered it up" or the Church "falsely portray[ed] them as a devout Christian", or some other variation of "the Church lied", but there is absolutely no evidence to back up such slanders. This is the problem with Eisenman, Tabor, and the great deal of the historical revisionists: they make plenty of noise about what "could" have happened or "might" have happened based on certain unsupported assumptions, reading massive amounts of conjecture into the NT texts, Patristic writings and into the intent of their writers (Tabor is especially bad about this, though only slighty worse than Eisenman); however, like Loremaster's point #1, it amounts to little more than wishful thinking. As to "pious fraud" charges, whatever the case may be against Constantine (or, say, St. Christopher, for example), again, there is no evidence whatsoever of "pious fraud" in the case of James the Just. None. Neither Paul, nor the Acts of the Apostles, nor any Patristic writer ever stated, implied, hinted, or alluded to the possibility of James denying the divinity of Christ. But hey, the "pious fraud" charge is a useful tool, right? Just cite a case of arguable pious fraud in the case of some person or persons, then jump to the conclusion that "pious fraud" charges can be applied to a key figure in the early church (or whomever in church history you wish), lack of evidence be damned; if no evidence exists to back up such a claim, just declare that it must have been "suppressed" or that the Church "falsely portray[ed] them as a devout Christian" (or some such), again without evidence. If you like textual gymnastics, you can read into ancient writings meanings and intent previously undetected for almost two millenia. Viola!!! You have just given yourself both the license and means by which to re-write history to your own liking...for fun and (if your re-write is juicy enough and you have the right connections) fame and profit. It is sad that this "Da Vinci Code" level of ahistorical nonsense has made its way into Wikipedia and is championed by otherwise intelligent people.--John G. Beckett76.185.248.215 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are fallacious because there is no evidence that James or Paul or any of the first Christians believed that Jesus was divine in the sense of being the incarnation of God. --Loremaster 00:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite true. There is no direct evidence whatsoever that James denied the divinity of Christ. None. The closest we have is the indirect evidence of John 7:5, "For even his own brothers did not believe in him". However, there is no direct evidence that he accepted Jesus' divinity either. There is a lot of theological motivation to overinterpret what is known both ways. Ovadyah 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the issue of Jesus' divinity was likely only raised after James' death, it is unlikely that he pronounced on the subject either way. Beckett's argument is a non-argument. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you have some ingenius explanation for how Paul was preaching Jesus' divinity up to a full decade before James' death, yet this issue was somehow not raised until after his death. Your charge of my supposed "non-argument" is, again, not backed up with anything resembling evidence. Since you are partial to ridiculous ahistorical statements like the "notions of Jesus' divinity only arose centuries later" nonsense below (which you revise to decades later, but still have no evidence to back it up), I'll leave you to re-write history to hearts' content.--John G. Beckett76.185.248.215 09:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does Paul explicitly preach about Jesus as a divine and literal son of God? As for evidence, see Ovadyah's mention of Ignatius of Antioch. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The consensus of opinion is that James' lack of belief referred to in John 7:5 was supplanted by faith as a result of Jesus' appearance to him (mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:7) after the resurrection. Using John 7:5 as even 'indirect' evidence of James' denial of Jesus' divinity during his later tenure as bishop of Jerusalem is a hell of a stretch, and is not backed up by any NT or Patristic writing; if this is the "closest" evidence of James' supposed denial of Jesus' divinity, then those who wish to maintain such a charge have a phenomenally weak case.--John G. Beckett76.185.248.215 08:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Using 1 Cor 15:7 as evidence that Jmaes the Just believed in the divinity of Jesus would be hell of a stretch either. --Loremaster 00:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with your comments about Tabor and Eisenman. "The Jesus Dynasty" is much like the "Da Vinci Code" in that both writings are basically novels, sprinkled with historical facts. The only difference is that Dan Brown tells us his book is a work of fiction. In the case of Tabor and Eisenman, it's left to the reader to figure out which conclusions are supported by facts and which are wild speculation. As you say, all it takes is a juicy enough story to sell books and the right connections to publish them. An eager public eats it up because they can't tell the difference between evidence and bullshit. One of the biggest differences between a wise-man and a fool is that, like Socrates, a wise-man knows what he doesn't know. Ovadyah 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you've really got a thing against Tabor. His book has plenty of references and most, if not all, his statements have pointers to sources, or are easily inferred from other statements. Speaking of which, where is the statement in the Jesus dynasty about James the Messiah?--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with much of what Tabor says, but that's because I share many of his views theologically, not because I believe his speculations are backed by hard evidence. If you read a few academic reviews of his recent book, you will find that I'm not alone in my opinion. Ovadyah 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As to Mr. Price's being impressed by Tabor's references, it is many of his interpretations of these references and the "inferences" he draws from these references and other statements that run the gamut from being extremely tenuous to being an outright travesty. Though the notes I made when I read "The Jesus Dynasty" are long gone (I still use paper notebooks, believe it or not, and have a fiance that feels it is her duty to regularly come over and transform my apartment from 'bachelor clean' to 'normal human being clean', thus making a good portion of my stuff next-to-impossible to locate), the one example that stuck permanently in my mind was his fantastical linking of a grave in Germany of a Roman soldier named Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera with the Panthera first mentioned by Celsus as Jesus' real father (a linking not supported by any calculations of the grave occupant's whereabouts in 6-2 BC), which he followed with a biblical exegesis howler: linking this Panthera with the house visited by Jesus in Mark 7:24. Only if you have already swallowed whole the array of logical leaps Tabor has already taken could you possibly read into the text anything in the world close to what Tabor does. How he wrote any of this, or many of his other assertions, with a straight face is beyond me. But, hey, it worked didn't it? He got the royalties from my book purchase and people have heard of him, so mission accomplished on his part, right? This is approximately the thought I had today as I noticed that 1/3 of the offerings on the shelf of my local Barnes and Noble were of the "The Church lied but we have the truth about Jesus/Mary Magdalene/whomever!!" variety. To continue to discuss this crap, even to point out the flaws, gives it a lot more attention than it could ever hope to warrant; it is akin to trying to have a discussion with a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. So utterly convinced of the Church's (or in the case of the 9/11 folks, the government's) massive deception of humanity, they will always have some new interpretation to bolster their historical revision, some new "proof" that validates their bottomless cynicism. Sorry, guys, I'll stick with real history. Good luck in re-writing your own version of it. It may get you shelf space at B&N, and it may encroach into ostensibly "neutral" content like Wikipedia, but the Church has survived all kinds of Gnostic nonsense before, so the chances it will succumb to laughably bad "pop" scholarship are remote.--John G. Beckett76.185.248.215 08:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tabor admits we'll probably never know the truth of the Pantera / Panthera claims. So? --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that one should be careful in giving too much weight to Tabor's opinion despite the fact that he is a scholar. --Loremaster 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also important to keep in mind that his area of scholarly expertise is biblical archeology. Ovadyah 01:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

James was not denounced as a heretic because notions of Jesus' divinity only arose centuries later.--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true. While the trinitarian notion of Jesus' divinity was not canonized until centuries later, Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the first decade of the second century, refers to Jesus as "Jesus Christ our God". So at least some Orthodox Christians had binitarian views of Jesus' divinity quite early. Ovadyah 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the correct. Of course this is still decades after James' death, so as an explanation about why James was not denounced as a heretic this still suffices. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, no, it most certainly does not. The charge that "notions of Jesus' divinity only arose centuries later" or that it even took "decades" after James' death is pure baloney. It can be stated without doubt that Paul, writing mid-first century, preached Jesus' divinity. James is considered by Paul, ardent advocate of Christ's divinity, to be one of the pillars of the church. Paul, James, and the apostles are recorded as settling a dispute over the proper practice of their new faith in regards to circumcision and Mosiac Law. While there is ample attestation to this dispute, there is no evidence whatsoever of any dispute on the subject of Jesus' divinity (which would have been relatively major compared to quibbles over proper practice) between any combination of James, the apostles', and/or Paul. The gospels, composed by the followers of the apostles in the second half of the 1st century, do nothing to contradict Paul's theology, but have been interpreted by the greatest minds and witnesses in the Patristic writings to support it. To assert that the gospels do not reflect the teachings of the apostles is unsupported by any evidence. To assert that James' view of Jesus' divinity contradicted Paul's and/or the apostles is to invent a dispute for which no evidence exists. The evidence we do have leads to the conclusion that James was never denounced as a heretic for the simple reason that he never was one; he didn't differ from Paul or the apostles on the key tenents of Pauline theology or New Testament witness, nor did he, therefore, differ from the key tenants of 1st century Christianity, of which Jesus' divinity was certainly a central teaching. If you choose to swallow Tabor's, Eisenman's, or any of the current "hidden Gospel", "the REAL Jesus revealed", or "the Church covered up the REAL truth" crap currently taking up about 1/3 of the "Christianity" section of any Barnes and Noble (further comment on this above), that's your business. Having this junk history, which is rejected soundly by the consensus of NT scholars and theologians, show up in encyclopedic content like Wikipedia is truly sad.--John G. Beckett76.185.248.215 08:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You argument is from a lack of evidence. Wouldn't it be easier to simply show us where Paul explicitly preaches about Jesus as a divine and literal son of God? --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Identifying James the Just as an Ebionite is misleading and well outside scholarly concensus. This raises an interesting issue of whether any of the content of a secondary source should ever be regarded as primary. Summarizing the published research of scholars in peer-reviewed journals is clearly secondary. But what if an author advances an opinion that is new, like Tabor speculating that James was regarded as a Messiah or Eisenman speculating that James was the Righteous Teacher and Paul was the Spouter of Lies? Tabor doesn't bother to cite primary sources, not even his own work. I'm extremely skeptical that claims like these could ever survive peer review, which is why I'm just as skeptical about whether they belong in an encyclopedia. Ovadyah 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does Tabor speculate that James was regarded as a Messiah? --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a Messiah and the Messiah. --Loremaster 12:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

See Tabor's "The Jesus Dynasty" last paragraph p.298 and first paragraph p.299. The key words are, "James, descended from the royal line of David, and thus aptly called a messiah or anointed one,...". Note the paucity of references in this section. Ovadyah 17:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Pg 298/299? Not in my version. Chapter/subsection please. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm away from my books this week. I'll have to find it next weekend unless someone else can get to it faster. Ovadyah 01:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Chp 18, The End of the Age, p.299. Ovadyah 03:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, found it. Page 271 the hardback. Reading the context it is clear that this Jamesian messianic "claim" is not an attribution to the ancient sources (hence none supplied), but simply Tabor's own interpretation of how he thinks the Ebionites may have reconciled James' death with a prophecy of Daniel's. Since James was of the line of David and had succeeded Jesus as leader -- claims which are referenced -- it doesn't seem that far-fetched a speculation that they had regarded him as one in a line of Davidic messiahs (i.e. a king of Israel). Tabor also described the Ebionites as followers of the "Two Messiahs" -- John and Jesus -- so he is clearly not claiming James was regarded as "the Messiah". As Loremaster says, there is a differemce between being "a messiah" and "the Messiah". So I think you're being a bit hard on Tabor here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I made it clear enough that I was referring to a messiah when I quoted directly from Tabor's book. What Tabor (conveniently?) neglects to mention are the primary witnesses from the DSS and rabbinic writings that refer to the Priestly Messiah as the one being cut off. Anyway, I'm glad you agree that this is Tabor's own interpretation. My original point was to identify a test example of primary research done by a secondary source and discuss whether this type of original research should be excluded under NPOV guidelines. Ovadyah 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See Eisenman's "James the Just" chap 13 "James as opposition high priest" for James' Aaronic connections. So your claim that this should be excluded does not stand.--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you in a state of denial? What does this Eisenman reference have to do with Tabor's contention that James was a Davidic messiah? Also, I did not claim it should be excluded. I offered this example up for discussion. That presumes of course that other parties present are capable of having a rational discussion. Ovadyah 14:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, Ovadyah, do not revert to your previous uncivil manner, and spare us the unwarranted psychological profiling. Just debate the issues. You questioned Tabor's speculation of the Ebionites attribution of the Daniel prophecy to James' death, on the grounds that this related to the Aaronic, priestly messiah:

What Tabor (conveniently?) neglects to mention are the primary witnesses from the DSS and rabbinic writings that refer to the Priestly Messiah as the one being cut off.

Eisenman notes (based on Epiphanius) that James, after Jesus' death, had assumed the mantle of the priestly messiah, in addition to the Davidic messiah. Therefore Tabor's speculation is well grounded. Now, what was that about rationality? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing this claim but where does Eisenman explicitly note that James assumed the mantle of a or the Davidic messiah? --Loremaster 17:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just about everybody takes this as read: James was explicitly passed the Davidic mantle with Jesus' command to "go to James the Just" after his death, which was universally accepted by the apostles at the time. If you're still not satisfied I'll look up some refs tomorrow.--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Just about everybody. Then I'm sure you will have no problem coming up with the primary citation of Epiphanius, where he states that "James, after Jesus' death, had assumed the mantle of the priestly messiah, in addition to the Davidic messiah". Or is this just another example of pious fraud? Ovadyah 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Still trying the reason from the primary sources, eh? Has nothing Alec taught you gone in? You still refuse to engage with WP:NOR, which says we should be reporting from the secondary sources, not arguing from the primary sources, which is OR.--Michael C. Price ^talk 06:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you are still spewing Wiki-legalisms. Whatever Alec may recommend, the stated NOR policy is the final word. It's permissible to report from primary sources as long as you don't interpret from them. Anyway, I'm not talking about inserting your primary source into the article. I'm calling out your mumbo-jumbo for what it is. You were the one arguing endlessly for inline quotations from primary sources. Remember? Where is the primary quotation that says this? Either bring your evidence here or admit your mistake. Ovadyah 14:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You call it "spewing Wiki-legalisms", I call it adhering to policy. As Alec said, and we all agreed, in-line primary citations should be accompanied by secondary sources. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then adhere to policy. Produce the primary reference from Epiphanius along with an inline quotation that supports the secondary source you cited above, "James, after Jesus' death, had assumed the mantle of the priestly messiah, in addition to the Davidic messiah". Of course you can't do it, since there is no primary support. Instead, we'll get to hear more evasion and obfuscation in the guise of Wiki-policy. Ovadyah 18:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you not waiting for an answer, but I'll give a source anyway, although what good it will do I rather doubt. Secondary source = Eisenman, James the Just, Chapter 13, James as opposition high priest... pg 369, primary = Epiphanius 78.13.3-5 (see also 29.4.1) --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume that we all take it as read that the Ebionites viewed Jesus as at least the Davidic messiah? Eisenman, a secondary source, pg xxii "In the course of this book it will become clear that James was the true heir and successor of his more famous brother Jesus and the leader at the time of whatever the movement was that we now call 'Christainity',....". --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Eisenman is saying in this introductory statement that James was the heir and successor to Jesus in the nascent Christian movement. That is supportable by many references. Are you taking the words in quotes to mean that James was like Jesus in every way, and that if Jesus was regarded as a Davidic (or Priestly Messiah) then James must be too? If so, that is a ridiculous overinterpretation of a simple statement. Ovadyah 14:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not "must be", no, but that was how James was regarded according to Tabor, Eisenman and others. Davidic succession / kingship tended to pass down the male line, right? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a strong possibility that Jesus and James were half-brothers and only shared a mother. If this is true, James could have only succeeded Jesus as a priestly messiah. --Loremaster 00:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless the claim came through Mary. BTW where is your source for the claim that James was viewed as the Priestly Messiah while Jesus was alive and viewed as the Kingly Messiah--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the davidic line could have passed through Mary. I'm simply arguing that it may not have. On the other hand, Mary may not have been a daughter of Aaron nor a Levite in light of Hebrews 7:1-21.
I've read this claim in various sources over the years and I also noticed it in Historical Jesus#Priestly and kingly messiahs.

--Loremaster 00:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting. Shame about the lack of references. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In The Acts of Jesus, the Jesus Seminar rejected the notion that Jesus, and by extension, James were descended from David and/or Aaron but ultimately this is a tangential matter since what's important is reporting the views of the Ebionites and, unfortuantely, we don't know their view of this matter. --Loremaster 03:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)