Talk:Ebionites/Archive 2

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Deleted archangel text

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Kingdom of God

message: 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)
replies: text: The Catholic Encyclopedia is public domain. 75.15.201.121 18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I would then argue that the Catholic Encyclopedia is a POV source. --Loremaster 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

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

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

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. I am now satisfied with the 12:03, 10 September 2006 version of the article. --Loremaster 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You're welcome. --Loremaster 19:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toward peer review 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Gospel of Barnabas

message: 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) Jesus is not said in the AJ to complete or fulfill the law, or give a new law.  In fact, he does not alter the law in any way..  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". Martyn, Clementine Recognitions 1, 33-71, Jewish Christianity, and the Fourth Gospel
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." Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects.  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What would this small correction be exactly? --Loremaster 20:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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) .  It's a superb analysis of Panarion 30 and Epiphanius' source documents.  More about this soon. Ovadyah 01:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Ascents of James

message: 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)
replies: text: I think we have our reference. Ovadyah 03:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation for Gospel of Barnabas

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with using CE and BCE. Ovadyah 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AD vs. CE

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

text: More detailed images of the baptistry: .  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 . Ovadyah 01:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: We have our image then, unless you think we need more than one. Ovadyah 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Image for the article

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. --Loremaster 22:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: 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. 
"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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Expounding the Torah

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. --Loremaster 19:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA On Hold

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: OK. --Loremaster 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Perfect. The only thing left to do is expand the History sub-section--Loremaster 04:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location, location, location 

message: Do we know who the High Priest of this Ebionite folk story was? --Loremaster 23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Epiphanius doesn't say. Ovadyah 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That would be my guess too.  I just don't have a source that says so directly. Ovadyah 13:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul and the High Priest's Daughter