Talk:Ebionites/Archive 5

message: With the two recent reverts is wouls seem someone has something to hide.
:No.  It is perfectly acceptable to delete pure propaganda and hate speech, NazireneMystic.  However, it does raise a concern about the illegal phishing of private email communications. Ovadyah 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I mean that you seem to have intercepted a private email that I sent to Shemayah Phillips, informing him that the Ebionites article would be featured on the Wiki main page.  It was just a courtesy, and nothing more than that. :0) Ovadyah 03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't know about that, since I am not on the EJC mailing list.  Are you, NazireneMystic? Ovadyah 03:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember to play nice, everybody. Kevin 05:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop deleting post from this page without talking about the issues.  

message: It's somewhat concerning that all of the references for the "Ebionites were the authentic Christians and Paul was the heretic" works are modern; and all the "Ebionites were the heretics" references are ancient.  This could give rise to the view that scholars once considered the Ebionites to be heretics, but are now universally of the view that they were authentic Christians. Yet there are plenty of modern-day theologians/church historians who consider that the Ebionites were heretics. Could we maybe "culture-jam" this 'narrative' by mentioning one of them? Slac speak up! 03:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find plenty of references to the Ebionites as heretics on the Catholic encyclopedia.  However, they seem to be mostly religious POV rather than scholarly findings by verifiable secondary sources. Ovadyah 03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's simply not true to say that the idea that Ebionites were the original Christians is a modern scholarly consensus.  The POV of scholars not subscribing to this view is not represented. Slac speak up! 00:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead talks about the view of *some* scholars not a scholarly consensus. --Loremaster 01:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it does.  But this article isn't "the views of certain modern scholars and certain Church fathers concerning Ebionites".  To be featured-quality, it has to cite modern scholars - they do exist - who disagree with this view. Slac speak up! 01:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I think the main article could be improved if someone added a map to it, with an arrow indicating where the Ebionites were most often found.198.177.27.33 04:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting suggestion, thank you.  There is a Wiki map of Arabia with some of the cities that Jews with Ebionite practices were said to have lived in.  This could be added or linked to the article. Ovadyah 05:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I was aware of this thread when I deleted the map because I think it was inappropriate in light of the fact that the notion that there were Ebionites communities in Hejaz is highly speculative. We should find a map that focuses on the spread of early Christianity. If one cannot be found, we should focus on finding any image that best represents early Jewish Christianity. --Loremaster 14:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A map would be a good idea. Epiphanius gives a list of where the Ebionites were present.  It includes areas around the Dead Sea and Rome. --Michael C. Price talk 15:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loremaster, the eye-witness testimony accumulated by the travelers mentioned in the article is less speculative than the polemics of the Church Fathers, which is largely based on second-hand testimony and tradition.  The region of Hejaz includes the villages of Tayma and Tilmas described by Benjamin of Tudela as well as the locations described by Shahrastani.  Many readers couldn't put their finger on Arabia on a map, let alone a specific region of Arabia.  I think the map suggestion is a good idea. Ovadyah 16:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Ovadyah, I like  - that's an excellent map and text.  --Michael C. Price talk 20:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. You can add the map back. --Loremaster 17:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Ovadyah 18:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve the article by adding a map 

message: Is this a precise description - ie that one in ten were killed, or is meant by this description that "a lot" or "most" were killed? docboat 07:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern usage, that a lot or most were killed. Ovadyah 12:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To me, "decimation" still means that around 1 in 10 were killed. The modern usage to which you refer is by no means universal. I hesitate to edit a Featured Article, particularly one on a subject that some people hold very strong opinions about, but could I suggest you consider whether there might be an alternative word that doesn't have such a specific and unintended meaning? --Dominic Sayers 14:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I substituted "eliminated" for "decimated" in the text.  However, most people would no longer recognize the word by its precise meaning, unless you were a Latin scholar or a Roman citizen. :0) Ovadyah 14:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks - it is a small issue, but for me (and others) it is important to be precise in the use of language. docboat 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decimation? 

message: :From Talk:Main Page Nil Einne 07:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try asking on Talk:Ebionites, that'd be the better place to ask about the article.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changing it on that page wouldn't fix the Main Page, afaik.  But seriously, if it's going to be billed as a "best known quotation", it ought to be taken from a mainstream translation rather than the current odd (and frankly childish-sounding) rendering.  I suggest that a better translation would be something like the NIV, KJV, NASB, or NRSV.  The current one is awful - and not used in the Beatitudes article, I might add.  The reference is Luke 6:20, available in numerous translations in the link. Vonspringer 03:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Vonspringer, and find the unsigned answer entirely beside the point.  We know nothing of what Jesus said apart from what is in the New Testament, so to refer to his best-known statements means to refer to the best-known Bible-verses (best-known to US), which makes it absurd to cite them in an unfamiliar form. Even if "congratulations" were a good translation of the adjective makarioi (happy), which I doubt. --Doric Loon 10:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The traditional version is more elegant, but also has the problem of OR.  The original version in the article had a verifiable secondary source. Ovadyah 12:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation issue 

message: Below is an message from the group Phillips runs. Remember Ovadyah has actualy voted on other ebionite groups articals of deleteion and has ran countless people off the artical like a bulldog snaping at anyone that adds anything that goes aganist his leaders teaching. Calling almost all changed not approved by him "vandalous POV". Is this the making of a featured artical? I would say that a pretty low standard.
To revert this artical back to a billboard for his group the opinions of some scholars had to be snuffed entirely and then thier dead links dropped while others misrepresented. All to please this editor that we are suspsed to assume good faith in?
The assumptions of the wikipedians have been abused.
--- In evyonim@yahoogroups.com, Shemayah Phillips <spgehr@...> wrote:
Ovadyah wrote:
> Shalom Shemayah,
>
> Just thought you would like to know.  Fewer than 1/1000 articles
make it
> to Featured Article.  FA status should make it easier to fend off
> malicious mischief from our moonbeam friends in the future.
>
> The EJC stub is now well referenced.  The source of specific
content may
> be challenged, but now it's highly unlikely that the entire article
can
> be deleted.  The EJC is here to stay!
>
> Both the Ebionites and EJC articles are now listed under the
Project
> Judaism template.
>
> My next project is to work on improving an article on the
Desposyni.
> Currently, the article has a very conservative Catholic bias.  The
major
> secondary source is Malachi Martin.
>
> Take care,
>
> Ovadyah
>
And so the need for non-profit is clear to me. Shemayah
--- End forwarded message ---
Kind regards, NazireneMystic
So now truth" is being defined as "malicious mischief"?
:Please refrain from posting private email correspondence in public places.  I find it hard to believe that this email was reposted to the EJC list, which is supposedly a controlled list.  That would mean it was more likely phished with some kind of redirect. Ovadyah 12:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the reason for the push for FA status? Ovadyah  has an lot of explaining to do along with a few other editors! 

message: I read on the front page, "there's no evidence, i.e. their nature can't be..". Shouldn't it read "their nature or even if they even existed"? --Leladax 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the terminology used is clearer then what you propose. The current wording makes it clear that there is no definite archaelogical evidence so we don't know if they existed and if they did what they were like and whether any of the history we have is true Nil Einne 13:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually Jesus says exactly that, that some scholars believe he didn't exist and points to the Historicity of Jesus article (although I stick with my point above, it is not necessary to modify the wording, it's perfectly clear as is) Nil Einne 19:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is wikipedia afraid to say the obvious, that they may not have been even existed? 

message: Thankfully, the awful "congratulations" translation (aka "the Scholars' [sic] Version") has been replaced with the better known version. But that's by the by - why is this particular quote in the first section? Is it claimed to relate directly to Ebionites, or to be a pillar of their lifestyle? If the former, how can this be proven when other writers have claimed that it refers to Essenes, or more likely, simply poor people.--MacRusgail 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The connection was made by Tabor and Eisenman, among others.  After much discussion on the talk page, now archived, the prevailing decision among the editors was that the views of multiple notable and verifiable secondary sources should be presented in the article. Ovadyah 13:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luke 6.20 

message: I think it is questionable to assert as fact that Paul of Tarsus introduced a brand of Christianity that rivaled James'. Further, I don't know that it is accurate to assert that Jame's brand of Christianity (whatever it was) is closer to the Historical Jesus' idea of what Jesus intended. Jesus lived as a Jew and for the most part observed the customs required of him. However, he certainly broke with many customs and pushed the limits on many issues. For which reason, any trajectory of his intent cannot be content to rest in a simple and straight forward observance of Jewish law and custom, he was clearly strecthing the boundaries. Thus, it makes sense that his followers would keep pushing boundaries.
Also, there were certainly many more communities out there in the early decades of Christianity, for whom Paul's actions would not have been decisive. The Paul v James dynamic grossly overstates the dynamic at the time. If Paul was immensely succesful and influential, it was because his teaching resonated with the spirit of the wider Christian community. In addition, Paul's letters and writings, I think should be seen as a reflection of his influence and not the cause. If we think of it that way and consider that that was not the CNN age of speedy information distribution, Paul simply could not have been that influential in a movement that was so widespread so quickly, if there were not at least multiple seeds of ideas out there that resonated with his.
Onoekeh 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As to your first point, that may be so.  However, it is a viewpoint being articulated by a number of scholars that have studied the Ebionites.  It's not sufficient for an editor to say that the views of multiple verifiable sources are unlikely or untrue.  Your second point may also be possible, but it is an argument from silence. Ovadyah 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul v James v Historical Jesus 

message: We need to make access to the primary sources in Wikisource clearer than just a passing reference in the lead.  I'm going to create a section below References for now. Ovadyah 18:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Sources

message: Um, according to Acts, James never forged any compromise concerning the Noahide Laws... Acts 15:19-20 says: "It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood" (NAB). The Noahide Law, at least according to its article, is a set of six rules that encompasses some but not all (e.g., "the meat of strangled animals") of the provisions in Acts, and has quite a few besides (e.g., the requirement to set up a government). This has to be changed. Korossyl 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  The Noahide Laws are only superficially similar to Acts 15.  I have changed the text to reflect this.  In fact, the pseudo-Clementines have a set of laws much closer to the Noahides, but that is not relevant to this part of the article.  The ps-Cl make it clearer that "the meat of strangled animals" is "meat of animals strangled by wild beasts", i.e. don't eat the roadkill.  On second thought, Acts 15 could also refer in this context to meat from animals that are improperly slaughtered and still contain blood. Ovadyah 21:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! ...pseudo-clementines, huh? That's like a... pseudo-pseudo-orange. Korossyl 22:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could say that!  For more info, see my detailed commentary on the Noahide Laws talk page regarding the similarities and differences to the ps-Cl. Ovadyah 22:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The current version of the Ebionites article doesn't claim that Ebionites followed Noahide Laws. However, it was James Tabor who argued in his essay Nazarenes and Ebionites - An Introduction that the Ebionites accepted "non-Jews into their fellowship on the basis of some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15 and 21)" and had a "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." --Loremaster 15:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noahide? 

message: Shemayah Phillips, shemayah@ebionite.org--207.144.255.252 19:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy?

message: I have doubts of the factual accuracy of the following sentence (which I presumed used James Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty as a source) in the History section:
:After the death of James in 62, the movement fled Jerusalem across the Jordan River to Pella, Jordan. Another of Jesus' relatives, Simeon of Jerusalem, led the community. After Simeon's execution c. 106, the Ebionite theology began to disperse throughout Southwest Asia, but was eclipsed by Pauline Christianity, which spread throughout the Roman Empire.
I have rephrased it and sourced it with a work of Hyam Maccoby:
:Once the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 ended the First Jewish-Roman War, the primacy of the Jerusalem church began to fade and Jewish Christianity dispersed itself throughout the Jewish diaspora in Southwest Asia; it was slowly eclipsed by Pauline Christianity, which had previously been struggling to survive against the disapproval of Jerusalem but now could spread throughout the Roman Empire without impediment.
Any comments or objections? --Loremaster 05:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the flight to Pella, Eisenman's James the Just is also a source. --Michael C. Price talk 06:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According Church history, "before the Jewish War against Rome broke out in AD 66 the whole Nazarene community, warned by an oracle, left Jerusalem and went to Pella in Transjordania." Maccoby argues "that this story is merely a legend has been well demonstrated by S. F. G. Brandon, and confirmed by later research. The Jerusalem Nazarenes never left the city at the time of the Jewish War; they stayed there and played their part, as loyal Jews, in the fight against Rome. When the Jews were broken by the Romans and their Temple destroyed in AD 70, the Jewish Christians shared in the horrors of the defeat, and the Jerusalem Nazarenes were dispersed to Caesarea and other cities, even as far as Alexandria in Egypt. Its power and influence as the Mother Church and centre of the Jesus movement was ended; and the Pauline Christian movement, which up to AD 66 had been struggling to survive against the strong disapproval of Jerusalem, now began to make great headway. It was not until nearly seventy years later that a Christian Church was reconstituted in Jerusalem, after the city had been devastated by the Romans for the second time (after the Bar Kokhba revolt) and rebuilt as a Gentile city called Aelia Capitolina. This new Christian Church had no continuity with the early 'Jerusalem Church' ed by James. Its members were Gentiles, as Eusebius testifies, and its doctrines were those of Pauline Christianity. It attempted, however, to claim continuity with the early 'Jerusalem Church', in accordance with the Pauline policy (evinced in the New Testament book of Acts) of denying the rift between Paul and the Jerusalem elders. The Pella legend was developed in order to give colour to this alleged continuity, since some of the members of the new Church had come from Pella. Jerusalem, however, never regained its former centrality. In the now dominant Pauline Christian Church, the centre was Rome; while the descendants of the former proud 'Jerusalem Church', now scattered and poor (for which reason, probably, they acquired the nickname of Ebionites', from the Hebrew evyonim, meaning 'poor men') were despised as heretics, since they refused to accept the doctrines of Paul." --Loremaster 06:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no problem with all POVs being presented. --Michael C. Price talk 07:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you don't but my point is why should we highlight a "Chalcedonian legend" in this article especially when it isn't essential to understanding the history of the Ebionites? --Loremaster 07:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your approach is fundamentally wrong.  You are still -- after numerous corrections -- judging content, which is expressly forbidden.  You are making a judgement that this is just a legend; other sources disagree.  This is why I have no patience with you, Loremaster; all this has been explained (and even agreed!) many times but you always revert back to your old behaviour patterns.  Wikipedia is not the place for you to conduct your own original research, to strip articles of the presentation of divergent POVs and core content by the monolithic presentation of an attempted judgemental synthesis.--Michael C. Price talk 07:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the third time, please avoid the personal attacks and needlessly inflammatory language. I am not judging content nor engaging in original research. First, by "legend", I meant to say a "POV presented as fact". Second, I am simply asking you why is this information essential to understanding the history of the Ebionites regardless of whether or not is is a legend. Also, can you provide one source which explicitly states that Ebionites fled to Pella? --Loremaster 08:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you are judging content.  Second presenting a referenced POV is not presenting something as fact -- simply represent the other referenced POVs as well.  Third, I have already given you two references for the flight to Pella: Eisenman and Tabor. --Michael C. Price talk 09:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael is right about this.  Although the narrative of the flight to Pella may be a "legend", it was mentioned in writings attributed to Hegesippus c165-175, or more probably Aristo of Pella c150, and recorded by Eusebius in Historia Ecclesiastica 3:5:3, by Epiphanius in Panarion 29:7:7-8, 30:2:7 and On Weights and Measures 15, and in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1:39:3.  The multiple primary witnesses for this "legend" are solid support for Tabor and Eisenman as secondary sources. Ovadyah 14:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ovadyah, I am not disputing this information which I was already aware of. See my comments below. However, I am questioning whether or not Tabor and Eisenman make explicit reference to Ebionites when discussing the flight to Pella. --Loremaster 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Micheal, first, you haven't answered my question: Why is this information essential to understanding the history of the Ebionites, regardless of whether or not it is referenced, since in the process of summarizing any subject there are always facts and POVs that are mentioned and others that are not. Second, I am actually asking for an explicit quote such as the one I provide above since that would be helpful to decide if and how to best incorporate this referenced POV. --Loremaster 14:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, since the last thing I want is to continue debating with Micheal, I've simply added a mention of the flight to Pella with the proper caveat. --Loremaster 16:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the reference. I've added it to the article. --Loremaster 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you. This answers all the questions I had for Micheal. --Loremaster 16:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight to Pella? 

message: Loremaster, you frequently archive talk threads before they are complete -- it's one of your more odious characteristics -- especially when they show material that you find embarrassing. As for being offensive, I find your protesting that you are not pushing a POV as you overwrite material with your own non-consensual changes that violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV very offensive.--Michael C. Price talk 17:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no material that I've archived that I find "embarrasing". I can honestly say I've only archived talk threads when I've perceived them to be complete. I've never had any problem restoring talk threads when people have complained that they were not complete. For the record, I hope everyone has noted how, despite MichaelCPrice's constant personal attacks against me and my numerous request for him to stop, I've always remained civil. --Loremaster 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only archived talk threads when I've perceived to be complete -- which is the problem.  You archive them when you perceive them to be complete.  Ever thought of asking other people first????? --Michael C. Price talk 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I've asked in the past, people never answered so I stopped asking. Like I said, I've never had any problem restoring talk threads when people have complained that they were not complete, which doesn't happen often. --Loremaster 17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's something people complain of here a lot -- so stop.  In future ask and wait a day or two.  Then you can archive if no one complains  or responds. --Michael C. Price talk 18:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, NazireneMystic has been the main (and loud) complainer but, as you know, all his complaints must always been taken with a grain of salt since he always sees conspiracies where there are none. --Loremaster 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what I've usually always done. --Loremaster 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you ask before archiving the flight to Pella dialogue?--Michael C. Price talk 18:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No because I didn't feel I needed to, since I restored, with the proper caveat, the very content I was disputing, there was nothing left to debate. --Loremaster 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly; You didn't ask because you didn't think it was necessary.  That's the problem. --Michael C. Price talk 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of the fact that the debate was about whether or not to restore content I disputed which I ended up restoring, did or do you have anything more to add to the talk thread on the flight to pella? Did you or anyone else complain when I archived that talk thread? Is the archived talk thread unaccesable? Is anything preventing you from starting a new talk thread on this topic? Is anything preventing you from cut-and-pasting some of the content of the archived talk thread in a new talk thread? Regardless of your answers, my point is that, unlike other cases, in this particular case it was obviously NOT necessary to ask therefore there is no problem. --Loremaster 15:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of your answers pretty much sums up your whole attitude, doesn't it? --Michael C. Price talk 17:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since your answers are always interwoven with personal attacks, which are the expression of a belligerent attitude inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines of behavior, I do confess to not being concerned by them. --Loremaster 17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A nice way to avoid facing the fact that, despite claiming that you "generally" ask before archiving, you intend to carry on acting as judge, jury and executioner, archiving any thread as it suits you, despite the frequent protests on these talk pages (mostly archived, of courtse!).--Michael C. Price talk 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The frequent protests mostly come from one fanatical individual who is out to push a self-serving POV and sees conspiracies where there are none. That being said, I agree that I have and will archive *some* talk threads without asking when I perceive them to be complete. Sue me. --Loremaster 18:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for being honest about your egotistical behaviour - eventually.  Oh and BTW, more than one individual has complained about stuff being archived away at the speed of light.--Michael C. Price talk 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with being "egotistical" since the only reason why I'm archiving talk threads that I perceive to be complete is so that we can all better focus on those that are not. That being said, although I am not criticizing him for it, much of the talk thread archiving that has generated complaints was done by Ovadyah rather than me. However, I take full responsibility for those that I have done.  --Loremaster 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk thread archiving

message: Keith Akers wrote a critique of an earlier version of this article. For those interested see Wikipedia on the Ebionites. nirvana2013 10:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  The commentary contains many telling points and, although I don't agree with it all, it is useful input.  --Michael C. Price talk 11:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Loremaster and I both read Keith's review and tried to incorporate some of his views in subsequent improvements to the article.  The major POV Keith pushes on his website that we left out was vegetarianism.  This "vegetarian Jesus" stuff was argued to death several years ago.  Imho, it's yet another example of New Age spirituality masquerading as Ebionitism to claim "legitimacy". Ovadyah 12:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vegetarianism was not done to death, it was dismissed in an offhand unscholarly fashion, of which the above is an example. Eisenman and other secondary sources lay great stress on the vegetarianism of the Ebionites (John the Baptist and James the Just, for example) and the Essenes.  Dismissing it as new age rubbish is not NPOV, it is POV and another example of how the article has slid towards a collection of ragtail prejudices rather than just reporting the secondary sources.--Michael C. Price talk 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Excuse me!  See Archive 1 for all the discussion on this I am aware of.  If you think something should be added then by all means have at it. :^0 Ovadyah 15:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking back over the archives, I agree with you.  The editorial standards were not nearly as high in the past.  The crucible that this article has been through over the last year has raised them considerably, and that's a good thing for the article and for Wiki. Ovadyah 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ovadyah, you're starting to give me hope for the future of the article.--Michael C. Price talk 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe you were the first and only person to use the term Vandalous POV, and you have applied it to me frequently.  Character assassination will get you nowhere on Wikipedia.  The more you attack me, the more you discredit yourself.  You attack me as a diversion because you have nothing rational to say.  Nobody here is fooled by your behavior.  It simply reveals the extent of your desperation to be noticed. Ovadyah 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you really combing through the edit logs back to mid-2005 to pull this stuff up?  How humorous! :^D Ovadyah 23:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You repeatedly mention unamed sources that were dismissed, yet when we challenge you to bring the specific content of those sources here, you have nothing to say to support your arguments.  Ebionites is a featured article.  If you think something is missing or misrepresented then prove it. Ovadyah 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of this article 

message: I've been trying to edit the Jesus section in order to restore or edit some content but there seems to be a technical problem preventing me. Is anyone else facing this problem? --Loremaster 15:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me, although it looks as if it should have some paragraph breaks which don't appear, so perhaps there is something awry.--Michael C. Price talk 19:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a wiki code typo which I fixed. --Loremaster 14:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jesus Section 

message: I've removed the following sentence from the Legacy section until someone who has read his works can confirm it:
:The legacy of the Ebionites is debated.  Scholar Hans-Joachim Schoeps argued that the primary influence of the Ebionites was on the nontrinitarian origins of Islam due to their exchanges with the first Muslims.
--Loremaster 06:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied the Schoeps content and reference here so it doesn't get buried in the archives.  I will try again to find a copy. Ovadyah 17:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the mention of the role of the Ebionites in the origin of Islam but a new citation is needed since no one has read Schoeps to confirm that he explored the issue. --Loremaster 21:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The German text that Str translated below is based on Schoeps and a reference was included. Ovadyah 21:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I'll restore the original sentence and reference then. --Loremaster 14:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Schoeps revisited

message: Perhaps my previous words of caution were too subtle.  Featured articles do not need "cleanup" or any other disputed tags.  If you disagree with the content or layout of the article, that's why we have a talk page and a /wip page to try things out. I will take anyone that tags this article to AN/I and have you blocked. Ovadyah 14:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I forgot about the fact that it is a featured article (though how this came about is beyond me). The "history" section will nonetheless require a clean-up some time soon. Str1977 (smile back) 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, no problem. Ovadyah 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree. The History section needs a clean-up to better differentiate facts from speculations. The introductory paragraph I added was the first step. --Loremaster 21:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging the article

message: Mark Goodacre recently dropped me a note and said he liked the article.  For those who don't know, Mark is a renowned scholar in NT studies at Duke U.  He is perhaps best known for his work on Synoptic Problem (The Case Against Q).  It's nice to know we have the attention of academics in the field.  I invited Mark to work with us to further improve the article. Ovadyah 14:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. If true, this can used as one of many arguments for why Ebionites was chosen to be a featured article. --Loremaster 16:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If true?  I sent you the email of our correspondence, so I guess you can decide for yourself if it's true. Ovadyah 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I believe you. I was just being careful. --Loremaster 22:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise for the Ebionites article

message: Ovadyah,
If you have any, could you make a list of issues you have with the article beyond the ones regarding the Essenism section. If you don't have any, I will be taking a break from editing the article for next few weeks. --Loremaster 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will take a thorough look at it this weekend.  I want to compare the current article to the article as it was just before the day it was featured.  I still have this nagging feeling some things were removed by all the drive-by editors.  Rather than insert them, I will bring whatever I find here. Ovadyah 17:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. --Loremaster 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Understood. --Loremaster 02:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a sentence I orginally wrote which I decided to delete due to Str1977's criticisms. The Eisenman reference, however, was deleted by mistake so I will restore it. --Loremaster 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to think about this one.  It makes the important point that the Ebionites did not regard Peter as being in the line of succession.  I can see why our Catholic friend would find this hard to bear, but that's consistent with the family patriarchy of the Desposyni.  If our verifiable sources said this, it should be put back. Ovadyah 03:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to put back the entire sentence. Simply restoring the mention of Peter should be sufficient. --Loremaster 04:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Ovadyah 04:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a sentence I originally wrote which I decided to delete due to Str1977's criticisms. --Loremaster 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with leaving this out.  It's a speculation about why the Ebionites denounced Paul as an apostate.  Epiphanius never said anything like this, so it's just editorializing. Ovadyah 04:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. --Loremaster 04:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a sentence I originally wrote which I decided to intergrate into the second paragraph of the History section. --Loremaster 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. But the resulting one-sentence section seems awkward.  Maybe JTB and James should be combined into an All Other bucket. Ovadyah 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could report the claims made by Eisenman and Tabor about John the Baptist and his relationship to Jesus if they are at variance with the traditional Christian portrayal. Otherwise, no need to bother to report fact that Christians don't dispute. --Loremaster 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a sentence I originally wrote which I decided to delete after realizing it wasn't supported by the reference I provided. --Loremaster 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough. Ovadyah 04:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Can you write here your ideal version of the Essenism section so we can debate it? --Loremaster 03:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  I will put my version on the Ebionites/wip page. Ovadyah 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. This should be our priority cause the current version is dubious to say the least. --Loremaster 04:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to edit this section to make these changes. --Loremaster 04:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did this once already and Str immediately reverted my changes.  Please explain to him that the Summary style should be used where possible rather than lists.  I will make the necessary changes. Ovadyah 04:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of what happened in the past. I will support your changes if Str disputes them again. --Loremaster 04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Understood. --Loremaster 04:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ovadyah's criticisms 

message: The Writings and Archaeology sections are in good shape after a few minor reversions.  Some references are missing elsewhere, which I will detail shortly.  I'm doing the easy stuff first.  Ovadyah 02:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. --Loremaster 02:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Writings and Archaeology

message: The clause in italics was deleted along with the Eisenman reference.  Was this clause an editorial POV or deleted by a POV? Ovadyah 03:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a sentence I orginally wrote which I decided to delete due to Str1977's criticisms. The Eisenman reference, however, was deleted by mistake so I will restore it. --Loremaster 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to think about this one.  It makes the important point that the Ebionites did not regard Peter as being in the line of succession.  I can see why our Catholic friend would find this hard to bear, but that's consistent with the family patriarchy of the Desposyni.  If our verifiable sources said this, it should be put back. Ovadyah 03:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to put back the entire sentence. Simply restoring the mention of Peter should be sufficient. --Loremaster 04:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Ovadyah 04:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: James the Just

message: The clause in italics was deleted along with a reference to 2Cor.  Again, was this clause an editorial POV or deleted by one? Ovadyah 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a sentence I originally wrote which I decided to delete due to Str1977's criticisms. --Loremaster 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with leaving this out.  It's a speculation about why the Ebionites denounced Paul as an apostate.  Epiphanius never said anything like this, so it's just editorializing. Ovadyah 04:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. --Loremaster 04:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul of Tarsus

message: Same type of thing going on here.  The references are ok. Ovadyah 03:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a sentence I originally wrote which I decided to intergrate into the second paragraph of the History section. --Loremaster 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. But the resulting one-sentence section seems awkward.  Maybe JTB and James should be combined into an All Other bucket. Ovadyah 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could report the claims made by Eisenman and Tabor about John the Baptist and his relationship to Jesus if they are at variance with the traditional Christian portrayal. Otherwise, no need to bother to report fact that Christians don't dispute. --Loremaster 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John the Baptist

message: The first two paragraphs are ok.
Similar to the others, content was deleted along with the reference. Ovadyah 03:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a sentence I originally wrote which I decided to delete after realizing it wasn't supported by the reference I provided. --Loremaster 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough. Ovadyah 04:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus

message: These sections are all ok.  The new Essenism section needs work. Ovadyah 03:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Can you write here your ideal version of the Essenism section so we can debate it? --Loremaster 03:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  I will put my version on the Ebionites/wip page. Ovadyah 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. This should be our priority cause the current version is dubious to say the least. --Loremaster 04:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy, Judaism, Gnosticism

message: Please get rid of the bullet points once and for all.  A clause was added to Justin Martyr, "whom he considers heretics".  This is factually untrue.  JM said their salvation was at risk.  Irenaeous was the first to call them heretics.  I'm not sure I like this as a separate section from History, but let's leave it for now. Ovadyah 04:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to edit this section to make these changes. --Loremaster 04:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did this once already and Str immediately reverted my changes.  Please explain to him that the Summary style should be used where possible rather than lists.  I will make the necessary changes. Ovadyah 04:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of what happened in the past. I will support your changes if Str disputes them again. --Loremaster 04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patristic sources

message: The last paragraph about al-Jabbar et al. is ok.  The rest of the History section needs work as you said.  Unfortunately, I don't have the energy to work on it tonight. Ovadyah 04:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. --Loremaster 04:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History