Talk:Ebionites/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This page is only for discussions related to improving the article that were initiated prior to peer review or to prepare the article for acceptance as a Good Article. Discussions about the RFC process or competing modern groups, including preaching, rants, and personal attacks, were moved to Neo-Ebionite 2 for the sake of civility and clarity for the editors. Ovadyah 22:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead section: John the Baptizer, Geography

I have changed the first sentence of the article to delete the reference to John the Baptist and the geographical information. There are a number of changes to this article which I would suggest, but I thought I'd start out with this one and see how it flies with the others (especially Loremaster). My reason for deleting the reference to John the Baptist is that this is to complicated to explain in one paragraph. It is like saying that Muslims and Christians are followers of John the Baptist; it's true, but that's not their main guy. Geographical location of the Ebionites is also a complex problem. Locating them in Iudea is almost certainly correct but the only specific references of which I am aware (in Epiphanius) are just outside of this province (Galilee, the Decapolis, Perea, Nabatea, etc.). I'd discuss geography separately below. The first sentence as revised is sufficiently broad so that there will be a consensus and it does not require a reference (I think!). Keith Akers 15:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I support all your changes. Good work! --Loremaster 17:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the deletion of either the leading John the Baptist reference, or of the geographical reference. This is skewing the article away from the historical sources. John is mentioned as much as Jesus by Epiphanius in connections with the Ebionites. Is there any evidence that John has an inferior role to Jesus'? (They are both presented as vegetarians, for example. John's Aaronic descent is mentioned.) Placing them in space as well as time is important enough to mention in the lead. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think John should only be mentioned in the History section. However, a general mention of geography in the lead would be good. Specific geography is best discussed in the History section. The lead should be expanded to mention when the sect began to disappear into historical obscurity. --Loremaster 18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You haven't justified the removal of John the Baptist. He figures prominently in the Gospel of the Ebionites. The fixation on Jesus in the article is unbalanced and indicative of subsequent non-Ebionite trends not reflected in early Ebionite sources. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Although John may figure prominently in the Gospel of the Ebionites, it doesn't change the fact that the ancient Ebionites became “fixated“ on Jesus. As long as John's importance is fully discussed in the History section, he doesn't have to be mentioned in the lead. So feel free to create such a paragraph. --Loremaster 20:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How do we know that the Ebionites became fixated on Jesus over John? The Gospel of the Ebionites is unclear as to the primacy of the two -- if indeed that is a meaningful issue since, as the Ebionite Gospel hints, John was the Aaronic priestly messiah and Jesus the Davidic king messiah. It is the later Christian sources that fixated on the Ebionites' relationship to Jesus. I think all we can say with certainty is that the Ebionites followed both John the Baptist and Jesus, as evidenced by the comparable "air time" both receive in the Gospel of the Ebionites. To say otherwise is to uncritically accept the later mainstream Christian sources and POV. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The first problem we have here is one of "scope" -- what do we talk about in such an article. I know that Wikipedia has a criterion of "no original research," although this is hard to apply sometimes. E. g. is reading Epiphanius "doing original research" etc. etc.

My comment on John the Baptist is that all we know about the Ebionite gospel comes through the church fathers anyway. Therefore their selections from the gospel reflect as much Epiphanius' POV as their other statements and should not have "special status" within Epiphanius. The quotation itself mentions John the Baptist, but do not comment on his status vis-a-vis Jesus. In fact the impression I get from Epiphanius is that Epiphanius just started here because it was the first "mistake" he found in their gospel, and his extensive discussion of "Jesus" and "Christ" reflects his own conversations with them as well as his reading of their writings. This is also confirmed by a cursory reading of the Recognitions and Homilies. The historical relationship of the Ebionites to John the Baptist (comparison with Elkasaites, Mandaeans, etc.) is interesting but too complicated to put in an introductory sentence.

It is not to complicated to say they were the followers of Jesus and John the Baptist, as it originally said. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've restored the mention of John in the lead. --Loremaster 13:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. And I will, as you suggest, write up something for the rest of the article about John although (as you know) there's not much that can be said for certain. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My comment on Judea is that, while I personally am fairly confident that they were there in the beginning, there is no direct evidence of this that I know of. It is only by argument and inference. Epiphanius gives a long list of geographical locations for Ebionites, Nazoraeans, Nasaraeans, Ossaeans, and "Elkasaites"; the only place he does NOT mention is Judea. He places them just outside of Judea, just north, east, and south. Does someone have any better information on this? My argument at least would be by inference: we know the church was in Judea (Jerusalem) in the beginning, the Ebionites must have evolved from that point, Justin Martyr places Jewish Christians in Judea during the Bar Kochba revolt, and the "Jewish Christians" were probably "Ebionite" at this point. While I would argue for an early origin of the term "Ebionite" (maybe late first century?) the earliest reference is Ireneaus in the late second century. By then, there may not have been any Ebionites in Judea, having fled basically back to their place of origin in Galilee, Syria, the other side of the Jordan, etc., which is where Epiphanius finds them. To argue for "Judea" you have to argue for an early origin of the term Ebionite and then explain their absence from Judea later by the various wars against Rome. So this is a complicated problem and I wouldn't put it in the very first sentence. Perhaps if there is a term that refers indefinitely to Judea (the Roman province), Galilee, the Decapolis, Perea, Nabatea, that general region, we could use it? Keith Akers 12:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Palestine? --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Loremaster 13:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I object to the flagrant POV in using the anachronistic name Palestine for the Province of Judea for dates before Bar Kokba. The historical record shows that the name of the place was officially the Province of Judaea, but after the Bar Kokba revolt the Romans, in their Roman way, assumed that if they abolished the names of Judah and Jerusalem, the Jews would disappear. However, Providence had other ideas that triumphed, and now it is the pagan Roman Empire that is gone. If you include a mention of "Palestine" please clarify for accuracy sake that the place only officially had this name after the year 140 (sorry, 135), and before that it was Judaea. Set the record straight. Thank you/ ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rephrased the Lead to accomodate all opinions shared above. --Loremaster 17:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Judea? Wouldn't Iudaea Province or Kingdom of Judea be clearer to include the north? --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Iudaea Province was my original choice so I've restored it. --Loremaster 18:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I had two original objections: complexity and accuracy. This interchange has dealt with the complexity but restored the inaccuracy. (1) I do not think that, historically, the Ebionites held James, Jesus, and John the Baptist in equal regard. Jesus is clearly the main figure. I think this would be the consensus of scholars, in fact I doubt that many scholars would even see this as an issue. (2) It is completely inaccurate to say they flourished between 30 and 80 CE. Epiphanius describes them in the fourth century, around 380 CE. Schoeps and others thinks the term "Ebionite" became used only after 70 CE and I agree. (3) How about they flourished in the "Levant"? I think it is quite misleading to imply that they were based in Iudaea Province of the Roman Empire (look at the map for this region in the Wiki article about it), and only peripherally elsewhere. Originally the Jesus movement was in Galilee, Gaulanitis, and the Decapolis, where Epiphanius finds the Ebionites in the 4th century. So as "Ebionites" they might have been briefly in Iudaea, but it was pretty much always a "missionary" operation, in my humble opinion, when the arrows started flying they left for good. As I said originally, this is a complicated question. You can either put in a complicated sentence to express basically a complicated situation, or you can postpone discussion until later with a general statement. Keith Akers 12:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree. The importance and roles of John the Baptizer and James the Just should only be discussed in the History section.

2. I agree. I was actually refering to the Nazarene movement, which preceded the Ebionite movement, began and was most active.

3. I disagree. I think the expression "Galilee, Iudaea Province and surrounding regions" is the most accurate compromise.

--Loremaster 13:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough! Thanks. Keith Akers 14:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Levant - I like that: it's a bit vague and (it seems) so should we be. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Levant is too vague since it's pratically never used by any scholar when discussing the Ebionites. --Loremaster 15:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What about "Palestine during the Roman and Byzantine periods" It don't think this would be an inappropriate anachronism when phrased this way. --Loremaster 15:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Any use of "Palestine" is unacceptable, inaccurate, and anachronistic if you are talking about the province that was renamed in 135 AD. It is also POV because you are playing into the POV of the ROman Emperors who could not stand the real name of the place and had to come up with an insulting name. It is POV like calling Jerusalem "Aeolia Capitolina". It was only officially Palestine from 135 AD, please do not call the region before 135 AD Palestine. Before it was renamed Palestine in 135 AD the province was Iudaea Province. In 135 AD it was renamed Palaestina Province. This article deals with events before 135 AD, when it was still Iudaea Province. I insist that Anti-Semitic Anachronisms not be used in this article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Although I could argue this, I won't. Judea it is. --Loremaster 19:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling "Palestine" a Roman anti-semitic term is ridiculous. As the entry says: "During the Persian Period, the Greek form was first used in the 5th century BCE by Herodotus who wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinêi" (whence Latin: Palaestina, whence English: Palestine). The boundaries of the area he referred to were not explicitly stated, but Josephus used the name only for the smaller coastal area, Philistia. Ptolemy also used the term. In Latin, Pliny mentions a region of Syria that was "formerly called Palaestina" among the areas of the Eastern Mediterranean." --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That is simply the Greco-Latin version of "Philistia", an actual known entity. The Romans deliberately chose this name to identify the entire region in 135 because they wanted to insult the Jews. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've know this fact for years but it doesn't change the reality that many historians still use the word "Palestine" to refer to this region regardless of time period. --Loremaster 20:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources older than 1948 do, because before 1948, it was Palestine, and they were just using the current name at the time. If we used the current name today, we would put "Israel". There is no longer any reason to use the name the region bore from 135 to 1948, to describe it outside of those dates. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a complex and sensitive subject that I prefer avoid getting into. If we all approve of the current phrasing, this dispute is resolved. --Loremaster 21:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Levant is more neutral. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let's try it and see how it goes. --Loremaster 12:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll go with that. I would support "Levant," "Palestine," or "Palestine-Syria." Hans-Joachim Schoeps, a German Jew who fled the Nazis for Sweden and wrote extensively on Jewish Christianity, says on p. 10 of "Jewish Christianity": "We have a clear profile only of the Jewish Christians of Palestine-Syria." I don't think that Hans-Joachim Schoeps is an anti-Semite. I thought he used the expression Levant somewhere and am plowing through "Jewish Christianity" to look at all the geographical references. Keith Akers 12:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I only check into this about once, or sometimes twice a day, so my lack of response is not due to lack of interest. Keith Akers 12:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

John the Baptizer

How do we consicely describe the Ebionite view of the John the Baptizer in a short paragraph that we would insert somewhere in the History section of the article? --Loremaster 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

First we have to address Keith's comment:

I do not think that, historically, the Ebionites held James, Jesus, and John the Baptist in equal regard. Jesus is clearly the main figure. I think this would be the consensus of scholars, in fact I doubt that many scholars would even see this as an issue.

Here are some quotes I trawled that describe the Ebionites as followers of John the Baptist (and James the Just) in addition to Jesus:

In addition to the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots, there were two groups of Christian Jews in late second temple Palestine, the Nazarenes and Ebionites, who were followers of John the Baptist and Jesus, and were led by Jesus' brother James. [1]

The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of the mostly Jewish/Israelite, followers of John the Baptizer, and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions, and led by “James the Just,” oldest brother of Jesus, flourishing between the years 30-80 CE [2]

The Gospel of the Ebionites was probably named for the group of Jewish followers of John the Baptist and later Jesus that flourished in the middle to late first century.[3]

The Ebionites were decendants of John the Baptist. [4]

I'm sure I could find more. As I said, is to much to ask that this be reflected in the lead paragraph? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost all these passages have the same source: John Tabor's essay: Nazarenes and Ebionites. So the question is how trustworthy is Tabor's scholarship on this subject? Regardless, no one is disputung that the Ebionites began as followers of John. However, there is no doubt that Jesus became their main figure of reverence. --Loremaster 14:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, all we can be sure of is that were lead, in order, by John the Baptist, Jesus, James, Simeeon & Judas. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the Evidence of the Ebionites? --Loremaster 15:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at that next. I was just reading Tabor[5] were he says of Josephus' on John the Baptizer that "two points are clear: (1) the reason given for John's execution and (2) the entire absence of any mention of a greater successor." which I think is pertinent. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

But even Tabor suggest that the Ebionites saw Jesus as a greater successor. From Nazarenes and Ebionites: "Jesus as the Prophet like Moses, or True Teacher (but not to be confused with YHVH God of Israel), who will anoint his Messiahs on his right and left hand when he is revealed in power following his rejection and death. These two figures, the Davidic Nasi (Prince of the Yachad) and Priest, will rule with him in the Kingdom of God." --Loremaster 16:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet he starts off by saying "The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of mostly Jewish/Israelite followers of John the Baptizer and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions and led by "James the Just" (the oldest brother of Jesus), and flourished between the years 30-80 C.E. " I suggest we lead off in a similar fashion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the primacy of Jesus should be reflected in the first paragraph of the Lead. We can mention John the Baptizer and James the Just in a second paragraph. --Loremaster 19:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not John is mentioned in the Lead section, we still need to discuss him in the History section. What do you all propose? --Loremaster 21:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

O. K., I'll at least say why this is harder than it seems. There is some inference about the role of John the Baptist for the Ebionites, but not a lot of direct evidence. There is just this one passage from their gospel, quoted by Epiphanius, that says that John the Baptist was a vegetarian. The discussion in the Recognitions actually suggests hostility to the followers of John the Baptist, making Simon Magus (the arch-enemy of the Ebionites in the Recognitions/Homilies) a follower of John. The Ebionites did have a heavy emphasis on baptism, even daily baptism according to Epiphanius. So there is an argument here, but no direct evidence. Further, I am not sure exactly even how to summarize the scholarly views on this subject, off the bat. We'd have to read Schoeps, Eisenman, Tabor and gather their thoughts; and when we do this, perhaps this is another topic for the section "views on the origins of the Ebionites." Bottom line: people talk about John the Baptist in connection with the Ebionites, but there's not as much direct evidence that we can cite in an encylopedia article, nor clear "schools of thought" on the subject of which I am aware. Keith Akers 12:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... For now, I've added a small mention of John in the History section. --Loremaster 23:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Claim to priestly messiahship

Is there any evidence that the Nazarenes and/or Ebionites viewed Jesus as the Aaronic priestly messiah (after the death of John the Baptizer)? --Loremaster 12:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You could also make a case that peter might had been the messiah on the leftt and James on the right after Yeshua's death, or later James on the right and Paul on the left. What is the meaning of right and left and why is Yeshua said to be seated on the right hand of God? There is evidence that Ebionites believed that Jesus was the first complete Messiah. That people nolonger understand the intent of thoes that wrote the scriptures is not the fault of the Ebionites. The Allegoric potrayal of Yeshua hanging on a tree with one thief on the right side and one on the left side and what these two asked from the prophet has profond meaning lost to thoes that think Scriptures are susposed to be a historical account.I understand what your tring to do but am happy Im not there anymore. While your looking for history try to find evidence Yeshua/Jesus ever existedNazireneMystic 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And please take any such speculations to Jesus as myth or historicity of Jesus, where they are more appropriate. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look you will find evidence that many of John the Baptist followers thought Jesus was a "deceiving" messiah and there was more friction between them or thier followers then many will admit.Would there be room for several prospectives being mentioned and not actualy commit to one view and rather say its debated? Would be nice to have it written so that the next big stach of scrolls uncovered would not make thoes that contribute to the artical seem like they were off the mark.NazireneMystic 21:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

NazireneMystic, please avoid lecturing us or going off on tangents. My question was simple: Is there any evidence that the Nazarenes and/or Ebionites viewed Jesus as the Aaronic priestly messiah (after the death of John the Baptizer)? Do the writings of Ebionites or their critics support or refute such a claim? --Loremaster 23:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite. A good question. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

My thinking is "no." James Tabor has this idea that Jesus would APPOINT a priestly Messiah (which is on his web site and perhaps in his book, I don't have "The Jesus Dynasty" in front of me). But Tabor is doing two things: (1) he is talking about a Nazarene/Ebionite community, not just an Ebionite community, and so there has to be an argument that these are actually different stages of the same movement; (2) I think (not sure here) he is taking evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls to justify this move, a la Eisenman. Bottom line: no one that I know of takes exactly this position, that the Ebionites thought that Jesus was the priestly Messiah. Even Tabor doesn't believe this, but thinks that Jesus might have appointed the priestly Messiah. Even if you did dig through the Jesus Dynasty and find something that might support this, this is based on inference and argument (e. g. that the Nazarenes were predecessors of the Ebionites), not direct evidence -- and pretty detailed and complicated argument at that. At best this should be considered in a section on "Views about origins of the Ebionites." The straightforward and obvious view, based on evidence from Epiphanius and the Recognitions and Homilies, is that Jesus was considered the true prophet and the Christ. I don't see a reference to priests in these sources. Keith Akers 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've modified the article to reflect these points. --Loremaster 17:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Interpretations of the Law

Ebionites believed that all followers of Jesus, whether they be Hebrew or Gentile, must respectively adhere to Mosaic law and Noahide Laws through either more reconstructionist (Essene) or progressive (Pharisee) interpretation and observance, tempered with the wisdom teachings of Jesus.

I'm not sure who added this one-sentence paragraph, but the entire thing is original research and POV except for adherence to Mosaic Law. There is not a shred of evidence to support a so-called reconstructionist (Essene) or progressive (Pharisee) interpretation. This reads like a commercial endorsement for someone's modern movement. Noahide Laws are Rabbinic, not based in the Tanakh, so this too is speculation. Bring your sources without lifting quotes from a Neo-Ebionite / New Age website. Ovadyah 20:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OvadYah, since earlier the spiritual Ebionites were misnamed when archived as neo-Ebionites are you claiming that statment is a quote from one of thier sites?NazireneMystic 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what Ovadyah was claiming, as I explaiend below, I am the one wrote that statement a long time ago. --Loremaster 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I wrote a version of this paragraph a long time ago after reading, along with another source, John Tabor's essay: Nazarenes and Ebionites:

In that sense you might call the Jesus movement a further developed messianic "Essenism," modified through the powerful, prophetic influence of Jesus as Teacher.

They were zealous for the Torah and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher, but accepted non-Jews into their fellowship on the basis of some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15 and 21).

Disdain for eating meat and even the Temple slaughter of animals, preferring the ideals of the pre-Flood diet and what they took to be the original ideal of worship (see Gen 9:1-5; Jer 7:21-22; Isa 11:9; 66:1-4). A general interest in seeking the Path reflected in the pre-Sinai revelation, especially the time from Enoch to Noah. For example, divorce was shunned, even though technically it was later allowed by Moses.

Dedication to following the whole Torah, as applicable to Israel and to Gentiles, but through the "easy yoke" halacha of their Teacher Jesus, which emphasized the Spirit of the Biblical Prophets in a restoration of the "True Faith," the Ancient Paths (Jeremiah 6:16), from which, by and large, they believed the establishment Jewish groups of 2nd Temple times had lost.

That being said, I agree with your changes which I've tweaked. --Loremaster 23:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Since we are often referring to the writings of James Tabor, I have invited him to participate in the editing process. I think it would be useful to hear his current thinking on some of these controversial topics. Ovadyah 00:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Although Tabor seems to be in the minority of scholars who still argues that there was a connection between the Essenes and the Nazarenes/Ebionites, convincing him to contribute to improving this article would be great! --Loremaster 01:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There are precious few scholars from the U. S. who are interested in the Ebionites and know anything about them. There are three other academic types in the U. S. that I know of: Robert Van Voorst, F. Stanley Jones, and Robert Eiseman. About a year ago an article on the Ebionites appeared in "The Fourth R" by Sakari Häkkinen. He was fairly well informed but it was clear from the article that he had not even heard of the Recognitions and Homilies -- and moreover he wasn't American. So if Tabor can round up just one or two scholars to support his point of view, his "minority" could be a "majority." I think that we should be aware of just how thin the scholarly research is in this area. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is having problems with this topic. Even scholars have problems with this topic! Keith Akers 12:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. --Loremaster 18:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The passage saying "Ebionites believed that all Hebrews and Gentiles must rely on the Tanakh as scripture, and reject the Oral Law" is at best an interpretation. It contradicts what is directly quoted from Epiphanius elsewhere ("they blaspheme the legislation," I believe). I think that Maccoby takes this line, but I know of no other scholars, except possibly Häkkinen (his views aren't entirely clear to me). Keith Akers 12:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've change this passage to reflect what most sources agree on as well as the view of Tabor. --Loremaster 18:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What does the following passage mean exactly?

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

Does it refer to Jesus expounding of the Law or something more radical verging on apostacy from the Law? --Loremaster 03:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your suspicion is correct: it is more radical. It means that the Ebionites rejected the Tanakh. "Blaspheme" is misspelled and I've corrected it. The reference to "expounding the law" (which I deleted) is one possible interpretation, and we need make it explicit that this is in fact an interpretation. It depends on what you mean by the "law." If you mean the Tanakh, then the straightforward interpretation is that they rejected the law. If you mean something else -- like the revelation given to Moses on Sinai, separate from the possibly distorted text in the Tanakh -- then they were loyal to the law. (This is fact my personal POV regarding the Ebionite position.) The Ebionites thought that the original law had been falsified, and thus that the Tanakh was not the true Mosaic law. This is made explicit in Homilies 2. See chapter 6 of "The Lost Religion of Jesus" where I discuss "false texts." The Ebionites (my POV, but pretty closely supported), were actually the opposite of the Karaites: they rejected the written law, and accepted the oral law -- although probably not the Mishnah and Talmud, but some other oral law, "their" oral law. Another interpretation would be that Epiphanius just got it wrong. I don't have my copy of Maccoby in front of me, but that may be his line. I am not sure to what extent scholars actually are aware of this issue and have taken reasoned stands on it, and to what extent they just haven't read Epiphanius or the Homilies. Keith Akers 12:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Keith, all this is in direct contradiction to Hippolyutus, who is writing almost two hundred years earlier (c. 200 CE) than Epiphanius. I copied this quote from an earlier discussion on an archived talk page: [6]

CHAP. XXII.--DOCTRINE OF THE EBIONAEANS.

The Ebionaeans, however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).

Also, Epiphanius' report of the Ebionites regarding Christ as a created being flies in the face of several earlier Church Father's descriptions of the Ebionites having an adoptionist Christology. A docetic Jesus and a fully-human Jesus are clearly incompatible theologically, so it calls into question what group Epiphanius is really describing. Ovadyah 14:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A created Being and adoptionism is totaly compatible, one in the same.NazireneMystic 20:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

More early evidence from Irenaeus writing about 180 CE (Against Heresies 1.26.2): [7]

Chapter XXVI.-Doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes.

2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God. Ovadyah 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ovadyah. How could Ebionites have rejected Paul as an apostate from the Law if they themselves rejected it? It seems to me that the Ebionites simply expounded the Law. --Loremaster 15:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, the Ebionite saw Paul as much an apostate to the law as they saw the Jews who accept the literal Tanakh as the law of Moses.NazireneMystic 20:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I understand that point. However, not accepting the literal Tanakh as the Law of Moses and blaspheming most of the Law of Moses is not the same thing. --Loremaster 22:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Were they disagreeing with just Paul's interpretation of the Law or of his interpretation of the nature of Jesus as well? --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would argue both but keep in mind that some Ebionites may have disagreed with Paul's interpretation of the Law but accepted his interpretation of the nature of Jesus. --Loremaster 23:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Even earlier evidence from Justin Martyr, writing about 150 CE (Dialogue with Trypho, 47): [8]

CHAPTER XLVII -- JUSTIN COMMUNICATES WITH CHRISTIANS WHO OBSERVE THE LAW. NOT A FEW CATHOLICS DO OTHERWISE.

And Trypho again inquired, "But if some one, knowing that this is so, after he recognises that this man is Christ, and has believed in and obeys Him, wishes, however, to observe these [institutions], will he be saved?"

I said, "In my opinion, Trypho, such an one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men,--I mean those Gentiles who have been circumcised from error by Christ, to observe the same things as himself, telling them that they will not be saved unless they do so. This you did yourself at the commencement of the discourse, when you declared that I would not be saved unless I observe these institutions."

Then he replied, "Why then have you said, 'In my opinion, such an one will be saved,' unless there are some who affirm that such will not be saved?"

"There are such people, Trypho," I answered; "and these do not venture to have any intercourse with or to extend hospitality to such persons; but I do not agree with them. But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses, from which they expect some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people's hearts, along with their hope in this Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren. But if, Trypho," I continued, "some of your race, who say they believe in this Christ, compel those Gentiles who believe in this Christ to live in all respects according to the law given by Moses, or choose not to associate so intimately with them, I in like manner do not approve of them. But I believe that even those, who have been persuaded by them to observe the legal dispensation along with their confession of God in Christ, shall probably be saved. And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have repented not before death, shall by no means be saved. Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before death, shall likewise not be saved, and especially those who have anathematized and do anathematize this very Christ in the synagogues, and everything by which they might obtain salvation and escape the vengeance of fire. For the goodness and the loving-kindness of God, and His boundless riches, hold righteous and sinless the man who, as Ezekiel tells, repents of sins; and reckons sinful, unrighteous, and impious the man who fails away from piety and righteousness to unrighteousness and ungodliness. Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ said, 'In whatsoever things I shall take you, in these I shall judge you.' "

I know this one is a bit wordy, but I don't want to be accused of lifting quotes out of context. Ovadyah 15:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Shemayah, I think this wordy posting has been lifted directly out of context! Why no where in it does it adress Ebionites At all.NazireneMystic 20:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

He's not here, but thanks for the good laugh! Ovadyah 21:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I was already aware of them, thank you for posting all these sources. I've edited the article to reflect the views expressed in them and others. --Loremaster 18:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that Justin considers this Jewish sect to be schismatic relative to Pauline Christianity, but that, unlike Irenaeus, he does not regard them as heretics. That suggests a final break between the Ebionites and Pauline Christians occurred between 150 and 180 CE. Ovadyah 17:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of the latter claim so I don't think it should be mentioned in the article at the moment. --Loremaster 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a fairly clear issue. Hippolytus and Ireneaus devote only about a paragraph EACH to the Ebionites. Their alleged loyalty to the written law comprises a SENTENCE each. The issue is not loyalty to the law, but loyalty to the written law. Nowhere is there in this sentence the suggestion that the Ebionites were loyal to the written law -- just to the law, whatever that is. Most people were illiterate in ancient times. Therefore, it is not true that this is in "direct contradiction" to Epiphanius. Epiphanius agrees that they are "Judaic" and follow the law, agrees that they practice circumcision and observe the Sabbath, but is equally clear that the Ebionites do not think the written law (the Tanakh) was the true law on the question of animal sacrifice and meat-eating.

In fact, if you read even Hippolytus and Ireneaus closely, you can see that even their very cursory view of the Ebionites included they had a vague understanding of significant differences between the Ebionites and the rest of Judaism (other than acceptance of Jesus). Ireneaus says that their interpretation of the prophets was rather "singular," and Hippolytus has them saying that all (Ebionite) believers are Christs. Nowhere, further, is there any indication that Ireneaus or Hippolytus has studied the Ebionites in any depth. They do not indicate that they have actually met any Ebionites or have read any of their literature. These isolated sentences do barely more than prove that the Ebionites existed, or actually, that they have heard of the Ebionites somewhere, and what little they do say suggests something very different than "orthodox Jews who followed Jesus."

The quotation from Justin does not refer to the Ebionites and appears to have been copied, uncritically, from the idea of "Jewish Christianity" from the book of Acts. There were, of course, orthodox Jews who converted to orthodox Christianity, but they were not "Ebionites." They were just orthodox Christians. Most scholars agree Acts is wildly inaccurate, see the letters of Paul for more closely what really happened, and that Justin seems to be relying on Acts and not Paul tends to denigrate Justin as a source. Finally, the idea that the final split between Jewish and "Pauline" Christianity didn't happen until the late second century is just, well, hard to believe. This makes nonsense, basically, of the letters of Paul, which show that this split occurred in apostolic times. Paul was in opposition to James, Peter, and John, over various food issues including vegetarianism and animal sacrifice -- the very issues which Epiphanius makes central to the Ebionites, and Hippolytus, Justin, and Ireneaus do not even bother to mention.

Epiphanius, by contrast, provides us with about 20 PAGES (in a modern translation) on the Ebionites. He has actually met them, and relates conversations he has had. He has read their literature, which he has in front of him and quotes from. Moreover, the descriptions he gives of them match up astonishingly well with the Recognitions and Homilies, third century documents which copied material from the Ebionites' literature written even earlier -- this probably pushes our information on the Ebionites back another century or so. The Recognitions and Homilies, in turn, are quite lengthy and detailed (several HUNDRED pages in a modern translation) compared to our sentence each from the other church fathers, and they also show a problematic relationship to the written law. Opposition to animal sacrifice and vegetarianism again figure prominently in all of this. There is simply no contest between Epiphanius, the Recognitions, and the Homilies, and the other church fathers. Epiphanius has extensive information, he is better informed, and it matches in the most important respects our most important other sources on Jewish Christianity: the Recognitions and Homilies, and the letters of Paul (Romans 14, I Corinthians 8-10, Galatians 2). Keith Akers 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the the issue of the split. However, I may stand corrected on the issue of the Tanakh reliance. I've therefore made the appropriate changes to the article. --Loremaster 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a clear issue to me as well. The value of historical witnesses is not measured by the pound. Evidence from multiple early witnesses, even if cursory, is to be preferred over one later historical summary based in part on the same ancient witnesses. Your allegorical interpretation of the Law as something other than the written Law is original research. The quotations of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus regarding the Law are unambiguous, consistent with each other, and in opposition to Epiphanius. To dismiss the consistent testimony of multiple early witnesses in favor of one later historian that supports your personal views is worse than uncritical scholarship. Ovadyah 23:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of who is right, can either of you accept the current version of the article? --Loremaster 01:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Panarion quotes

There are too many quotes from the Panarion. We need to replace them with original text and cite it as source. --Loremaster 01:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There aren't that many quotes and, considering that the Panarion is the sole surviving quote source for the Gospel of the Ebionites, I don't consider it inappropriate. (Anyway, I can't find an online source.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In effect the Panarion is the original text. This, and the Recognitions and Homilies, is as close to the Ebionites as we can get. (Well, there are snatches from other writers but it is a lot less than from Epiphanius.) This fact should be brought out in the section on sources (in fact it pretty much is in the existing text). Also, there is no online source because Epiphanius was only translated into English fairly recently (I think Panarion 30 was in a dissertation in the 1970's). So the copyrights haven't expired like they have with the Ante-Nicene Fathers which was published in the late 19th century. Also, my pet peeve here, the Frank Williams translation (the only complete version) is being sold hardcover at about $200 U. S. per copy. I can only speculate on motives, but probably they think only libraries will want it and had a very limited run. You pretty much have to actually go to a library -- such a rarity! Keith Akers 11:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. I know the Panarion is the original text. Rather than quoting from it, my point is that when one writes an encycopedic article, one should be summarizing or describing passages in the Paranion and then citing it as a source. --Loremaster 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the controversial interpretations engendered such a source would have to be online, and there doesn't seem to be one. I think the direct quotations look quite good -- and they anchor the article in some sort of historical reality. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Perhaps I am not being clear enough. Panarion is the source while *our* summarization of the passages from Panarion is original text. For example:

Before

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

After

Ephiphanius claims that Ebionites did not accept Mosaic Law in its entirety, rejecting some sayings and therefore blaspheming most of the law in accordance with alleged personal revelations by Jesus.[1]

--Loremaster 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Perhaps I am not being clear enough -- I prefer the before version which makes it clear that the claim is directly based on Epiphanius and not our interpretation of Epiphanius. The use of unquoted blaspheme looks very strange in NPOV text. --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you prefer but my point is that NPOV text is what is best in an encyclopedic article. Also, the example I gave can be improved upon so that it sounds better. --Loremaster 12:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This may be excessively picky, but let me try to figure this out. The argument in favor of "before" is that it is an exact quote from Epiphanius, and leaves no doubt as to whether we have "reinterpreted" the text. The argument in favor of "after" is that it is NPOV. In both cases we are reported a consensus fact, that Epiphanius claims X. I think that there is a difference between: "The Ebionites were blasphemers (source: Epiphanius)" and "Epiphanius claimed that the Ebionites were blasphemers." The first I would have a concern about because it sounds like the writer is trying to prove that the Ebionites were blasphemers. The second makes it clear that the fact the writer is drawing attention to is not the Ebionites' blasphemy (or lack thereof) but Epiphanius' own view that the Ebionites were blasphemers.

To me, both the "before" and "after" versions as currently formulated pass the NPOV test. The question is just a direct quote or a paraphrase. Because the direct quote is hardly more lengthy than the paraphrase, I am inclined to favor the direct quote, absent any other considerations (e. g. copyright restrictions, or the original uses special terms not easily understood by the modern reader). Keith Akers 14:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Since I've better contextualize these quotes, I'm now comfortable with their inclusion so we can leave them be for now. --Loremaster 21:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted archangel text

Why has the sourced passage:

There is less agreement over the passages where Epiphanius describes the Ebionites as claiming that Jesus was neither human nor divine but rather an archangel, "Moreover, they deny that he was a man" (Panarion 30.14.5), "They say that Christ was not begotten of God the Father but created as one of the archangels ... that he rules over the angels" (Panarion 30.16.4).

been deleted without comment? --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Epiphanius is the only church father to make this claim, I removed it to focus on the consensus on the Ebionite view of the nature of Jesus. However, I've now inserted a short allusion to this passage into the article. --Loremaster 12:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In light of the debate below, I've expanded this allusion. --Loremaster 01:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bart Erhman makes a clear distiction between Adoptionist and Separationist christologies, where Jesus was temporarily possessed by an angelic spirit. In chapter three of his book, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture", Ehrman identifies separationist christologies as characteristic of gnostic Christians. There is much confusion in our sources over the christology of the Ebionites. Epiphanius ascribed a separationist christology to the Ebionites of the late fourth century, whereas Justin/Irenaeus/Hippolytus, writing in the late second century, seem to be describing an adoptionist christology. What is being overlooked is a two-hundred year time interval between witnesses. There seems to be an unstated assumption in all these discussions that Ebionite christology was unchanging, even though we know the beliefs of their Christian contemporaries were evolving over time. Therefore, establishing a consensus on this issue may not be possible. Ovadyah 20:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Son of god or son of Man?

Where do the Ebionites describe Jesus as a "son of God", adopted or otherwise? Wouldn't the Davidic epithet "son of Man" be less misleading and more accurate? --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't their report of the Baptism of Jesus describe Jesus as the "Son of God"? As for the epithet "son of Man", I will do some research and get back to you with an answer. --Loremaster 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

From Early Christian Writings: The Gospel of the Ebionites:

After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John; and as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Ghost in the likeness of a dove that descended and entered into him: and a voice from heaven saying: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased: and again: This day have I begotten thee. And straightway there shone about the place a great light. Which when John saw (it saith) he saith unto him: Who art thou, Lord? and again there was a voice from heaven saying unto him: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And then (it saith) John fell down before him and said: I beseech thee, Lord, baptize thou me. But he prevented him saying: Suffer it (or let it go): for thus it behoveth that all things should be fulfilled.

And on this account they say that Jesus was begotten of the seed of a man, and was chosen; and so by the choice of God he was called the Son of God from the Christ that came into him from above in the likeness of a dove. And they deny that he was begotten of God the Father, but say that he was created as one of the archangels, yet greater, and that he is Lord of the angels and of all things made by the Almighty, and that he came and taught, as the Gospel (so called) current among them contains, that, 'I came to destroy the sacrifices, and if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you'.

This passage is interesting since it supports the claim that the Ebionites believed Jesus was adopted by God but that the Christ is some kind of archangel that inhabits the mortal Jesus. --Loremaster 13:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the repeated phrase "my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." is an echo of God's address to David, hence identifying Jesus as the Davidic Messiah but not as the literal "Son of God" as widely regarded by modern Christians. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Micheal, it's not that simple. First of all, no one is arguing that Ebionites adhere to the dominant Christian view of Jesus as the Trinitarian Son of God. However, many argue that some, many or all Ebionites believed that Jesus was the Arian Son of God. Did David have the Christ come into him from above in the likeness of a dove? Was David created as one of the archangels? --Loremaster 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was that use of the term "Son of God" (which does not appear in [9]) will confuse mainstrean Christian readers without some further explanation, which is still needed. Perhaps the same ambiguity is attached to David's nature as Jesus' -- in which case the notion of Jesus as a Davidic messiah still holds. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Although the notion of Davidic messiah still holds, it would be POV to claim that the term "Son" is limited to that notion in light of the information I provided above. Futhermore, I think I wrote a good explantion in the article which even mainstream Christians readers will understand: some held a proto-Arian view which sees the "Son of God" as a created being, a great archangel, which "became flesh" through Jesus when he was anointed with the "holy spirit" at his baptism. --Loremaster 14:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like the Ebionites may have embraced a middle ground between Adoptionism and Arianism. Any thoughts? --Loremaster 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

We also know they stated the books of Mosses have falsifications in them so this can not be meant in a literal observence of Torah and this Adoptionism is the same potentual all mankind has, not just Yeshua.NazireneMystic 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one, "Son of God" can be understood in a Jewish context. [10]

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the term was also applied to an angel. Therefore, the term may have had a double meaning in Ebionite usage: Jesus as both an angel and the king of Israel. I've edited the article to reflect the various points brought in this debate. --Loremaster 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think the term "Son of God" is confusing. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is confusing but so are many other terms and beliefs of the Jewish Christians, Pauline Christians and Gnostic Christians. --Loremaster 13:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a technical term, hence there is an article on it: Son of God. There is also an article on Angel which hopefully mentions that the Biblical Greek and Hebrew being translated can also be translated as messenger. In fact Angel comes from Greek Angelos. Just to cut to the chase and summarize: for the Ebionites and other Jewish Christians, Jesus was the Son of God but not God the Son, the former is biblical, the later is paganism. See also Raymond E. Brown for summary of Does the NT call Jesus God?.

Exactly. --Loremaster 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew vs Jew

A couple of times the article refers to "Hebrews" where the post-Babylonian exile term "Jews" is more usual (e.g. as in Jews and Gentiles, as opposed to Hebrews and Gentiles). Is there a reason for this? --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I simply used the word "Hebrew" because Ebionites only accepted an Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews. A long time ago I read that the use of the word "Jew" to describe people during the Second Temple Period was an anachronism since "Judean" would be more accurate (However, I've now edited to refer to Jews instead of Hebrews). Can someone confirm or refute this claim? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_the_word_Jew

--Loremaster 13:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can tell, that's all basically correct. I'm not exactly sure what the "claim" is? In the New Testament, Judean is often the more correct translation, as Jesus the Galilean often has trouble with the Judeans of Jerusalem. Also, Jerusalem at that time was part of Iudaea Province, which was a Roman conglomeration of Idumea, Judea and Samaria, and obviously derived from that same word, either Judean or Jew. Galilee, where Jesus was from, was separate, under Herod Antipas. So, Jesus the Galilean was not Judean, but he was a Jew. Hopefully that clarifies why there are confusions. There was tension between Jesus and the Judeans, but it was an inner Jewish argument. One more comment: Gospel of the Hebrews would be Gospel of those who read the Hebrew language, which at that time was mostly Aramaic which is a closely related language. The term Hebrew is generally reserved by historians for the First Temple Period, the Jesus Seminar proposes Israelite, then Judean for Second Temple Period, then Jews and Judaism for post-Second Temple (after 70) and Rabbinic Judaism.

Thank you. I had forgotten that the Jesus Seminar was my source. --Loremaster 14:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ebionites and the Law

Putting your points of view aside, can you all accept the following sentence?

Sources also suggest that Ebionites believed all Hebrews and Gentiles must observe Mosaic Law but it must be understood through an expounding of the Law by Jesus elevated to the status of "prophet like Moses".

--Loremaster 21:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would favor an "opinions differ" sort of approach. It's not too far off right now. I would say, we might have a consensus that they had an "idiosyncratic" approach to the law, and just leave it at that, and then say "opinions differ as to whatever" and elaborate on that below. The reference to the "expounding of the law" is original research (and the article is pretty much Christian POV), I'm afraid, even though the analogy isn't bad and I'm inclined to agree with it. I think the easiest way to approach this is to summarize what everyone agrees on, and then quote opposing points of view below. I could quote Schoeps in support of (to me) the straightforward interpretation. Because scholarship is thin (see elsewhere) and opinions here are quite different, this will be tricky. Good luck, Loremaster. How about this: "Sources also suggest that Ebionites believed all Hebrews and Gentiles must observe Mosaic Law, though their understanding and interpretation of that law was very idiosyncratic in relation to the normative Judaism of their day. Scholars differ on what exactly the Ebionites believed about the law (see below)." Keith Akers 13:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the reference to the Expounding of the Law is original research since as the article argues that "this issue would have been a central one to the Jewish Christians, a group that the Gospel of Matthew is widely believed to have been directed at, or written by". Since the Ebionites accepted an Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew as scripture, they probably adopted a view of the Law similar to Matthew's. That being said, I thank you for your comments and will seriously take them into account if and when I edit this paragraph again --Loremaster 18:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, fair enough. Other things have come up so I'm not sure how much time I'll be able to put into this, so I thought I'd mention a few other things. (I have elaborated on some of these themes on my web site, compassionatespirit.com, where I comment further on this subject and this article.) Keith Akers 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Loremaster,

I dont know of any evidence that would show the Hebrew Gosple the Ebionites used looked anything like the verson of Matthew in our bibles. Didnt Early church fathers quote from the gosple of hebrews many things not found in the canonical verson? Also the Canonical verson of Matthew was quoted from in works of church fathers and the quoted sections can no longer be found in our bibles.NazireneMystic 04:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You can find Gospel of the Ebionites here: [11], such as: "Epiphanius incorrectly entitles this the 'Hebrew' gospel, and alleges that it is an abridged, truncated version of the Gospel of Matthew. Whereas the Gospel of the Ebionites is indeed closely related to Matthew, examination of the extant fragments reveals that much of the text is a harmony, composed in Greek, of the Gospels Matthew and Luke (and, probably, the Gospel of Mark as well). Although Irenaeus (late in the second century) attests to the existence of this gospel, we are dependent solely upon the quotations given by Epiphanius for our knowledge of the contents of the text.""

There is no evidence the gosple according to Matthew anyone in the 4th century had would read much like our modern verson. There are 3 or 4 codexs surviving that are thought to be of the 5o Constantine had made and they are not used for bible translations because they contain books in them that are no longer thought of as scripture and the books remaining would cause to much a problem fo dogmaic reasons if used in translations. A string of church fathers ending in the 4th century quote the gosples named on our modern bibles but the quotes they made are no longer to be found. Among them was a once well known account that at the baptism of Yeshua the words spoken to him were" Your are my son, This day I begotten thee" but today we have "in whom I am well pleased" The works from the early church fathers support the Ebionite point of view.64.12.116.5 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether accurate or not, how does this information clarify the Ebionite view of the Law of Moses? --Loremaster 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mainly because in a above statment on this topic you state the Ebionites likly adopted a view of the law simular to Matthew's, and you support this with the fact the Ebionites only used a Hebrew verson of the book of Matthew. The thing is there is no way to know what the book or the versons the church fathers used at that time read like. so you realy cant use the accepted verson with must faith to see the Ebionite view of the law.64.12.116.5 01:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. However, I was only voicing an opinion that is not reflected in the article, which is quite vague on the issue. "Expounding the Law" obviously meant different things to different followers of Jesus. --Loremaster 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The above argument is, in essence, that if Matthew's original gospel cannot be known with complete certainty, we are free to make up whatever we want it to be. I think all parties would benefit from reading Bart Ehrman's "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture". Chapter 2 has an excellent analysis of anti-adoptionistic corruptions of scripture, including the verses quoted above. All versions of Luke 3:22 before the 5th century read "You are my son, This day I have begotten thee", but by the 6th century, no adoptionist readings are to be found, having been altered to the Matthean version "in whom I am well pleased". There is no evidence however, to my knowledge, that the adoptionist reading was ever present in Mark or Matthew. If anyone has specific manuscript evidence, please share it. Ovadyah 16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't my argument that we are free to make up whatever we want. Epiphanius claims that Ebionites "do not accept Moses' Pentateuch in its entirety; certain sayings they reject... stating Christ has revealed this to me, and will blaspheme most of the legislation". The implication is that Ebionites viewed Jesus as expounding the Law. Although I may have an opinion as what this expounding entailed, I haven't included my speculation in the article since that would be my POV. As for the christological debate, it wasn't the subject of this thread so I am not sure why you brought it up here. --Loremaster 16:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, I was referring to the entire thread, not just your comments. I am not disputing that the Ebionites practiced what they believed to be Jesus' interpretation of the Tanakh. Nor am I disagreeing in principle with the idea that the gospels have been so corrupted that nothing much can be inferred from them. The Alexandrian family of texts, which is the version used by scholars, is the earliest tradition we have available to us. See Wieland Willker's excellent website for details on all the main textual variants [12]. My point is that claiming there may have been even earlier texts, which differed in content from those known to us, is an argument from silence and therefore, original research. Such arguments are purely conjecture and should not be used to expound on what the Ebionites believed. I'll move my last comment about christologies to the thread where it belongs and expand on it. See Deleted archangel text. Ovadyah 19:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I've edited the article to avoid pinning down the christology of Ebionites. --Loremaster 22:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of God

I think this part of the Ebionite history is a problem without first adding" some scholars think" or something like that:

Since Jesus was assumed to be a descendant of David, most believed him to be the Messiah and expected him to lead a nonviolent resistance to Roman occupation through mass civil disobedience and establish a new reign as the king of a new united Kingdom of Israel. However, in light of his death and non-return, factions of Ebionites interpretred or re-interpreted Jesus' messianic nature and role in different ways.

While I would agree many jewish leaders were seeking a worldly kingdom the evidence is lacking that the Ebionites expected one.64.12.116.5 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the Evidence of the Ebionites? --Loremaster 14:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok maybe instead of adding " Some scholars think..." it should be "One scholar thinks...".

There is far more than one. Regardless, I've edited the passage in question to add more nuance. --Loremaster 19:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This position does smack in the face of what Yeshua taught and promotes Yeshua and his followers as misguided people that didnt know what they were doing.NazireneMystic 18:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You say that as if it isn't a possibility or what is most probable. Are you suggesting that Jesus and his followers were not fallible human beings? Regardless, what "evidence" is there that *all* Ebionites believed the Kingdom of God was a spiritual state rather than an form of government? --Loremaster 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I do agree they were not obedient citizens from the Jewish or Roman prospective. Anytime even one person stops just following orders and starts seeking truth over ignorance that person or people will be numbered with the Criminals and hated by athorities.NazireneMystic 18:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

1. In the lead section, second paragraph (and elsewhere) the terms "Pauline Christian" and "Gnostic Christian" are highly problematic. It depends on how you define the terms. The orthodox church rejected many of the views of the historical Paul. So were they Pauline Christians or not? Unclear. Many scholars, perhaps at this point most, agree that the term "gnostic" should be discarded altogether because it is too vague, and there is no agreed definition either in ancient or modern writings on what it means.

2. The list of writers taking an Ebionite-friendly approach is problematic, as it lacks a number of obvious scholars such as Schoeps and Tabor and includes people such as Graves and Podro on whom I'd insist on a reference to book and page for their views on the Ebionites. (They wrote a book on the "Nazarene Gospel restored" but this does not appear to be about the Ebionites entirely or even partially.)

3. The first paragraph in "History" on Nazarenes is mostly correct but stylistically a disaster. "Nazarenes" is a really obscure topic, even more obscure than the Ebionites. Also, why are you talking about Nazarenes, who cares? Unclear, need to explain. Also, if you are going to mention Nazarenes, you should mention Elkasaites too (spelled Elkasites by Wikipedia, I believe); they are more relevant to Ebionites than Nazarenes, since we know more about them. There are spelling issues (in the ancient languages, not just the modern transliterations) with both groups.

4. The "superceding interest" in the pre-Sinai revelation is stylistically out of place, as it is an interpretation (a good one, though) of a basic fact about their views. I'd give their views, then explanations.

5. Also, there is no such passage as "Panarion 19:28-30." Panarion 19 is about the Ossaeans, not the Ebionites, in any event.

6. I'm not aware of any controversy over whether the Ebionites revered the Desposynoi or James, and don't see much point in trying to substantiate this view with references to the New Testament -- and there's no evidence that the Ebionites accepted the NT books cited anyway, certainly not the letters of Paul. John the Baptist is an interesting topic, as he was clearly part of their origins, yet the later literature is hostile to his followers. It's difficult to summarize the evidence quickly and it may be out of place in an article of this nature.

7. The references to Ebionites by later Islamic writers are obscure and controversial and probably don't belong in an article of this scope. The Ebionites are not named. In one case it is clear that it is most likely the Elkasaites that are being referred to.

8. The reference to Tabor, 1998 is actually a web site, not a book. I'm not sure what the Wiki style manual is on this, but it should be mentioned that this is a continually updated web page, not a book, as a reader would first assume.

9. "Messianic Judaism" is not relevant here. As far as I know, no Messianic Jews claim the Ebionites, and NONE of the Ebionite friendly groups -- which disagree with each other a great deal -- claim Messianic Judaism.

Good luck, I may check in later. Keith Akers 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

1. "Pauline Christians" refers to pre-Catholic/Orthodox Christians so I think it's an appropriate term since the sentence refers specifically to the Second Temple Period. Although I am aware that the term "Gnostic" is problematic, I think it still has value within the context of this article.

2. I've replaced Graves and Podro with Schoeps and Tabor.

3. I've removed the paragraph on the Nazarenes. I've added a link to Elkasite in See also for now.

4. I think the "superceding interest" sentence is fine. Although the text which follows it needs improvement.

5. I've removed Panarion 19:28-30 sentence.

6. I've removed the sentence substantiating the Ebionite view of James with references to the NT.

7. I've removed the mention of Islamic writers.

8. I've fixed the Tabor citation.

9. I've removed the mention of Messianic Judaism.

--Loremaster 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The references by Abd al-Jabbar are only obscure and controversial in the mind of Keith Akers, and they should be expanded rather than deleted. In any case, the matter should be decided by peer review rather than based on the opinions of one editor. Ovadyah 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there were no comments, I have restored the sentence about al-Jabbar. It should not have been removed in the first place based upon the whims of one editor. There has been a disturbing tendency to casually dismiss and then remove authors and sources that contradict a certain POV. Shlomo Pines has published research on al-Jabbar, yet this was never mentioned. It would be obvious knowledge to any academic who has studied in this field. Ovadyah 19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As a general comment, I agree about the disturbing trend to casually dismiss and then delete material that doesn't fit in with someone's POV. I'll have more time in a few weeks to reinsert the deleted material. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't casually dismiss and delete material that doesn't fit with my POV. Although my point of view is informed by the Jesus Seminar, my goal is editing this article to acheive a neutral point of view based on reliable sources. Keith Ayers brought up what I think were valid criticisms so I acted upon them by deleting some dubious material. If he can be shown to be wrong, I have no problem with some of the material being reinserted. As for Panarion quotes I deleted, I've already explained that a good article should strive for contributor-written text rather than quoting sources. That being said, I think everyone needs to cultivate an emotional detachement from this article. --Loremaster 15:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are two quotations from Shlomo Pines manuscript, The Jewish Christians Of The Early Centuries Of Christianity According To A New Source, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities II, No. 13 (1966) that shed light on the Ebionites described by Abd al-Jabbar:

The doctrines of Epiphanius' Ebionites are held to approximate to those of the Jewish Christian portions of the Pseudo-Clementines. Thus, they are said to believe in one true prophet appearing in various shapes and forms throughout history, to delete texts occurring in the Old Testament as being false, to reject bloody sacrifices and to consider that their abolition and the prohibition of the eating of meat were part of Jesus' mission. None of these teachings, which deviate from those of the less speculatively inclined Jewish Christians who seem to have been, in the main, content to practice traditional Jewish piety, are professed by the original authors of our texts. As has already been noted, they considered that Jesus approved of the observance of the Jewish sacrifices. In a passage concerning Mani (which is translated below, see Excursus I) they mention that this heresiarch quoted passages from the Gospels which prohibit sacrifices and the eating of meat; but they clearly considered that these passages were not authentic.

There are issues concerning both Epiphanius catch-phrase "Ebionites" for differing messianic groups, and also the Pseudo-Clementines, which contain several strata of development, are late, and represent not Ebionite, but rather an Elkasite tradition. See, G. Strecker's introduction to Kerymata Petrou, in New Testament Apocrypha, Edgar Hennecke, W. Schneemelcher, Vol. 2, pp. 102-111; cp. pp. 532-5. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965). Also both the Pseudo-Clementines and Kerygmata are largely Greeks works, i.e., in a language which Abd al-Jabbar's messianics disdained in favor of Hebrew.

These may help to explain the reluctance of some editors to acknowledge Abd al-Jabbar as a source. Ovadyah 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. I've edited the article to present this view. --Loremaster 05:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure Abd al-Jabbar ever called the group he encountered "Ebionites" or did he say they called themselves Ebionites. Shlomo Pines doesnt seem to even have much understanding of the Clement writings, In them they clearly point to the truth prophet being within everyone but remains inactive in thoes that have not propery prepaired thier minds. Did he ever read them?

Do you think every group of Jews that think Yeshua was a failed Messiah are proof of modern Ebionites? NazireneMystic 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Elcesaites article

I placed a Possible Copyright Violation tag on the Elcesaites article since it was simply mirroring the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on the subject. --Loremaster 04:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia is public domain. 75.15.201.121 18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I would then argue that the Catholic Encyclopedia is a POV source. --Loremaster 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Every Scholar is a POV source, you argue against sources that do not support yours.

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#The_neutral_point_of_view: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. 75.15.198.37 02:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the fact that every scholar is a POV source. However, a good article is based on multiple sources rather than just one that is extremely biased. How objective would you consider an article on Catholicism written by a Lutheran? --Loremaster 03:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Let's keep this article moving along. Ovadyah 01:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

starting from scrach

I see a few days off and the artical was rewritten. WOW. It has been rewritten in a very cunning way I might add. Well time to start working on it some moreNazireneMystic 01:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I am willing to work on improving the one or two passages I suspect you might take issue with, I am satisfied with the 23:34, 6 September 2006 version of the article. --Loremaster 02:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets start with the history section. The way the artical is laid out in general pits sholars against other scholars in favor of a narrow point of view that does not threaten Your secular Humanist point of view that the Ebionites were one more group misguided by religion and also does not threaten Ovadyah's ME group which is that Yeshua was a failed messiah and kept the literal letter of a book.

Despite my secular humanist point of view, the objectivity of my edits speaks for itself. I am simply insisting that all claims about Ebionites be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. I want the article to be the best possible resource for anyone who is interested in the subject. I've been cooperating with Ovadyah, Keith Ayers, Micheal C. Price, and you NazireneMystic, in an effort to make the article comprehensive, rigorous and stable enough for Featured Article status. That's as far as it goes. Throughout this editing process, the article may threaten the point of view of everyone. We will have a lot of disagreements but I would hope we can handle them in an amicable and mature way.

From looking at the current verson of the artical I would say your above statments are not very accurate. You have sided with Ovadyah at the expence of Keith Ayers, Micheal C. Price, all but One or two scholars sited in the artical and ME NazireneMysticNazireneMystic 01:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only that but now the artical states:

"Church Fathers sometimes distinguished Ebionites from Nazarenes, one author often depending upon another for his assessment. However, Jerome clearly thinks that Ebionites and Nazoraeans were a single group (Letter 112). Without surviving texts, it it is difficult for modern scholars to establish exactly the basis for their distinction.

All these sources within mainstream Christianity agree that Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the death of Jesus as an atonement for the Original Sin. Ebionites seemed to have emphasized the humanity of Jesus as the mortal son of Mary and Joseph who became a prophet when he was anointed with the "holy spirit" at his baptism."

Which is true but These sources also state Ebionites thought of Yeshua as the messiah before and They to can become messiah! , then the artical does a bait and switch after leading people by the early church fathers, then states pure spectulative POV that is not supported by the church fathers the paragraph was started with with:

"Since Jesus was assumed to be a descendant of David, most believed he was the Jewish Messiah and expected him to lead a nonviolent resistance to Roman occupation through mass civil disobedience and establish a new reign as the king of a new united Kingdom of Israel. However, in light of his death and non-return, factions of Ebionites re-interpreted Jesus' nature and work as well as the Kingdom of Heaven in different ways."

I wasn't even thinking about the mention of church fathers in the introduction when I wrote that passage. I was trying to summarize all the scholarly points of views I have come across while doing research on Ebionites. However, you are right that this passage can be easily misinterpreted in the way you have so I will work on it.

Then the artical makes it seem a so called "Expounding of the law" counterdicts Epiphanius but he is the main source of how the law was expounded upon. Once the artical had Tabor pitted against Epiphanius untill is was shown Tabor and Epiphanius BOTH claimed the same things:

"Epiphanius claims that Ebionites "do not accept Moses' Pentateuch in its entirety; certain sayings they reject... stating Christ has revealed this to me, and will blaspheme most of the legislation" (Panarion 30.18.7-9). James Tabor, however, argues that Ebionites were dedicated to observing the Law but rejected doctrines and traditions, which they believed had been added to the Law, including scribal alterations of the texts of scripture."

1. I wasn't refering to Epiphanius as the source of how the law was expounded upon. I was refering to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

2. I've already explained to you that pitting Epiphanius and Tabor against each other was an unintentional mistake. My original intention was using Tabor to support yet clarify what Epiphanius was saying not contradict him. So I don't understand why you keep bringing this up.

Loremaster, In the artical it clearly read that tarbor was against Epiphanius, after i brought it up instead of rewriting it so show thier agreement[which goes against your point of view] it was totaly dropped.

I was going to rewrite the passage to show that Epiphanius and Tabor agree UNTIL information was brought to my attention that both Epiphanius and Tabor could be wrong. However, rather than dropping the Tabor sentence you seem to not have noticed that I incorporated it in the Epiphanius sentence. It now reads: Epiphanius, however, claims that Ebionites rejected doctrines and traditions, which they believed had been added to the Law, including scribal alterations of the texts of scripture.

Now to keep the Epiphanius isolated and further the attack on him the artical does not include Tabor's statement which was included at fist and even misrepresented to support a point of view that only Epiphanius said the Ebionite thought the Torah falsified:

Epiphanius, however, claims that Ebionites rejected doctrines and traditions, which they believed had been added to the Law, including scribal alterations of the texts of scripture (Panarion 30.18.7-9); and that they had a superceding interest in restoring a form of worship reflected in pre-Sinai revelation, especially the antediluvian period from Enoch to Noah.[1] For example, Epiphanius describes them as vegetarians who opposed animal sacrifice, and quotes their gospel as ascribing these injunctions to Jesus (Panarion 30.16.5, 30.22.4).

I stand by this passage.

Do you still stand by: " James Tabor, however, argues that Ebionites were dedicated to observing the Law but rejected doctrines and traditions, which they believed had been added to the Law, including scribal alterations of the texts of scripture."?

No. What I meant to write was " James Tabor clarifies what Epiphanius said by arguing that Ebionites were dedicated to observing the Law but rejected doctrines and traditions, which they believed had been added to the Law, including scribal alterations of the texts of scripture."

Why did any support Tarbor vanish when it was shown to support Epiphanius while any little scrap that can be found is tossed up to attack Epiphanius? LOREMASTER you actualy prove modern science right but its already been proven the consenceness of experimentors can effect an experiment and yours affects the artical to the point were you cant see it till I point it out.NazireneMystic 02:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As I explained above, it did not vanish. It was incorporated into another text. I've now added Tabor's name back.

The same method has been used throughout this artical. This artical is a wreck and likly will remain so regardless of how it is structured. The editors can not even state sources without adding point of view then when scholars are listed they are used to attack other athorities in a very plained biased mannor.

Adding a critical point of view especially if it supported by the opinion of a scholar is what a good article is about. I was presented with information and I used it.

this game can be played from both ends you could state all the sources that claim Yeshua was clueless and after each I can ad" however...." and lean the artical to the pov of the spiritual Ebionites. This is mainly the game Ive exposed here. I am only interested in a non point of view artical but presenting things as they are is something your consenceness is effecting. When scientist do this its often called "refusing to speculate" You cant help it and dont see it till I point it out as you have stated and since im good at this our ME promoter wants to rush into peer review before I can show how the very newly revised, rewritten artical has a one sided lean.NazireneMystic 02:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself. Although you pointed out a few things that needed to be clarified, I stand by the structure of the article. I've now edited the article to better convey 2 opposite points of view (Tabor vs Pines) on the issue of Ebionite's spiritual beliefs and practices. I think it is the best way to settle this issue in favor of a neutral point of view. --Loremaster 05:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as the question you pose about a Luthern writing a artical about Catholics I would say it would be about as objective as this artical is regarding Ebionites. NazireneMystic 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous comparison. Catholics consider Ebionites heretics. Lutherans consider Catholics apostates. As a secular humanist, I am interested in the evidence Ebionites can provide for the quest for the historical Jesus. --Loremaster 01:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If this was ridiculous you would of adresses my points. The thing is your thinking is so programed your "refusing to speculate" it automatic and causes you to not see the very things you write.I hope to help further in the artical but it seems someone is hoping to take advantage of the pages current lean.NazireneMystic 02:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by this rant. I've addressed all your points and I've edited the article accordingly. --Loremaster 03:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Loads of commentary and insults but few facts. Somebody needs a nap. Ovadyah 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Structure of the article

It seems to me that article needs a new structure where we have sections or subsections that focus on history, beliefs, practices, etc. Let's all work on this. --Loremaster 14:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone involved in the artical holds that they were Torah Observant but how they understud it has been is were we have differed.

I think the main artical is not the place to try to pin down beliefs and practices without renewing the conflict.

Maybe stating something along the lines that they were fully justified by the law as Yeshua was but the nature of how they understud it and applied it in thier lives is debatable would been staying to a NPOV path.

On the respective subpages the actucaly beliefs and practices of each group would then be none POV if done in a matter of fact way of just reporting and not desiding truth as long as they can be backed up with sources. Stating some claim they were somewhat Essene in thier view of the law and some think they heald literalist views or however it is you discribe it seems none biased.

I can see taking down the quotes I added to the main artical. While I do not agree with the point of view many people here hold I see it conflicts with the ME group. If a group gets deleted then changes might once again be needed to the main artical to ballance it out.

There have been scholars that have also worked on the scrolls and wrote works stating that the John's writings can no longer be thought as the most Hellenistic in the bible and its thought originated right there in the scrolls. The most abundant fragments among the scrolls were from the Books of Enoch. With that in mind I do not believe much can be stated on the main page other then the beliefs and practices are debatedNazireneMystic 15:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Both the Lead and History section of this article as they stand now are mediocre. I think a revised article can and should better reflect the debate among scholars about the history, beliefs and practices of the Ebionites. --Loremaster 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a section on "Sources" which would precede the section on "History." Also, depending on how it goes, you could rename "History" to be "History and Views." Keith Akers 15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the historic accounts were from "Scholars" of thier time if we make the artical reflect the debate among scholars about the historic account then we are picking one point of view over any others and desiding truth in stead of just reporting so this can get very complex. If you only hold to living scholars then that would drasticly change the artical.I bet we could find scholars that even claim the Ebionite were actualy Musilum and then we would have to make it a Islamic site. I can see stating past prospectives and current ones and how they differ.NazireneMystic 16:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)205.188.116.198 16:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue was for me was not necessarily pinning down once for all the beliefs and pratices of the Ebionites but creating sections or sub-sections for these topics. As it stands now, everything is confused together. --Loremaster 16:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Sources" would be a good start. It gets a bit harder after this! But "History and Views" (as suggested) or "Interpretations" might follow. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1) The Lead section should be doubled or tripled in size. After all, for Wikipedia 1.0 leads are supposed to be a complete summaries. Ask yourself: if somebody just reads the lead, do they get a good summary of the ENTIRE article now? 2) There are a lot of short (2-4 lines, 1-2 sentences) paragraphs throughout the article. They should be merged into fewer larger paragraphs - it looks 'better'. --Loremaster 21:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree: a longer lead section is advisable. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that Loremaster's idea is that as the article gets longer, everyone will see their own POV represented as "Views on the Ebionites" -- Eisenman's theory, Tabor's theory, Maccoby's theory, etc. etc. -- and that the lead portion can summarize the consensus view, with details going into the controversies about John the Baptist or whatever. This is interesting and not what I would have thought of. Loremaster, is this what you're thinking? If so, would you advocate focusing on the lead first, or on the details first -- letting the lead emerge from the details? So should we think about the lead, or the details? Keith Akers 12:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This is exactly what I was thinking. As for your question, I think the Lead should emerge from the details. --Loremaster 16:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done so work on the History section of the article. However, the restructuing of the article may or many not incorporate the current content of this section. --Loremaster 19:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the following portion of the history section to be confussing because Epiphanius and Tabor are potrayed as counterdicting eachother but both their statments are actualy saying the same thing. Epiphanius only adds the source of thier knowledge were Tabor does not. If a modern orthordox Jew was able to peek in on an Ebionite community he would most likly come away saying the same things as Epiphanius did regarding Ebionite understanding of the law:

"Epiphanius claims that Ebionites "do not accept Moses' Pentateuch in its entirety; certain sayings they reject... stating Christ has revealed this to me, and will blaspheme most of the legislation" (Panarion 30.18.7-9). James Tabor, however, argues that Ebionites were dedicated to observing the Law but rejected doctrines and traditions, which they believed had been added to the Law, including scribal alterations of the texts of scripture."NazireneMystic 19:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion. I actually agree with you. I simply made a mistake when writing that sentence. I've corrected it now. --Loremaster 23:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In the Reconitions of Clements Peter encourages others not to complain about Simon Magnus because nothing happens unjustly and even the falsehoods of scripture are presented as a test. This same source claims the True Prophet will make its place in a mind that is properly prepaired. Which basicly is " Christ/Messiah revealing" things to them and how they came to reject "doctrines and traditions, which they believed had been added to the Law, including scribal alterations of the texts of scripture." NazireneMystic 20:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. --Loremaster 23:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

O. K., I have created a "sources" section and somewhat modified the text. As far as I know, Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus do not quote from the Ebionites gospels (in fact I doubt they have read them), so I changed the wording. Also, I said the Recognitions and Homilies were "probably" Ebionite, as I know of no scholar who disputes this. There is pretty tight match between Epiphanius and the Recognitions and Homilies, and this was recognized early on (going back to the 19th century). "The entire literature is of Jewish-Christian, or Ebionitic, origin," Prof. M. B. Riddle in the "Introductory Notice" to the pseudo-Clementine literature. Keith Akers 14:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good. Until we do more research, I am satisfied with the article as it currently is. --Loremaster 02:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Toward peer review

Loremaster, I restored the page to your last version. We are at a point where further editing is yielding diminishing returns. I am ok with the version of the article you cited previously. Please set a date for peer review and let's move on. Ovadyah 01:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Request page protection if you need to. I suspect we will be seeing some vandalism quite soon. Ovadyah 01:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You prove my pointNazireneMystic 02:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article is ready for peer review. However, I would request page protection if anyone engages in vandalism. That being said, despite the histrionics, NazireneMystic did bring up some good points so I will work to improve the article. --Loremaster 02:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied for now with the 02:03, 8 September 2006 version of the article. --Loremaster 06:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

While I still have points with the Kingdom of God section of the artical is about as good as I can expect. When Ebionite texts are unearthed remember it was the Spiritual Ebionites that knew all along the kingdom is purely spiritual in nature and will never bee seen on earth. With that said, whats next? when will this peer review start and how long do they generaly take?NazireneMystic 23:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've improved the so-called Kingdom of God section --Loremaster 00:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the 19:05, 9 September 2006 version of the article. Ovadyah can request Peer Review if he wishes. --Loremaster 22:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes made further confused issues! Most readers expect the first sentence in a Paragraph to set the direction of paragraph. The following Paragraph is written in a mannor that would make many readers think:

"Most ancient sources and modern scholars agree that Ebionites "... "believe that Jesus was also the Messiah who would fulfill the nationalistic or apocalyptic expectations of the Jewish people. "

However this is not the case. Most Ancient sources do not claim such things. If anything Ancient sources did not think Ebionites agreed with the nationalistic or apocalyptic expectations of the Jewish people. Thier may of been people thinking this was Yeshua's intentions but no source shows the Ebionite's thought it was.

Most ancient sources and modern scholars agree that Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the death of Jesus as an atonement for the Original Sin. Ebionites seemed to have emphasized the humanity of Jesus as the mortal son of Mary and Joseph who became a prophet when he was anointed with the "holy spirit" at his baptism. They came to believe that Jesus was also the Messiah who would fulfill the nationalistic and apocalyptic expectations of the Jewish people. In light of his death, some Ebionites persisted in this belief by hoping for the return of Jesus to fulfill the rest of messianic prophecy; while others abandoned this belief by choosing to view him only as a prophet who preached the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sugested change to paragraph. Remember the word Messiah means anointed or anointed one. In Greek Christ means the same thing. The sources claim he became the Christ/messiah,I.E. anointed one , which Baptism refers to anyway.The sources were quoted before in the talk page but have been sweept away to archives.Below is what I sugest as a change.

Most ancient sources agree that Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the death of Jesus as an atonement for the Original Sin. Ebionites seemed to have emphasized the humanity of Jesus as the mortal son of Mary and Joseph and belief that he was a Prophet and became the Messiah when he was anointed with the "holy spirit" at his baptism.

Some mnodern scholars claim they came to believe that Jesus was also the Messiah who would fulfill the nationalistic or apocalyptic expectations of the Jewish people. In light of his death, some Ebionites persisted in this belief by hoping for the return of Jesus to fulfill the rest of the messianic prophecy; while others abandoned this belief by choosing to view him only as a prophet who preached the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven.[2]

In adition as far as I can tell the group the Muslim historian Abd al-Jabbar encountered did not go by the name Ebionite and Jabbar himself did not call them by the name Ebionite.NazireneMystic 23:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily reverted your changes. Let me think over your suggestions. I'll come back with a compromise tomorrow. --Loremaster 02:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Now if you can show my changes are biased then maybe you have a point. My changes are good ones, not POV or confusing. They might even had been spelled right LOL. The discriptions of Ebionite beliefs are DIFFERENT then the modern Scholars have in that of Messiahship.Ididnt pick one belief over the other but simply stated the differences. Even the earlier church father's quotes from the mid second century claim he became the christ/Messiah at baptism for forfilling the law. The ebionites, after his death, believed he was Messiah. This doesnt come from the church father that gets so much bad press in this artical. The quote is on the long archived Spiritual/neo-ebionite page. I could get them if you want. While I do not dought many that read the scriptures then and now think a messiah has something to do with world domination remember the ebionites had a different view then Jews and Christians did and even thought the scriptures the Jews use to define what a messiah is were falsified.NazireneMystic 03:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think my recent edits have produced a compromise that we can all live with. As for the passage regarding the Muslim historian, I edited it a while ago to say that Ebionites may be (rather than are) the group he encountered. --Loremaster 15:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, I have answered your question about Expounding of the Law. As I said before, I suspect we will be seeing some vandalism quite soon. ;-) Ovadyah 05:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Loremaster 15:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the section to add quotatations from Abd al-Jabbar that are relevant to Jesus' mission and views on the Law of Moses. Ovadyah 16:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I am now satisfied with the 12:03, 10 September 2006 version of the article. --Loremaster 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also satisfied with the 12:03, 10 September 2006 version of the article. I will initiate the peer review process. Thanks Loremaster, for your efforts to make this article into a candidate for featured article status. Ovadyah 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Loremaster 19:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Messiahship again

I see the artical has reverted back to claiming early christian sources said Ebionites thought Yeshua belived a Messiah was comming. This can not be supported. The early sources stated Ebonites claimed he had became the messiah at baptism. Show your soucesif your going state otherwise and plan to post things like that. If a few scholars today have different opinions of messiahship then it should be noted That according to early christian sources the Ebionties held different views of Yeshua then modern scholars do.NazireneMystic 22:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying to link the early christian witness of the Ebionites to the Jewish thinking of what a messiah is basicly denies the Ebionites view. If you want to work on the "Jewish Messiah" artical fill free to do so but this is an artical about Ebionites not an artical about what the jewish thinking of messiah is. If you want to promote that point of view else were in the artical be my guest but the early christian sources themselves disagree with your narrative regarding thier witness.NazireneMystic 01:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the linked Wikipedia artical named "messanic" in in the section claims Yeshua was not the messiah it is clearly a different view then that of what the the christian sources potray. I have fixed it. Remember these sources claim Ebionites believed him to be the Messiah, you may not like that but it is so. If this seems confusing for you maybe to keep it simple we should revert to quotes from these sources rather then devolop narritives that counterdict them? NazireneMystic 01:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Modern scholars discern four kinds of messianology in the years between 170 BCE and 140 CE.

1. The Messiah as military leader
2. The Messiah as sage
3. The Messiah as high-priest
4. The 'prophet like Moses'

The changes I made for stylistic reasons wasn't an attempt at denying the fact that Ebionites viewed Jesus as the Messiah. On the contrary, the expression "a messianic prophet like Moses" implies that Jesus was the Messiah. However, I've replaced "a" with "the" to emphasize this point. I've also changed the link in the term "messianic" to direct to the Messianic prophecies of Jesus article. Can you accept this compromise? --Loremaster 03:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why a few quotes conserning Ebionite beliefs are not being used. When I edit the section to state what the sources said it is DELETED WITHOUT COMMENT to further an Agnostic Jewish POV.

If quotes are not used and substituted with narritives that give other meaning and filled with internal links that are mis-named to support the POV of a few scholars why beat around the bush? Restructure the section to read " According to some modern scholars the Early Christian sources mean....." Why all the misdirection? If you dont like what the early Christian sources say why not just pull all mention of them from the artical? Yea thats a good product for you. eliminate all sources nameing the Ebionites and only use the sources that do not even mention the name Ebionite that some editors like so much.NazireneMystic 23:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing that Ebionites did not view Jesus as the Messiah/Prophet like Moses? --Loremaster 15:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Gospel of Barnabas

It is also speculated that the core of the Gospel of Barnabas, beneath a polemical medieval Muslim overlay, may have been based upon an Ebionite document.

Some anonymous user deleted the passage above from the Ebionites writings section of the article. Do you all support or object this deletion? --Loremaster 15:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WEAK KEEP. The brief reference to a possible Ebionite gospel would fit better in an article about apocryphal gospels. However, if something can be gleaned from the text that illustrates the beliefs and practices of Ebionites of that period, I would change my vote to KEEP. Ovadyah 01:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Ascents of James

Epiphanius refers to a Jewish-Christian work called "The Ascents of James." In The Ascents of James: History and Theology of a Jewish-Christian Community by Robert E. Van Voorst, Scholars Press, Atlanta, GA (1989), Van Voorst argues that parts of this work were incorporated into Chapter 1 of the Recognitions of Clement, and he attempts to reconstruct the original text from the Latin and Syriac versions. Based on this reconstruction, Van Vorst comments on the christology of the Ascents of James (Chp. 5, pp. 163-164), Jesus is the Mosaic Prophet for three reasons, First, and most important for the AJ, he is the one who has come to complete the ministry of Moses. He came to abolish the rite of sacrifice, a concession considered never to have been a part of the law, substituting baptism in its place (1.36.1-2, 1.39.2) . Second, Jesus modelled his choice of first twelve and then seventy-two disciples after the action of Moses in choosing his "disciples" (1.40.4). Third, Jesus is the Prophet like Moses in that he performs miracles which are like those of Moses (1.41.4). The Mosaic-Prophet christology is especially suited to a Jewish-Christian community like the AJ, as it stresses Jesus' ties to the OT and the Mosaic Law. We noted, indeed, in Chapter 4 that the AJ has the most highly developed use of the Mosaic Prophet in early Christian literature.

Assessing the community of the Ascents of James, Van Voorst asks (Chp. 5 pp. 176-177), Is it proper to call the community of the AJ "Jewish-Christian"? and he goes on to state, In practice, the community of the AJ is composed of law-observant Jews. They keep the Jewish feasts and customs; they may practice circumcision. In belief, they are Jewish-Christian as well. Their christology, that of the Mosaic Prophet, is rooted in Jewish belief. And he concludes, We can affirm, therefore, the judgement of J.L. Martyn on the AJ: "There is, in fact, no section of the Clementine literature about whose origin in Jewish-Christianity one may be more certain".

And is the Ascents of James Ebionite? On this, Van Voorst opines (Chp. 5 pp. 179-180), We have argued that the AJ can properly be called a Jewish-Christian document. Is it Ebionite as well? Epiphanius describes it as an Ebionite book, but as Klijn and Reinink remark, "Epiphanius starts from the mistaken assumption that everything Jewish-Christian must be called Ebionite." . Many researchers from Hilgenfeld to Schoeps have applied this name to R 1.33-71. Here again we encounter a problem of definition. He goes on to state, However, most modern researchers reserve this term for the more extreme forms of Jewish Christianity, especially those holding an adoptionist christology opposed to any form of pre-existence. An ideal of poverty is also characteristic of Ebionism. As the AJ has a form of pre-existence christology and shows no evidence of adoptionism or an ideal of poverty, its community probably should not be considered Ebionite.

Footnotes

I moved this section from my talk page to facilitate discussion about Expounding of the Law and Clementine literature as sources. Ovadyah 16:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The following reference should be added to the list, as Van Voorst is the expert on the Ascents of James: The Ascents of James: History and Theology of a Jewish-Christian Community by Robert E. Van Voorst, Scholars Press, Atlanta, GA (1989). Also, a small correction to the article needs to be made. This putative document is found only in chapter 1 of Recognitions and is unrelated to the Kerygmata Petrou. Ovadyah 16:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What would this small correction be exactly? --Loremaster 20:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. The small correction is to mention that the Ascents of James is found in Chapter 1 of Recognitions and not in the Homilies. The Kerygmata Petrou is the source of the True Prophet material. The Ascents never refers to Jesus as the True Prophet; he is called the Prophet like Moses. What source document are you referring to as the Acts of the Apostles in the Homilies? Ovadyah 00:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I downloaded a copy of Koch's graduate thesis: A CRITICAL INVESTIGATION OF EPIPHANIUS' KNOWLEDGE OF THE EBIONITES: A TRANSLATION AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 'PANARION' 30, Glenn Alan Koch, University of Pennsylvania (1976) [13]. It's a superb analysis of Panarion 30 and Epiphanius' source documents. More about this soon. Ovadyah 01:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. Since I won't be able to contribute to Wikipedia for a few days or weeks, feel free to make the changes yourself. --Loremaster 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Gospel of Barnabas

I found these references to a work by John Toland:

Toland, in his "Miscellaneous Works" (published posthumously in 1747), in Vol. I, page 380, mentions that the Gospel of Barnabas was still extant.

Beginning with John Toland, the Irish deist, who announced the existence of the Gospel of Barnabas to Europeans in 1718. He was struck by the resemblance of the work's doctrines to those of the early Christian "Ebionites".

The Wiki article on Gospel of Barnabas credits Shlomo Pines, but a word search of his 1966 article does not turn up any mention of this gospel. Ovadyah 02:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Better John Toland reference and review:

"Nazarenus, or Jewish, Gentile and Mahometan Christianity" (1718)

According to Toland, the Gospel of Barnabas reveals "the true and original Christianity," a Gospel that was buried, curiously enough, in a "Gospel of the Mahometans." Muslims used the Gospel of Barnabas to vindicate their belief that Jesus Christ was not divine but only human, and that Jesus actually designated Mohammed as the coming prophet.

Toland argued that if we remove the overlay of Islam, we actually receive a glimpse of the beliefs of the earliest Christians, the Ebionites or "Nazarens," who believed that Jesus was only a "mere man." The Nazarens were "the first Christians, and consequently the only Christians for some time." Unlike the later, institutional Church, the first Christians "affirmed Jesus to have been a mere man, as well by the father as the mother's side, namely [he was] the son of Joseph and Mary, but that he was just, and wise, and excellent, above all other persons, meriting to be called the Son of God by reason of his most virtuous life.

I think we have our reference. Ovadyah 03:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Also this source by Blackhirst, seems more tenuous:

j. An Ebionite source? R.Blackhirst, Australia Probably neither aware of L.Cirillo's doubtful defence of an earlier source of the GB nor informed about the new boost in Barnabas studies after the discovery of an incomplete Spanish manuscript of the GB in his home-country of Australia, R.Blackhirst of the School of Arts of La Trobe University in Bendigo tried to establish a link with an Ebionite (=Jewish-Christian) community in Qumran (Fn30). If such a community did exist at all! Two leading Qumran specialists, Dr F.Garcia Martinez and Dr Adam van der Woude, write that modern ways of dating the Qumran scrolls result in no date later than 70 AD, when the existence of Jewish-Christians communities was not yet possible (Fn31). Blackhirst agrees that the present text "seems tailor-made for Muslim propagandists" because they fulfil Muslim expectations. Referring to the studies by Sox and the present writer he concludes that the experts cannot agree on a specific period. But the two authors he mentions agreed on the end of the 16th century!

(Fn30) R.Blackhirst, Sedition in Judaea. The Symbolism of Mizpah in the Gospel of Barnabas, Studies in Western Traditions Occasional Papers No. 3 School of Arts La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia, 1996, 84 p. Ovadyah 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Web-accessable References

Whenever possible, try to supplement the print sources with references to web-accessable sources. Our editors and readers will not, in all probability, have access to the print sources, so it makes it very difficult for us to fact-check the article. Using the print sources is fine if that's all there is, but it's best to use web-accessable sources. For example, I have no clue how I would get a copy of the Toland work from the 18th century, but a quick google search instantly turned up an acceptable reference for the claim the Barnabas may have drawn upon Ebionite material. --Alecmconroy 06:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for providing the web reference. Ovadyah 14:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The same reference stated it may have been drawn from a Gnostic text as well, any relation? It would be hard to imagine someone making a forgery to support Muslim doctorine and adding Gnostic ideas given that Muslims have many times killed other Muslims that hold to Gnostic doctorines like the Sufi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.127 (talk • contribs)

Strictly speaking, I don't know if this reference states that Barnabas may have been written by Gnostic Ebionites or not. The full quote is:

Cirillo tried to demonstrate that an early Gnostic gospel underpins the medieval work, and the Raggs, who translated the Italian manuscript into English, made similar speculations. Several scholars have been struck by the work's recreation of early Ebionite points of view. In the 1960s Pines suggested that the medieval work may contain residues of early Ebionite writings.

Now, I'm far from my own area of expertise in this, but I read this as saying it maybe be based on a Gnostic gospel, it may be based on a Ebionite writing. But I don't know that gives us the conclusion that it may be based on a Gnostic Ebionite writing. I don't know what I'm talking about here, so won't revert the claim that this source says it's Gnostic Ebionite-- but Ovad and Lore should feel free to do so if they think it's appropriate. --Alecmconroy 06:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting one scholar in the artical is said to claim the clementine writings are Gnostic christian but in another place in the artical its is said the writings refute Christian Gnostism. The scholars themselves seem to not be able to pin down just what Gnosticism realy means.

The Citation realy does not clear up much. Maybe a more clear citation is yet to be found? So far the Citation seems to show scholars have speculated that a Gnostic text and or an Ebionite text may have underlined the forgery. Maybe I wrote the edit badly but Im not sure if you could revert that it has been speculated to be Gnostic and not revert the portion that claims it has been speculated to be Ebionite without relying on Personal research based in the citation given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.30.107 (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

The qualifier that it may be an Ebionite document is all that is required. If you think the source is gnostic, we have other articles on the Gospel of Barnabas and Gnosticism where you can make this claim. I think the reference issue has been addressed. Ovadyah 15:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Citation provided shows more support among scholars that in fact its underpinnig is Gnostic rather then Ebionite. Your playing very lose with the facts. If this artical is to be good one would think it would have have more integrity then a user page or personal web site. While the Citations do not have to be true, just verifiable playing lose with the facts and then reverting other edits that have stronger support based on the citations shows a biased

Have you read of the other aspects involved in writing a good artical? neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.29.103 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

"Playing loose with the facts" was certainly not my intention. I will try to make my explanations clearer. The John Toland reference I cited initially clearly supports the speculation of an underlying Ebionite source. The purpose of the online link added subsequently by Alecmconroy was to make it easier to access this reference. I don't disagree with you that some other scholars think the source may be Gnostic. The source is disputed, assuming there was an underlying source document at all. Therefore, it's fair to state that it is disputed and could be either Gnostic or Ebionite. Ovadyah 16:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, a quick check on the logs of these anonymous IPs, and the similar writing style, show that they are all blocked user NazireneMystic. How's the vacation going? :) Ovadyah 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Schoeps Citation

I don't understand the issue with the Schoeps citation, since there is a citation already. I think our friend is arguing that the cite does not really make the point about defending against Gnosticism. Could someone else verify that it does? Ovadyah 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

While off web citations are allowable if thats all there is that is not an issue in the case of Schoeps.

How are readers expected to verify such a citation? Given the debates surrounding this artical this is a case were care should be given in the artical's citations and NPOV. I could get the policy regarding wikipedia in highly debated cases if you would like.

There is no "debate". I'm fine with whatever Loremaster decides to do. Ovadyah 22:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a debate. If online Citations from verified third party sources are ignored in favor of your book collection then there is a major problem.

I agree with Lormaster's removal of the fact check, as I did once already. We have a consensus. Let's move on. Please don't edit against consensus per the RFC. :) Ovadyah 17:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern Groups Citations

Let's deal with the two modern groups separately, as before. Since the ERM group has been found to be non-notable by AfD (twice), and there is no transitional link to any article, I am fine with removing the reference, and hence, the need for a citation. Is there a consensus on this issue? Ovadyah 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with the two groups separately would be very handy for a biased editor. Are there ways to verify they even exist outside of self published sites? After a quick search I see about equal evidence of existance. If the non-notable ERM group has more off site references then the EJC we may be able to help wikipedia in it's effort to clean up it's act as it has been tring to work on.

If I wanted to be biased, I could have removed it long ago. I suggested that the groups be treated separately because separate articles were created per the RFC. I am seeking consensus as to whether this is the best approach. Ovadyah 23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, ERM appears to be a completey non-notable group, if indeed it's a group at all. AFD agreed. It's gone. I'm removing it now-- it should not be added back until there is a consensus to do so, in the form of a media citation.

Now, we do desperately need a journalistic mention of EJC if we're going to keep it, but if it could survive AFD, that's good enough for me to give it the benefit of the doubt for the moment. I should say, I did hear a lecture just recently by Bart D. Ehrman in which he mentioned the existence of a Modern Ebionite group, so at least some modern ebionite group somewhere does have notability. --Alecmconroy 23:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving this ERM business. I'll look into citations for the EJC. I was hoping James Tabor would show up soon and take care of it. He may be back in Israel excavating the cave of John the Baptist. Bart Erhman would know, he's done a lot of research on adoptionist christology. Ovadyah 01:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not as good as a mention on Larry King, but here are two directories that mention the EJC that look pretty neutral to me. The first one links to their website. [14] [15] Ovadyah 02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think those would really prove notability-- they don't actually talk about it, they're just webdirectory link, and they aren't exactly reliable sources-- anyone can make a webpage. But keep looking :) --Alecmconroy 02:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Found a recent one (Oct 31, 2006) on a catholic blog that mentions ebionite.org and Shemayah Phillips by name. Ya gotta love those polemics! [16] Ovadyah 03:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A recent catholic newsletter (2006) mentioning Ebionites and Shemayah Phillips. It just keeps getting better. [17] Ovadyah 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to make one more comment about this and then recuse myself from the decision. As the above two citations show, changes in the religious landscape often become known first through polemics. Keep in mind that almost all we know about the historical Ebionites is due to the polemics of their Orthodox Christian opponents, not the reports of disinterested observers. Catholics are not a fringe religious group. In that context, it would be ironic if the polemics of modern mainstream opponents against modern Ebionites were dismissed as non-notable. That's all folks. Make a wise decision. Ovadyah 15:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's add the citation you found and move on. --Loremaster 15:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation added. Ovadyah 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The citation has to be added using proper referencing guidelines. --Loremaster 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. Ovadyah 17:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ovadyah do yourself a favor and do not attempt to show your self non biased at this late date because several pages can be filled with diffs showing otherwise. On every little point Alecmconroy brought up the ERM showed more notibility then your pet group. This is why the articals were later desided seperately. At which time Both you and that other editor brought thier bias into the debates and offered false information to other editors in the prossess.

Hmm. Sounds like another personal attack. Do we need to make another trip to the PA Noticeboard? You are becoming a regular visitor. Ovadyah 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely sounds like one. --Loremaster 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Alec, can we request a soft lock on the article for anonymous IPs and new users while we are waiting for a reviewer to show up? It will help to discourage further personal attacks and acts of vandalism. Ovadyah 18:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

AD vs. CE

I inadvertently reopened an old controversy about whether we should be using AD and BC or CE and BCE for historical dating. I'm thinking we decided on CE and BCE quite awhile ago. Loremaster, do you recall this dispute? Anyway, we need to pick one way and be consistent. Sorry to be making extra work. Ovadyah 15:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't part or aware of this dispute. However, I was the first person to use CE and BCE for historical dating. --Loremaster 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with using CE and BCE. Ovadyah 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Image for the article

It would be helpful to find an image appropriate to the article. Two possibilities are an image of James the Just or a Menorah. Any others come to mind? Ovadyah 04:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Did Ebionites use a religious symbol like the Ichthys? --Loremaster 21:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ichthys is pre-Constantine Christian, but I am not aware of Ebionites using this symbolism. We could use frescoes from either the church or synagogue found at Dura-Europos [18] [19]. A baptismal scene would probably be representative of their practices. I'll ask the EJC and Talmidi folks if they are aware of any other symbols that can be supported by archeological excavations or literature citations. Ovadyah 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The feedback I received from both the EJC and Talmidis is that baptismal imagery is too Christian. Their point is that only Gentiles would need to go through a ritual immersion. Ebionites are already Jews. That makes sense. On the other hand, John the Immerser was preaching a baptism of repentance in anticipation of the restoration of Israel, so the purpose is not only for conversion. Ovadyah 01:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you but let's try to find something that 1) we can reasonably connect to the Ebionites and 2) almost everyone would feel comfortable with. --Loremaster 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

More detailed images of the baptistry: [20]. I'm particularly fond of the fresco of Jesus healing the paralytic. It is the earliest known depiction of Jesus, here clothed in the garments of a teacher [21]. Ovadyah 01:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been Menorah's with seven candle sticks with a fish shape hanging off the bottom found all over the area, but no were on them was it stamped "property of Ebionite's" so its mainly up to the politics of the dicovererv NazireneMystic 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For once NazireneMystic makes a good point. --Loremaster 09:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, if it can reliably be dated to the second or third century. All the Menorah/Ichthys combinations I have seen are modern and used by Messianic Jews. This would be objectionable to Ebionites and an anathema to Orthodox Jews. Just to be fair, I'll do a search of my own and see what comes up. Ovadyah 17:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That didn't take long. I found claims on a few Messianic websites, that also sell these symbols, about the discovery of such artifacts dating to the first and second century found near King David's tomb. This is complete you know what. Someone show me a credible source and I'll be willing to reconsider. Ovadyah 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Have you read Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion? --Loremaster 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting and well-written article. I am familiar with the traditions around the Church of the Apostles. This is probably the site of the original church or very near it. Unfortunately, the oldest remaining structure is Byzantine, except for some remains of an under-floor from the Roman period. Still, it's a site of major symbolic importance for Ebionites. That said, it's a long way from claims of finding menorahs laying around with fish symbols on them. Ovadyah 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an image we could use for Jesus expounding the Law during the Sermon on the Mount. Ovadyah 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image: Jesus' expounding of the Law through the "Sermon on the Mount"

Good idea! --Loremaster 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I also like this one of Jesus Feeding the Multitudes with Bread that Haldrik came up with. It relates back to the Prophet Like Moses. Ovadyah 23:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image: Jesus "Feeding the Multitudes with Bread" as the Prophet Like Moses

I prefer the Sermon on the Mount image since the expounding of the Law was probably a central issue of Ebionites. --Loremaster 23:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We have our image then, unless you think we need more than one. Ovadyah 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

An image of some Jewish-Christian scrolls, if one exists, would be nice for the Ebionite Writings section. --Loremaster 23:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Article needs to be more accessable to readers

Just a quick read over the article as is, one suggestion I'd make would be that that article needs to be more accessable to an audience unfamiliar with biblical scholarship. In the intro right now, for example, there are terms that may not be fully understandable to the audience: "Roman and Byzantine periods", Levant, pre-existence, Shabbat, apostate, etc.

Try to write for someone who knows practically nothing about the subject, has never heard of Ebionites, isn't that familiar with Early Christianity beyond what an average christian would know. --Alecmconroy 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point that I haven't thought about much. There is a certain amount of jargon used by researchers in this field just like other areas of study. I would like to hear what Loremaster has to say before we make further changes. BTW, no offense, but don't you mean what the average reader would know? Ovadyah 01:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think more internal links can easily solve this problem. --Loremaster 02:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Internal links help, but only a little. Someone needs to be able to read an article without having to click, as he goes, to look at other articles to learn what terms are used. Which I know is a realyl frustrating way to have to write, becase we all know what the words mean, but then we already know about Ebionites too, so we're not really the intended audience. A few terms will have to be used, so they should be defined within the article, with internal links so that someone can go to learn about the terms in depths. But whever possible we should explain, so that someone can come here with only a minimal understanding but can read the article all the way through, understanding what we mean, without having to interrupt their reading to go elsewhere. Very hard to do, but worth doing.

About saying "isn't that familiar with Early Christianity beyond what an average christian would know"-- no, I did mean average christian, but that's not to say we should address a christian audience, it's just to say I think it's okay for us to assume a very minimal level of familiarity with Christianity. The best terminology would have been for me to say "beyond what someone with a basic familiarity with Christainity would know". "Average reader" could potentially be someone who knows practically nothing about christainity-- he might know about Jesus, he might know about concepts of heaven, but he might not know much else. Similar to what an average american would know about Hinduism- i.e. practically nothing. I don't think we have to be THAT elementary--- we can assume a vague familiarity with Christainity in general, but we shoul assume the reader knows almost nothing about Early Christianity. For example, most christians will be surprised when reading this article to learn that there even was a debate, among the followers of Jesus, about whether Jesus was divine. They will know who Jesus was, that he had followers, maybe who Paul was-- but they will probably be unaware of the whole debate-- which is really an interesting thing.

I mean, we have a really great article here as is, but if you want to go all the way with it, shooting for Feature Article, then it could go a little more "Popular Literature". Right now it's more scholarly in tone, something we might find in a biblical scholarship encyclopedia, which is good in its own way, but I'd like to see an article that would grab the reader a little bit more, put stuff in context, be almost "exciting", ya know? Something that could be on the frontpage of Wikipedia and even people with only a passing interest in Early Christianity would want to read it all the way through.

Easily said, harder to do, I know. The first step would be to prune as much jargon as possible. Just try to imagine a reader and figure out which words and names are going to be read as gobbledygook because the reader doesn't know them. --Alecmconroy 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. --Loremaster 15:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, do you have any concrete suggestions? --Loremaster 19:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

So, let me take a quick peek and throw out some thoughts-- these are rapid-fire suggetsions off the top of my head, so your best judgement about how (and whether) to implement them:

1. Simplify, simplify. Kill all unnecessary vocab words. Change "the Roman and Byzantine periods" to rough dates. "Levant" -> Middle East or other such. Introduce the question about the pre-existence & divinity of jesus first, explain what they mean and what proto-orthodox/mainstream modern christianity things, THEN explain Ebionites view. Similary, explain the debate about following jewish law, explain what protorthodox/modern mainstream thought, and then explain the ebionites's view. Don't use "apostate"-- just say they rejected Paul's writings. Similarly, chop list names: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius of Salamis-- introduce those names when you quote their writings. Leave proper titles like "Adversus Haereses" and "Panarion" to footnotes.

2. Big picture. Think of the big questions a reader willl want to ask, and then create sections that answer them. I know the article answers these more or less, but it does it too quickly and uses advanced terminology. Instead, imagine you're giving a lecture to college freshmen-- outline things a little bit, rather than just dumping the answers on them.

• Who were the ebionites, in terms of geography, chronology, and ethnicity. What "world" did they live in?
• What did the ebionites believe. If they had made a sort of Ebionite-version of the nicean creed, what would have been in it, more or less?
• How were ebionites different from proto-orthodox or modern mainstream christianity? Compare and contrast by introducing the debate, stating the PO position, then stating the EB position.
• Why did the Ebionites lose the battle for orthodoxy?
• How do we know of the Ebionites? What are the major sources that tell us about them, what archeological evidence exists, what extant writings, etc.
• What don't we know about the Ebionites? What are the big questions that are still unanswered, and what are the major POV on them?

Simplifying is the big thing. Brevity is generally a very wonderful thing, but the current article is actually way too brief-- or too dense. Another thing to do would be to imitate the approach taken by book authors-- If you have access to a copy of Ehrman's Lost Christianities, for example, its chapter on the Ebionites is basically a blueprint for how you would want the article to go. --Alecmconroy 13:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Loremaster 22:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

More suggestions

See the discussion in Archive 2 about the Lead Section. "Levant" and "the Roman and Byzantine periods" originated from this discussion with Keith Akers. I like Keith's other suggestion to use "Palestine-Syria" instead of Levant. Someone objected to this as being anti-Semitic, but I disagree. Another possibility is just to say "the region surrounding Judea". Michael C. Price was correct in pointing out there were no Jews left in Judea after the Bar Kochba revolt, so it would not be accurate to say "Judea and the surrounding region". Instead of the Roman and Byzantine periods, we could say "from the second to the fourth or fifth century CE".

It's likely that most of the Ebionites were exterminated by Orthodox Christians at the end of the fourth century, along with the Gnostics and Pagans, during the great persecution initiated by Ambrose. It seems like we have a section missing on the demise of the Ebionites, where we could mention this along with an appropriate literature citation.

Instead of "apostate", we should either clarify the term and say "apostate from Judaism" or just say he was rejected as a "false apostle". It isn't quite enough to say that they rejected Paul's writings.

I don't know if I agree with the approach of introducing Orthodox beliefs and constrasting them with Ebionite beliefs. Presumably, Orthodox Christians already know what they believe. It feels like a more nuanced, educated way of defining Ebionites as heretics or deviants, instead of just saying so directly. Ovadyah 16:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comments. I've started working on the more simple suggestions both you and Alec made. Can you work on the citations? --Loremaster 22:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me clarify just to say when we talk about the "orthodox" beliefs, we shouldn't classify them as "orthodox", and thereby stigmatize Ebionites as "unorthodox heretics". I just mean: explain the debate, explain all sides of the debate, and state which position the ebionites took.

So, about the pre-existence of Jesus-- we state the Ebionites answer to this debate, but we never even really mention the debate itself. Similarly, we say they rejected his divinity, but we don't mention whether there was even a debate about this, etc. It's totally not about calling them deviants-- and it's not even about contrasting them with modern christians. It's just about situating them within the context of their time. For better or worse, sometimes the best way to understand a particular groups beliefs is to contrast them with other alternate groups. For example, imagine trying to explain the Nicean Creed without telling someone about Marcionism, Docetism, Ebionites, or etc. --Alecmconroy 08:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I've added the following sentences in the Lead and History sections:

• "In contrast to the majority of Christian sects which believe Jesus was the incarnation of God the Son and the savior of mankind"
• "Most historical sources agree that Ebionites denied some of the central doctrines of mainstream Christianity such as the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus, the trinity of God, the virgin birth, and the death and resurrection of Jesus as an atonement for sin."

--Loremaster 20:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think something important may have been removed here:

• "They were strong adherents to the necessity of following Jesus' radical interpretation and observation of Jewish religious law, while rejecting the writings of Paul of Tarsus as those of a false apostle.." Ovadyah 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Irenaeus says "apostate from the Law". "False apostle" is more of a summary statement. Ovadyah 02:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the original:

• "Ebionites believed in the necessity of following the Law and observed all the Jewish rites, such as circumcision and the seventh-day Shabbat, while rejecting the writings of Paul of Tarsus as those of a false apostle."

How about this combined version:

• "Ebionites believed in the necessity of following the Law and observed all the Jewish rites, such as circumcision and the seventh-day Shabbat. They were strong adherents to the necessity of following Jesus' radical interpretation and observation of Jewish religious law, while rejecting the writings of Paul of Tarsus as those of a false apostle.." Ovadyah 01:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just before this part, we now have this:

• "Ebionites believed Jesus was only a mortal human being, who became a holy man, figuratively adopted by God to be the last and greatest of the prophets."

Compare it to the previous version:

• "They denied the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus, believing that he was a mortal man, who was adopted as a son of God by virtue of his perfect observation of Jewish Law, and so was chosen to be the last and greatest of the prophets."

An important point now missing is why he was adopted: "because he observed the Law perfectly", according to Hippolytus.

That's what I meant by holy man. --Loremaster 03:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this combined version:

• "Ebionites believed Jesus was a mortal man, who was adopted as a son of God by virtue of his perfect observation of Jewish Law, and so was chosen to be the last and greatest of the prophets."

Two other things we could mention about Ebionites somewhere in the article are that they revered Jerusalem and refused to accept fellowship with Gentiles. Ovadyah 02:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the whole idea of removing some text was to simplify the lead and leave the details for the Beliefs and practices section. Let's trim it a bit and see what if we can both live with the end result. --Loremaster 03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. Ovadyah 13:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the mention of Jerusalem reverence and closed communion towards Gentiles in the two seperate paragraphs in the History section. Can you fix the citations? --Loremaster 03:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Ovadyah 13:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Expounding the Torah

A very interesting 2006 article about Jesus' expounding of Torah in the Sermon on the Mount in the context of Matthean Christians' expulsion from the synagogue and the Birkat ha-Minim. [22]

"For Matthew's argument it was important to defend his conviction that Jesus gave the correct interpretation of the Torah. Jesus' relation to the Torah forms a central motive in his gospel. Thus Jesus is seen as the last and greatest expositor of the Law." Ovadyah 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. We should cite this source for the sentence "Ebionites believed all Jews and Gentiles must observe the Law of Moses; but it must be understood through Jesus' expounding of the Law, which he taught during his Sermon on the Mount." --Loremaster 22:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

More citations

I fixed all the citations in the History section. Ovadyah 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. On to the lead section. As I've mentioned before, Jewish Encyclopedia: Ebionites is the source for the sentence "They called themselves the Poor Ones because they regarded a vow of poverty as a meritorious method of preparation for the Kingdom of Heaven. Accordingly they dispossessed themselves of all their goods and lived in religious communistic societies." --Loremaster 18:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks. Ovadyah 01:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I pulled "was chosen to be the last and greatest of the prophets" from your original version of the article, so I don't know the citation. Ovadyah 02:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My source was Maccoby. I've fixed it. On to the remaining needed citations in the History and Ebionite writings sections. --Loremaster 03:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't have access to my books until the weekend. You may be able to find some of these faster than I can. Ovadyah 13:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll just wait for you then. There are only 2 in the Beliefs and practices section, 1 in the Influence section, and 1 in the Ebionite writings section left to fix. --Loremaster 17:35, 19 December 06 (UTC)

Fixed the first one in Beliefs and Practices and the one in the Writings section. Are there any copyright issues with citing the Catholic and Jewish encyclopedias? Ovadyah 02:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so but I'm not sure. --Loremaster 16:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to find the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia. This has been in the article almost from the beginning. Ovadyah 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Blast from the past. This section was added on Feb 12, 2004 by Wetman. Ovadyah 02:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We have an inconsistency in reference format in the Writings section. References that were from the Catholic Encyclopedia are online, and citations we added later link to the notes section like the rest of the article. Ovadyah 03:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We have to make sure that all citations in the Ebionites article strictly follow Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Loremaster 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

GA On Hold

Overall this article is promising. It is largely verifiable, appears to have a neutral popint of view, and has had a lot of work go into it. The main reasons I have it on hold and not passed are because it still needs some work on having clear, compelling text, could be a little broader in scope, and there are a few more places where it needs citations, most are flagged in the introduction, but the "Ebionite writings" section also needs more cites. When in doubt, add another cite. The article does use a non-standard footnote style, which works, but may be a concern if it goes up for FA status, you may want to look over the wikipedia manual of style and adjust accordingly. You may also want to provide more links to any sources with an online source, and provide ISBN numbers for all texts not online, again see wikipedia citation guidelines for full bibiographical format.

In terms of scope, A little more secular history to put them in the correct subculture and geographic region would be helpful (Were they centered around Jerusalem, scattered throughout Palestine, or confined to remote rural areas, for example?) Perhaps the History section could be broken up into a couple of subheadings so that it has a more logical and easy to follow structure. It is a section that is rather heavy reading. It has a lot of "this expert says this while that other expert says..." material with no clear context as to why anyone would care. Actually, some of this section would be better titled "Beliefs" rather than "History." I suggest that you could also expand the "Influence" paragraph into a section as well.

It would be interesting if you can find and add any additional images (photos of archaeological sites, text fragments, etc...) that relate to the Ebionites, though this has no bearing on getting GA status or not. You may want to briefly note within the caption of the image there why the sermon on the mount is of particular significance as support for the text. Essentially, I'm giving you a bit of time to add some more citations, work a bit more on readability, reorganize a bit, and then we'll take another look. Montanabw 08:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions, Montanabw. --Loremaster 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the Lead to make it as accessible as possible; created sub-sections in the History section; and left some instructions in the Editing Ebionites page. Comments? --Loremaster 21:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting a lot better, intro vastly improved and subsections help a great deal. NPOV getting better too. I'll give you a few more days to get everything polished to your satisfaction, then give me a heads up when you are ready for me to take another look at it. Montanabw 18:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Loremaster 19:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Location, location, location

Where exactly are the "lands of the east, Theyma and Thilmes" mentioned in the Influence section of article? Is there a more well-know and accurate name for this region? --Loremaster 20:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll do more research on this tonight. I think they were in Parthia, which was in the western part of the Persian Empire during Roman times. Ovadyah 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From the map of Benjamin's travels, Parthia looks right (northwestern Iraq). No luck finding an online reference. I sent an email to Shemayah. He is familiar with this source. Ovadyah 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. It's the only needed citation left... until we expand the History section according to the suggestions only visible in the Editing Ebionites page. :) --Loremaster 18:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Theyma and Thilmes are specific towns Benjamin visited within the region of Parthia Arabia, so I would keep this information. Ovadyah 18:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Loremaster 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Found the reference and an online link. Fascinating reading. I was mistaken about Parthia. The Parthian empire ended in the 3rd century, so wrong time-frame. Also, it turns out that Tayma (or Teima) and Tilmas are in western Arabia. You can see Tayma on the map of Benjamin of Tudela's travels on that Wiki page. Ovadyah 04:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. The only thing left to do is expand the History sub-section--Loremaster 04:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul and the High Priest's Daughter

Do we know who the High Priest of this Ebionite folk story was? --Loremaster 23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Epiphanius doesn't say. Ovadyah 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a good guess? I'm inclined to believe it was Annas unless someone can present evidence to the contrary. --Loremaster 04:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be my guess too. I just don't have a source that says so directly. Ovadyah 13:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)