Talk:Ebionites/Archive 3

message: Loremaster, I propose that we ask IZAK and/or Jayjg to give the article one more look and ask one of them to nominate the article for review to become a Featured Article.  Is this acceptable? Ovadyah 20:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. --Loremaster 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I contacted IZAK and asked him to review the article.  Hopefully, he can find the time. Ovadyah 05:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I also contacted Jayjg and asked him to review the article.  Slrubenstein made several suggestions of potential reviewers that are knowledgeable in this area.  I will follow-up with them shortly. Ovadyah 16:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Bravo! --Loremaster 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article Nomination

message: By the way, what do you think of the article as it currently is? I've tried as much as possible to take NazireneMystic's criticisms into account. --Loremaster 17:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixed. --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixed. However, the concept of the "kingdom of heaven" is in the Gospel of Matthew. --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  But the Greek Matthew we know is Paulinized.  Symmachus specifically refuted it as a fake.  I think this is much closer than the Christian version: .  The Ebionite distinction is the social justice you mention in the article. Ovadyah 23:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I knew that. --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... I've done some word-smithing and referenced Hippolytus but I disagree with your view of this passage since its fairly obvious that following Jewish law implies conversion to Judaism, especially in light of the first sentence of the next paragraph. --Loremaster 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm guessing that Tabor is basing his speculation on his interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. We simply need to make it clear that this is Tabor's suggestion. --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixed. What is the Jewish word for "table fellowship"? --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm searching for the right word in Hebrew that describes this.  The Greek word that comes closest is koinonia. Ovadyah 23:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Once you do find the Hebrew word and hopefully the Wikipedia article on the subject, we will redirect the link to table fellowship page towards it. --Loremaster 00:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have inserted table fellowship for now. Ovadyah 00:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. --Loremaster 02:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixed. --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed. So what did Schoeps actually say? --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't own a copy of Schoeps, so I can't tell you. Ovadyah 23:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed the potentially inflammatory word "blasphemously" which was mine. However, I took the rest of the sentence from the Messianic Judaism and Jews for Jesus articles so it would be ridiculous for someone to be offended. --Loremaster 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Perfect. --Loremaster 00:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on recent changes

message: I've replaced the sentence "Without a consensus among scholars, the issue remains contentious" with "The reliability of Epiphanius' claims, which is refuted by some scholars, is extremely contentious for various sects of modern Ebionite revivalists" since this is what I originally meant when I wrote the former. This is an opportunity to cite all the scholars in question. --Loremaster 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I interpreted this sentence to mean that the issue remains contentious among scholars, which is why I had a cite here before.  I removed the cite because I thought it was obvious from the context of the preceeding paragraph.  A neutral source reporting a conflict between the two groups is unlikely. Ovadyah 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the sentence. We need to cite scholars who refute the reliability of Epiphanius. --Loremaster 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See The Ascents of James in Archive 2.  Van Voorst states this, and so do Klijn & Reinink, which is what I had there originally. Ovadyah 19:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Please add them as citations. --Loremaster 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Ovadyah 20:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contention 

message: All these quotes of Origen are from Jacob Rabinowitz's manuscript.  I'll validate them later. Ovadyah 03:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Origen doesn't seem to be saying anything different or new. Do you still feel we should include him in some way? --Loremaster 08:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only for De Principiis, where he actually states that evyonim means poor, and the mention of Annanias. Ovadyah 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's include his mention of their name but leave out the mention of Annanias. --Loremaster 18:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it and I will edit if necessary. --Loremaster 20:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Ovadyah 21:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. --Loremaster 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Question: Are Annas and Annanias the same person? --Loremaster 10:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm checking into it. Ovadyah 14:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Origen is referring to an incident in Acts 23.2, where Annanius ben Nebedeus struck Paul during his trial in Jerusalem.  So, they are clearly not the same person.  My mistake. Ovadyah 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origen on Ebionites

message: On 21st February 2006, a member of the Ebionite Jewish Community sent me the following message:
"This is concerning a quotation about two years ago:
However, there is an ancient Ebionite sect in North Africa that claims to have no broken links dating back to Y'shua and they are actually messianic. They accept he full messiahship of Y'shua. There was a special on 60 minutes a few years back where they interviewed this ebionite sect and on their tombstones they had the Mogan David as well as the cross. Judaism rejected them as a valid form of Judaism because of their messianic leanings. As well, these North African Ebionites claimed to have direct descendence of Levite bloodlines. 60 minutes did extensive gene sampling and found it to be a true claim.
Anyway I was wondering if you remembered any details about this or could provide proof of such things. I saw your post and was intrigued by it, but Shemayah Phillips thinks it is a hoax."
Ovadyah, have you ever heard about this? --Loremaster 19:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I haven't. Ovadyah 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you email Shemayah to find out if he ever got any information confirming or refuting this claim about modern Ebionites in North Africa? --Loremaster 00:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just sent him an email. Ovadyah 01:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --Loremaster 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Summarizing his comments, he doesn't have any additional information and still thinks it's a fake. Ovadyah 02:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Ebionites in North Africa? 

message: Scholar Hans-Joachim Schoeps, however, argues that the primary influence of Ebionites on mainstream Christianity was to aid in the defeat of gnosticism.
Since User:NazireneMystic has disputed the veracity of this sentence (the orginal version of which was added by anonymous user 4.227.194.130 at 16:45, 30 July 2005), we need someone who has access to Schoeops' works to verify it. --Loremaster 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will ask around.  If that fails, I will purchase the book, if it's still in print, and check for myself. Ovadyah 00:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. --Loremaster 00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found someone that claims to have a copy of Schoeps.  If I don't hear back from them in the next few days, I will look into purchasing a copy. Ovadyah 16:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. --Loremaster 00:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the mention of anti-gnosticism for now. --Loremaster 13:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Schoeps, Ebionites and Anti-Gnosticism

message: Alec, can you comment on NPOV, undue weight, and minority opinions along the lines discussed above? Ovadyah 02:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC Comments

message: I don't foresee making any major changes to the Ebionites article. I consider it to be stable and almost perfect as it currently is. --Loremaster 21:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we are very, very close.  There are a couple of things left to look at.  I'm going to put some quotations from Origen about the Ebionites on the talk page and work on that.  Origen gives direct testimony that he knows Ebionites means "poor men".  That is worth adding to the History section.  The other thing we can work on is evidence for the demise of the Ebionites in the Roman Empire, presumably soon following the decree of Theodotian near the end of the 4th century.  We also need to tidy up the format of the references.  Montanabw said something about the Notes section being non-standard. Ovadyah 23:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Let's proceed. However, I think the standardizing the Notes section should be our priority. --Loremaster 23:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whew!  Let's keep the momentum going. Ovadyah 17:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you already have a source for evidence ofr the demise of the Ebionites in the Roman Empire, following the decree of Theodotian near the end of the 4th century or will you have to search for one? --Loremaster 09:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed this.  No, I don't have one at hand.  Just recall from prior reading. Ovadyah 23:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Loose ends

message: And I thought I had problems working with CS.  You guys ever hear of a p-ss-ng contest?  How's this for an idea.  Why don't we change partners.  I have no problem at all working with Michael.  Michael, why don't you and I develop ideas together on the talk page and present our joint ideas to CS and Loremaster for comments.  CS and Loremaster can do the same.  I know this probably sounds hopelessly naive, but it's got to be better than this sniping. Ovadyah 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how such discussions can be ring-fenced.  I think we just have to try to be more dispassionate.  --Michael C. Price talk 12:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point.  I'm good with dispassionate. Ovadyah 15:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My modest proposal

message: I wrote the following sentence in the lead of the Ebionites article:
:in contrast to the dominant Christian sects that came to believe Jesus was the incarnation of God the Son and the savior of mankind.
My point was not to imply that early Christians did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and only started to after 325 CE. It was to reflect that the fact that the early Christian view of Jesus was not as monolithic as many people think it was, and that it evolved over time. The Arian controversy being the best example of this fact. I'm open to finding a better way to convey this to the reader. --Loremaster 02:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you aren't contrasting them with the Arian sects.  You're contrasting them with the 'dominant' ie Orthodox sects and there is no clear evidence that they ever "evolved" as you put it, a belief in Jesus divinity. I know some people hold this POV, but it is controversial and should not be stated as fact, as well as directly contradicts the evidence of the 4 canonical Gospels as we know them. So please go back to the more neutral wording approved by Alex. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As always, you are misinterpreting what we say. --Loremaster 02:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well are you going to explain then, or just make ad hominems? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite simple. It is a fact that the nature of Jesus's divinity was debated before and after his death among Christians. However, over time, a consensus began to build which ultimately led to the Nicene Creed of the First Council of Nicea. --Loremaster 06:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an established fact that the debate started before Jesus's death.  The sources were not compiled until decades later. --Michael C. Price talk 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course but these sources imply that the debate started before Jesus's death. --Loremaster 09:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on your POV whether you believe that, of course.  Either way, it is still not as simple as you stated.  --Michael C. Price talk 09:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing simple about stating that there was a debate. --Loremaster 09:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but there is in stating that it is a "simple" fact that is started prior to Jesus's death. --Michael C. Price talk 09:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  *sigh* When I said "simple", I meant that what I said should be easy to understand without extensive explanation. --Loremaster 10:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And obviously it wasn't simple, otherwise you wouldn't still be trying to explain it now.  And, BTW before we lose sight of where we started from, your original statement is still incorrect: it is not an established fact that the debate over Jesus's divinity started before Jesus's death. --Michael C. Price talk 10:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that we are still trying to explain it now is my very point. There always was and always will be a debate. And like I said before, all the sources we have, regardless of how unfair and unbalanced they may be, try to convince us that there was a debate before the death of Jesus. That's the fact that I am alluding to. --Loremaster 10:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all the sources.  And the early debates were over whether Jesus was the  messsiah (Davidic "son of Man"); only later did this expand to include whether he was the divine "son of God".--Michael C. Price talk 10:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Mark would be an earlier source, of course, but even so there is nothing in Luke 9:18-24 that addresses Jesus's divinity.  It is, as I said, a debate over whether Jesus is choosen by God to be the messiah or "son of Man".--Michael C. Price talk 10:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The question of the divinity of Jesus is interwoven with these terms in light of everything else that is said in the gospels. --Loremaster 10:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That being said, I don't see why were are debating this since I've already agreed to a compromise that should satisfy both CS and Alec. Good night, Michael. --Loremaster 10:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We were discussing it because you made a dismissive, incorrect statement. --Michael C. Price talk 10:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I obviously disagree that my statement was incorrect and I resent the accusation that I was being dismissive. Are we done? --Loremaster 11:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you don't seem to have specific evidence that backs up your claim, yes we are done.--Michael C. Price talk 11:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, I've given you specific evidence but we don't interpret it the same way. Understood with the context of the rest of the gospels, the issue of the divinity of Jesus is linked to how the disciples interpreted the nature of the Messiah or the Son of Man. Regardless, this is a tangential issue, which at this late time at night, I am not interested in researching and supporting more than I already have. --Loremaster 11:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the gospel evidence for Jesus's divinity comes from John c. 90–110, which was the last written.  By contrast the earliest synoptic gospel, Mark c. 68–73, has no such evidence, which suggests (to me, anyway) that the debate started some considerable time after Jesus's death.  I don't see how this can be regarded as a tangential issue to the Ebionite position and historicity.  Regardless, sleep well.  --Michael C. Price talk 11:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By divinity, I am refering to a close relationship to God as either his prophet, his Son, one of his angels, God himself, etc. Anyway, sleep well. --Loremaster 11:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A pretty broad definition of "divinity" not shared by most people (including the Ebionites who would have accepted Jesus's divinity by this usage, which they did not).  Moses would also be divine by this standard. --Michael C. Price talk 11:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True but its tangential because the issue was whether or not early Christians came to believe he was divine or always thought he was divine from Day 1. Wait a minute... Doesn't your argument backs up the notion that early Christians came to believe was divine years later? :) --Loremaster 12:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, some of them -- but evidently not the Ebionites (although that might depend on whether you classify them as "early Christians").  Your use of the smiley puzzles me, and leads me to wonder what assumptions you have made about my beliefs.  :-)   --Michael C. Price talk 12:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm comfortable with that compromise. --Loremaster 09:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also comfortable with it.  I have stayed out of this debate (whew!), but Loremaster is right about this.  Both Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria comment that all the knowledge of the apostles had been lost.  It's an argument for another day in another article. Ovadyah 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite right.  What stance the four canonical gospels take on Jesus's divinity is another hotly disputed issue, and just as above, it too is a can of worms we don't need to debate in order to explain the Ebionites.  I remove the reference to the four canonical gospels.  I also notice in the next sentence that we say the Ebionite strictly adhered to Jesus' interpretation of the law-- that too is problematic, as _all_ variants of christianity would say THEY are adhereing to Jesus's interpretation of the law.  I left it as is since I couldn't think off the top of my head how best to reword it, and thought i'd defer to the experts. :) --Alecmconroy 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest changing the text from and therefore tried to be strict adherents to Jesus' interpretation of the Law,[9] to and therefore tried to be strict adherents to their interpretation of the Law, since it is not clear what extent they were influenced by other members of the Desposyni, such as John the Baptist.  --Michael C. Price talk 21:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this suggestion. --Loremaster 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasons would be helpful. --Michael C. Price talk 12:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the influence of Desposyni is unclear as you say, we should stick with what we know. --Loremaster 12:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so I'll replace Jesus's interpretation with their interpretation. --Michael C. Price talk 12:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably the only thing I would strongly object to since we do know that Ebionites adhere to Jesus' interpretation of the Law. Their very name comes from the sermon he made on the subject. Ovadyah has backed up this claim quite extensively. --Loremaster 13:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which, the origin of the name, or the adherence to specifically Jesus's interpretation of the Law, as opposed to John's?  Any pointers, Ovadyah?  --Michael C. Price talk 13:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know what influence John had on their interpretation of the Law, but we do know from Hippolytus that the Ebionites emulated Jesus in following the Law, and saw him as following it perfectly.  You could say something like "they followed what they believed to be Jesus' interpretation of the Law."  Assuming Hippolytus can be trusted as a witness, then the above statement is as close as we can get to truth. Ovadyah 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyppolytus seems to be saying that the Ebionites lived according to the customs of the Mosaic Law "They live, however, in all respects according to the law of Moses, alleging that they are thus justified." 10:18 and that Jesus conformed to this law.  It doesn't say they lived according to Jesus's (or John's) interpretation of the law.  I think it is safer to say that they lived according to their interpretation of Mosaic Law and stay silent about who they interpreted it through (although I expect that their current leader (John/ Jesus/ James) would have a lot to say about this). --Michael C. Price talk 15:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. --Loremaster 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, reasons would be helpful.  --Michael C. Price talk 17:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a secondary source referenced in the article that makes this connection more explicitly.  I should have mentioned it before.  Sorry for the oversight. Ovadyah 18:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That was a good call Ovad and Alec... it's getting more neutral all the time, but there is still a ways to go.  Maybe insert "attempted to" into that sentence, since after all that is the most anyone can do is attempt...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, could someone please reset the margins in this section?  This is the first time I have ever seen a discussion disappear off the right hand side from all the :'s...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve of the current version of the Lead. Moving on to something else. --Loremaster 20:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs of early Christians 

message: I just looked through my personal library for more books that might have any info on Ebionites, and found another - The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible by Charles F. Pfeiffer addresses Ebionites:
From p. 75:
:The Habakkuk Commentary describes the members of the Qumran community as "poor" (Heb. 'ebionim). A sect of Jewish Christians was known as "Ebionite".  J.L. Teicher of Cambridge University has taken this as a clue to the identification of the Qumran Community...
:To Teicher, the Qumran documents are Judeo-Christian documents.  The Teacher of Righteousness is Jesus.  The Wicked Priest, according to Teicher's view is the apostle Paul!...
Hmmm... might be a simple matter to brush off prof. Teicher as a crackpot for saying this, and maybe even Pfeiffer as irresponsible for repeating it, except... this isn't the first time we've seen authors state similar speculations now, nor even the second time... btw, Pfeiffer actually goes on to argue against these views of Teicher's, although not very compellingly, IMO.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I also have the translation of the Dead Sea Scriptures by Gaster, who states unequivocally (p. 346) that the authors of the scrolls referred to themselves as ebyonim in the Commentary on Psalm 37, and he also notes that this has fueled speculation that this community were the Ebionites, but he cautiously avoids  supporting this inference himself. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find.  Thanks.  --Michael C. Price talk 01:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, thank you CS for putting your findings on the talk page instead of just arguing endlessly about something no one else can see.  I appreciate that kind of candor.  I wouldn't describe Teicher and Pfeiffer as crackpots, but they fell into the same kind of mistake as Eisenman with these inferences about the Righteous Teacher and Wicked Priest.  Paleographic and C14 analysis of the Habbakuk Pesher as well as internal evidence from the text suggest it was written around 60 - 50 BCE, shortly after the invasion of Israel by the Romans.  The Thanksgiving Hymns, many of which are thought to be composed by the Righteous Teacher, date to at least 50 - 100 years before that (range because they are copies).  As attractive as this hypothesis might be to Christians, it's just not supported by the physical and textual evidence.  They may have picked up on the idea from Eisenman, who I believe is the originator of this hypothesis.  Hey, it sells more books to make provacative speculations. Ovadyah 04:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is exactly what Michael means by continually applying your own sole personal discretion to pass judgement on the sources, which is very much akin to OR.  We aren't supposed to be debating with the sources here, we are only editors, and are supposed to keep our own theories and opinions and prejudices out of it.  If you want to counter these sources, all you can do is find a published source that specifically counters them to add as counterweight - not use your own arguments to try to dismiss them.  The sources speak for themselves, and more are being found all the time.  It seems that the more sources that are found, the more new reasons you try to invent to exclude them or judge them all inadmissible, without even coming up with a single source yet for your own position....   (!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you suppose I did, go out and perform these analyses myself?  I'm stating the findings of other secondary sources that disagree with your secondary sources. Ovadyah 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to know who they are so I might look them up too (just to see if they have any more good info!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no problem stipulating that the Qumran folks sometimes referred to themselves as "the poor" (this isn't totally nailed down, but that's ok).  Unfortunately, that doesn't prove an equivalence between the Qumran Community and the Ebionites.  But, it does suggests some kind of relationship.  The Ebionites could be the successors of the Qumran sectarians, but it could also mean they were familiar with the Qumran writings and borrowed some of their teachings. Ovadyah 04:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: One of the biggest pieces of evidence against all of these relationships is Josephus.  He talks a lot about the Essenes.  He mentions John the Baptist and James the Just several times.  Yet he never ties John with James or either one of them to the Essenes, even though James and Josephus are contemporaries (I know, the Essenes are not necessarily the Qumran sectarians). Ovadyah 05:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the simple answer may be that both Qumran sectarians and Ebionites were inspired by Isaiah 66:2. --Loremaster 05:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and perhaps the use of the term "the Poor" was used by the Qumran Essenes before John the Baptist, Jesus and James the Just came along.  i.e. that the latter 3 picked up the term from the Essenes themselves.  That would be compatible with the C14 data (assuming the C14 is clear). --Michael C. Price talk 10:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I see, and do you have a published source for that theory, or is it more Original Loremaster?  btw I do have one encyclopedia here that says the name 'ebyonim' came from Psalm 72, if that's any help... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CS, I take offense to the "more Original Loremaster" comment since I thought you and I have moved past these kinds of personal attacks (unlike Michael and I...). I was basing my comment on the Tabor's much-referenced article where he states: The term Ebionite (from Hebrew 'Evyonim) means "Poor Ones" and was taken from the teachings of Jesus: "Blessed are you Poor Ones, for yours is the Kingdom of God" based on Isaiah 66:2 and other related texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones. --Loremaster 05:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You take offence at anything to avoid debate. --Michael C. Price talk 10:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took offense at an insult and then I answered his question with the statement above thereby contributing to the debate. Are you blind? Of course not. You are simply demonstrating your bad faith yet again. This is why I am no longer engaging you in debate. --Loremaster 11:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See? --Michael C. Price talk 11:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem debating CS. However, I do avoid bullies with agendas. --Loremaster 11:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Ebionites and Qumran

message: :Good find, I'll check my Dead Sea Scrolls library as well. Hmmm... I see that the Essenes, like the Ebionites, were vegetarians.  Coincidence?  --Michael C. Price talk 17:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ebionites were said to be vegetarians by Epiphanius. To imply that is an undisputed fact would be pushing a POV. That being said, to answer your question, yes and no. Many Jewish ascetic groups may have embraced religious vegetarianism but this obviously cannot be automatically considered evidence that all these groups were directly related to each other. --Loremaster 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vegetarianism

message: How amusing.  Facts, it seems, are only "undisputed" when you agree with them (such as your claim that the divinity of Jesus was debated prior to his death).--Michael C. Price talk 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if I am mistaken about the divinity of Jesus being debated before his death. However, even you agree with me that is  fact that the nature of the divinity of Jesus was debated after his death. --Loremaster 02:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still fail to see the point you're trying to make here.  I mean, of course Jesus's divinity was debated later, viz the First Council of Nicaea, whose past existence really is undisputed. --Michael C. Price talk 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that CS didn't want a sentence in the article to reflect the fact that you just mentioned. That was the real issue not this tangent about whether or not there was a debate about the divinity of Jesus before his death. In other words, we have been on the same side of this issue from the beginning. --Loremaster 09:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The canonical Gospels make clear testimony that Jesus' divinity was hotly debated even before his death, eg the 'Who do men say that I am?" conversation etc. and many others...  But the canonical Gospels, or at least 3 of them, as we know them, also make it clear what their authors' own standpoint is on the debate, which we can assume is the standpoint of that group that became dominant enough to make these texts canonical. It's also undeniable that the same question of Jesus' divinity was hotly debated by various groups of followers after his death. But the canonical Gospel testimony is that the central disciples who became the core "dominant group", the ones whom you were contrasting the Ebionite faction with in that sentence, had already come to this conclusion before his death, and didn't "come to that conclusion" afterwards. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If by the 'Who do men say that I am?" conversation you refer to Luke 9, then (as I explained to Loremaster) I can't agree that they were debating Jesus's divinity.  They were debating Jesus's messianic claims, which is something entirely different.  Only the Gospel of John (the last written) places claims about Jesus's divinity before his death.--Michael C. Price talk 15:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, imho, that's exactly right.  Jesus was regarded to be a prophet (and a false prophet by his enemies), but what is much less clear were his messianic claims or claims made about him.  If the canonical gospels give clear testimony of anything, it's Roman power.  The victors get to rewrite the history books and decide what is in or out.  The central disciples, as you put it, are depicted as uncomprehending dolts and doubters prior to Jesus' death by the Pauline gospel writers. What do you suppose is the reason for all the appearance stories afterwards, where the risen Jesus has to convince them that he is for real. Ovadyah 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pointles to continue debating this since the real issue is whether or not disciples of Jesus and early Christians came to believe he was divine or always believed he was divine from [insert moment of your preference]! --Loremaster 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow: isn't that exactly the point Ovadyah and myself have just made?  One final observation, if Jesus was regarded as divine by his followers prior to his death, why did they have such a hard time believing he had resurrected?  Surely that's an easy task for an immortal god?  --Michael C. Price talk 11:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're still debating the divinity of Jesus before his death when that's not the real issue. If I hadn't added the word "before" in the sentence that triggered this debate we wouldn't talking about this now. That being said, to answer your question, disciples were disillusioned by the death of Jesus. How can the Messiah, whether or not he was divine, die? So the so-called resurrection of Jesus could be a number of things: A grief-induced lucid dream or hallucination, a satanic hoax, etc. Lastly, we don't really how the disciples reacted to the resurrection. You are presuming that the gospels are giving an accurate historical account when they probably don't. --Loremaster 16:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...  I would thought it would be quite easy for Messiahs to die, like all previous kings and high priests of Israel, unless they were divine.  And BTW Loremaster's assumptions about my religious POV are completely incorrect (as I have hinted before); I do not assume the gospels are historically accurate.  Kindly refrain from such assumptions and we'll get along a lot better. --Michael C. Price talk 17:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am NOT making assumptions about your religious POVs. I am refering to the presumption your question was based on. It presumed that the gospels are historically accurate accounts regardless of whether you personally believe this. --Loremaster 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still incorrect: I made no such presumption -- which would be impossible since the gospels are mutually inconsistent.--Michael C. Price talk 07:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously arguing that the question "Why did they have such a hard time believing he had resurrected?" is not based on any presumption? --Loremaster 10:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I am.  Pointing out possible inconsistencies within an account does not make any presumption about its historical accuracy.  Once again you are the one making assumptions and presumptions about other peoples' beliefs, instead of debating the issues. --Michael C. Price talk 11:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Micheal, I am debating the issue but I am not making assumptions/presumptions about your PERSONAL beliefs. As I explained above, I was refering to the question itself. My point was two-fold: 1) These accounts of doubting apostles are not necessarily inconsistent with the belief that Jesus was God; and 2) these accounts are not reliable historical sources so why bother using them in an argument. Regardless, stop accusing and criticizing me for doing exactly what you do all the time. It's hypocritical. --Loremaster 11:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO 1) is incorrect and 2) is besides the point: all historical sources (Biblical / Ebionite especially) are of debatable reliability; it would insane to disregard all historical sources just because they all lie somewhere on a continuum of reliability.  That's the whole point of historical criticism/debate.  As regards hypocrisy, see Mat 7:5, Luke 6:42. --Michael C. Price talk 11:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never argued that one should disregard all historical sources just because they are relatively unreliable. My point is that trying to discredit the notion that the apostles of Jesus did not believe in the divinity of Jesus based on some contradictory passages in the gospels about the Resurrection is weak. A better argument could be made since I can't imagine a serious scholar making it. Although anything is possible... --Loremaster 12:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Time out.  This thread has nothing to do with improving the Ebionites article.  Let's argue about something else that's more productive. Ovadyah 16:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More divinity of Jesus debate

message: In general, I would suggest using only modern secondary sources in the construction of the article.  How to weight the primary sources is something no one will be able to agree upon.  How can we weight the reliability of a 2nd century source from a critic who regarded the Ebionites as heretical-- there will be no way to agree.  
The best bet, therefore, is to see what modern scholarly views of the Ebionites exist-- let the modern scholars sort through all the primary source discussions, and let us just summarize the major POVs held by modern scholars.  If you want to answer "Who were the Ebionites?", that's the only way to do it. 
Now, the one exception to this would be if you wanted to create a very thorough sub-article that details all the major ancient sources that describe the Ebionites.  That would be a very big undertaking, and one which would have to be done very well in order to comply with NPOV.  i.e. You'd have to make an article that discusses practically all extant sources, not just the ones that agree with any one particular points of view.  I think that such sub-article wouldn't be worth the effort-- at least not until the main article is good enough that it's a featured article. 
In the end, it's not important what Epiphanius or Clement or Origen believed about the Ebionites-- all that's important is what reliable scholars today believe about the Ebionites, having taken all the existing evidence into consideration and weighed it.  Mentioning the existing debates among major modern sources is fine--  by and large, it will mirror the debates that existed among ancient sources.  But we should be citing 20th century scholars, not 2nd century ones.
So, did the Ebionites view Jesus as an arch-angel?  I don't know.  Epiphanius apparently says so-- but does anyone trust his viewpoint?  If that's an active debate we can find contemporary published sources arguing about, then mention it.  If it's not something that is seriously considered, then don't give it undue weight by mentioning it.
  
The thing is-- it's important not to do our own Original Research using the primary sources.  The Qumran thing is a perfect example-- it might be easy to conclude that if the dead sea scrolls use the term Ebionite, there much necessarily be some connection-- but in practice, I've never head anyone make that speculation before that the Qumran group were the Ebionites.  It makes sense-- but that's the dangerous of original research--  we might wind up decided that thousands of non-christian greeks were gnostics just because they self-applied the term "gnosis", for example. :)
..
So, I guess my argument is to _try_, as hard as possible, to just present in a straightforward way what things ARE known about the Ebionites, without having to go to the primary sources or quote from them directly in the article text.  If you really really want to go into full detail about all the primary sources, make a sub-article on it, but it's going to be difficult to do well. :)
Just my two cents. --Alecmconroy 11:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Thanks for your input. --Michael C. Price talk 11:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree as well.  However, proceeding in this manner argues against putting inline quotes from primary sources in the article.  As Alec just mentioned, that would be doing our own original research using the primary sources.  I think this also settles the issue of connecting Qumran / Essenes to Ebionites, ie. don't do it. Ovadyah 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that including inline quotes is the only way to avoid endless future debates.  Also I don't read Alec as banning this proposed practice (which is common across Wikipedia) -- he's just objecting the text appearing in the article text directly, but I (and everybody else, it seems?) was happy for the quotes to appear shunted off into the reference section.  But heck, I'll ask him.--Michael C. Price talk 14:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, thanks for checking with Alec to be double-sure, but unless he has compelling reasons to oppose inline quotes in the references, we are all in agreement.  Let's just keep things moving foreward. Ovadyah 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Give precedence to modern sources

message: :It's not MY speculation... I have stated repeatedly the book where I found that idea, where the case is made: Eisenman and Michael Wise, the Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, section 43, p 233 ff. and p. 186.  Since it seems no one else has located this yet, let me provide some direct quotes:
:From p. 186:  "The movement that seems subsequently to have developed also came to be called the Ebionites (i.e. 'the Poor Ones'), a term of self-designation running the gamut of Qumran documents..."
:From p. 233 ff: "It is important to see the extent to which the terminology Ebionim ('the Poor') and its synonyms penetrated Qumran literature... It is clear from the Pauline corpus that in some sense the community following the leadership of James the Just (known in the literature as 'the brother of Jesus', whatever is meant by that designation) - the so called Jerusalem Church or Jerusalem Community - were called 'the Poor' (Gal. 2:10, also Jas. 2:3-5)... As tradition proceeds, it becomes clear that the Ebionim (the so-called Ebionites) or 'the Poor' is the name by which the community descending from James' Jerusalem Community in Palestine goes.  In all likelihood, it descends from the one we are studying in these materials as well. This movement, called by some 'Jewish Christianity'... honoured the person and teaching of this James..." (he then goes on to discuss Eusebius and several other aspects of what we know about the Ebionites)
:Gentlemen and / or Ladies, the above extract is not my own personal view or research... what we have above is a secondary source, quoting the primary sources, to make the argument for the school of thought out there, that says the Qumran community who called themselves "Ebionim" were at least connected with the later "Ebionites"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look that way.  --Michael C. Price talk 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so the idea is to find everywhere in the NT where the word poor appears and say they must really be talking about the Jerusalem Church.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and poor just means poor.  This is just pseudo-scholarship. Ovadyah 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I told you before that Eisenman is completely discredited as far as his views on Qumran, yet you don't hesitate to use the same material to "prove" that Qumran = Jerusalem Church = Ebionites.  You can't be serious. Ovadyah 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever it gets to this stage, I like to call it 'raising the bar impossibly high'... no matter what standard is met, just raise it a little higher... you say there is nothing to connect the Ebionites with Qumran... except when something is found in a primary source, and a secondary source comments on it, ot's still not good enough... So what would it take?  If saying "we are the Ebionites" in the Dead Sea Scrolls is not good enough, what hypothetical standard would satisfy you?  I suppose it doesn't count because they didn't say "Mother may I" or "Simon says" "We are the Ebionites"... What if they had written "We are the Ebionites" and then signed it?  Ah, but they forgot to dot the I, so it's invalid...  Come on... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CS, I was ok when we were talking about the texts themselves.  You know what the issue is there, whether "the Poor" is really singular or plural.  In the one example we talked about, it was singular.  We don't know for sure about the others without access to the Hebrew.  That's just a fact.  We also considered the example of "the Way", and how Christian scholars deceived themselves in trying to find a link between Qumran and the early Church.  Alecmconroy commented on this very point regarding the Ebionites.  And now we have Eisenman.  Go read the reviews of his books for yourself and of him as a scholar.  Some of them are scathing rebukes of his findings and his methods.  All I am doing is summarizing what I understand to be the majority view.  Go look at some other encyclopedias.  Do you find this kind of thing in the Catholic or Jewish encyclopedias. I doubt it.  And why?  Because it's fringe research.  So again, we come down to undue weight and how to weigh minority sources.  There is no easy answer, but there has to be a reasonable limit.  And there's no reason to get snotty.  This is not a test of wills.  It's about having some kind of minimum standards. Ovadyah 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on a minute, you wouldn't expect to find favourable reviews of Eisenman in "Catholic or Jewish encyclopedias" since much of what he's saying runs counter to their spiritual POV.  So the claim that Eisenman is "completely discredited" needs a bit more serious investigation.--Michael C. Price talk 11:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read book reviews about his work on Qumran stating just that.  I'm not asking you to take my word for it.  Everyone needs to do their homework and draw their own conclusions. Ovadyah 16:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True -- and I've just located my dusty copy of the DSS uncovered.  I'll curl up with it later. I do recall that some bits were rather speculative, but heck, so is all this stuff. --Michael C. Price talk 16:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Having read Rabinowitz and parts of Eisenman and Wise it looks as if they dovetail together very nicely (and with Tabor); saying that any of these authors is totally discredited or isolated is not correct.  There is a clear consensus amongst them (and probably with other authors as well) about the Qumran/Essene/Ebionite identification.--Michael C. Price talk 10:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knock yourself out.  I'm done for now.  I'll be back with my own totallydisputed tag later to clean up this garbage. Ovadyah 19:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to sort it out on the talk page first... --Michael C. Price talk 19:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Qumran sources

message: I see the RFC  is biased to the point were through HIS first hand research has desided the early witnesses are of no importance as to what an Ebionite was. Why is he tring to deside truth in this mannor? What else will this desider or truth declare is factual or not?
I did say long ago you would have to attack the Ebionite writings and early witnesses to keep your artical slanted in the mannor you want and this is just the latest incarnation of this attempt.
Actualy you would also then have to discredit the other modern scholars that are problemitc to your POV also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.153.224.97 (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NM is right on time for his next trip to the PA Noticeboard. Ovadyah 01:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, that's taken care of, now where were we. Ovadyah 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with NM's points, but Ovadyah's response (here and elsewhere) seems rather ad hominem.  Let's just stick to the issues, can't we? --Michael C. Price talk 14:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusations of fraud need to be taken seriously and dealt with accordingly.  However, I also agree with your point about sticking to the issues.  If we spent more time dealing with the facts in front of us and less time questioning each others' motives, we would all be better off. Ovadyah 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for keeping your cool and taking the advice in the spirit it was meant. --Michael C. Price talk 16:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not give NM the same advice? --Loremaster 11:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have - elsewhere. --Michael C. Price talk 12:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: NM, you must be the luckiest guy in the world.  The PA Noticeboard was just abolished. Ovadyah 19:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  further RFC Bias 

message: I've added a version of the following passage to the History section:
:Scholar James Tabor argues that Ebionites were Essene revivalists led by John the Baptist and later Jesus. Upon their deaths, Ebionites regarded the Desposyni (the blood relatives of Jesus) as the legitimate apostolic successors to James the Just (the brother of Jesus), and patriarchs of the Jerusalem church, rather than Peter. They therefore denounced Paul as an apostate from the Law and a false apostle because he slandered the Desposyni apostles and vehemently condemned their "judaizing teachings" as a threat to the spread of his new religion. Epiphanius claims that some Ebionites fought back by gossiping that Paul was a Greek who converted to Judaism in order to marry the daughter of (Annas?) a High Priest of Israel, and then apostasized when she rejected him.
I hope everyone is happy with this compromise but I am not counting on it... --Loremaster 04:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is enough information to justify that. --Loremaster 09:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I will try to work on the Epiphanius section to make it more accessible to readers. --Loremaster 04:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As will we. --Michael C. Price talk 07:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done. Can you work on the inline quotes? --Loremaster 10:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the rest of the article, yes. --Michael C. Price talk 12:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you have in mind now that I have edited to the article to my satisfaction? --Loremaster 12:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing the article to my satisfaction.  There's quite a lot that needs expanding, clarifying, NPOVing etc.  See the rest of the talk page. --Michael C. Price talk 12:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before doing anything that might create another dispute between us, can we focus on inline quotes for now in the spirit of cooperation? --Loremaster 12:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John the Baptist as Ebionite leader and Ebionites as Essene revivalists 

message: Although sections of the Ebionites article can be expanded and clarified to make it more comprehensive and accessible, I think that the most recent edits have resolved the major neutrality and factual accuracy problems of the article. Therefore, can a majority (rather than an unanimaty since this would be impossible) of us agree that the totallydisputed tag can be removed now? --Loremaster 12:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got to be kidding, right?  If so, that was pretty funny.  This article has got to be the most one-sided and non neutral mess I have ever seen.  As Michael's most recent comments above indicate, we now have quite a number of expert authors who "dovetail nicely" in connecting Ebionites with Qumran and/or Essenes.  But you still holding out writing that this is the "minority position".  I'm not sure I understand which authors have specifically denied this position, that you say are forming the "majority position"...  Is this a "silent majority"? This article will never be neutral until:
*It doesn't ostracise ancient sources on the basis of a modern theological litmus test
*It doesn't ostracise modern sources on the basis of a modern theological litmus test
*When ancient and modern sources agree with each other, it doesn't ostracise them both on the basis of a modern theological litmus test
*Editors to the article are not ostracised on the basis of a modern theological litmus test.
*it mentions that in the view of several expert authors, (whose writings are already cherrypicked and referenced whenever they offer convenient support), the fact that the Qumran community sometimes referred to themselves as "Ebionites" is felt to be a significant connection with the Ebionites.  If some editors here believe, on the contrary, that this is not significant, they can back this POV up by citing some other authors who actually argue that it is not significant -- not by refusing to have the article discuss the whole matter. Otherwise there is only one supported view here.
*The sentence that mentions 'archangel' is still a run-on sentence, and it is still far from clear what Epiphanius said, merely by sticking "and an archangel" at the end of a massive run-on sentence about Tabor's views.  This needs to be made slightly less obscure.  I for one am disputing the neutrality of this article until this is fixed, and will cheerfully bring all these things to higher attention if you continue to ignore my concerns. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Striking through part now that I have digested the most recent change, I see that this sentence has now been fixed - sorry for not checking more closely... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Please try to check the article carefully before indulging in such an inflammatory rant. That being said, I've also fixed the "minory posisition" issue. As for the rest, I can only speak for myself when I say that I am not (or no longer) ostrasizing anything or anyone. For the record, unlike almost all of you, I do not subscribe to an ancient or modern theological POV that influences what I would like to see or not see in this article. --Loremaster 14:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loremaster, it will be easier to respect your opinion when you stop attributing a "theological POV" to anyone who dares to disagree with your interpretation of the historical record.  And stop insinuating that you are the only arbiter of the article; it makes you look foolish and egomaniacal.--Michael C. Price talk 17:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I am getting sick and tired of your constant and unjustified personal attacks against me. If this continues, I will report you. Second, a majority of contributors to the Ebionite article have confessed to either having an Ebionite POV or, at the very least, being sympathetic to ancient Ebionites. Since CS seems to be concerned that some of us of may have a modern theological litmus test, I was simply stating the fact that I do not have one unlike some other editors. This isn't a criticism or talking as if I am the sole arbiter of the article since I know I am not. It's simply stating a truth. That being said, I am the main contributor to this article and the editor who has worked to get it good status. It is therefore perfectly normal that I take issue with some criticisms of the article that imply that I am ostrasizing sources or editors. --Loremaster 02:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am getting pretty sick and tired of your unnecessary and constant attribution of motives.  You seem pretty quick to pass judgement on others, yet are hypersensitive to anyone passing judgement on you.  I see you have modified your latest smear from applying to "almost all of you" to "some", so I guess that's progress.  And please spare us the constant positive self-assessments of the quality of your work and your objectivity -- that is for others to judge, not you.  As for reporting me, that might rebound on you, since you have shown a repeated violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, along with a high-handed and arrogant attitude.  --Michael C. Price talk 08:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of this specific debate, it is not an unecessary attribution of motives nor a smear to state the fact that many of you hold religious POVs. Both Ovadyah and NazireneMystic are confessed Ebionites. CS have expressed a (previously held?) POV by clearly stating that he believed that Ebionites did not reject the divinity of Jesus based solely on his personal opinion. That being said, the only reason why I changed "all of you" to "some" is because there might be old or new contributors who join this debate who will argue that they have never made statements of faith or don't have a religious POV. Regardless, getting lectured about high-handedness and arrogance from a bully who constantly engages in WikiLawyering is a sad joke. As for the risk of rebound if I report you, bring it on! I will admit my faults and take responsibility. I doubt you believe you have done anything wrong and that attitude is part of the problem. --Loremaster 10:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re religious POV speculation: I am not going to discuss my beliefs since no doubt that would just create a new stream of ad hominems.  Re bullying: you're the one dishing out threats to report others. Pot calling the kettle black, methinks.  Re final sentence: another groundless ad hominem. Try asking yourself the same question.  --Michael C. Price talk 12:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re religious POV speculation: Michael, why would I attack you for simply for having a religious POV? As long as it doesn't interfere with the editing of this article, I don't care if you are an Epiphanius-inspired Ebionite like NazireneMystic. I've twice laid my cards on tables because I have nothing to hide. Why don't you? Re bullying: uh, I am perfectly justified in warning someone that I will report them if they don't stop personally attacking me. This isn't bullying by any strecth of the imagination. Re final sentence: I have admitted to having made mistakes. My recent edits of the article reflect this. Also, my repeated attempts at compromises in the spirit of cooperation shows that I am not the one with the attitude problem. --Loremaster 12:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re your 1st question: I am not going to speculate on your psyche; you are in a better position to answer that question.  Re laying my POV cards on the table; why should I?  That you can't divine my religious POV I interpret as a sign that I am doing my job correctly.  Re bullying: pointing out violations of policy is not a personal attack.  How amusing that of course that you judge you own behaviour as utterly unreproachable on this score.  Your final sentence, once again, is another meaningless self-assessments; your conduct's for others to judge, not you.--Michael C. Price talk 14:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re laying POV cards on the table; actually from everything you said, I could divine that you either are an Epiphanius-inspired Ebionite or that you believe Epiphanius's account of the Ebionites is accurate (when you, for example, say Ebionites were vegetarians). Re bullying: I have no problem with you pointing out my allegedt violations of policy when it is justified. However, there is nothing that justifies describing me as foolish, egomaniacal, heavy-handed or arrogant. Those are personal attacks. I admit to having personally attacked you and I apologize for that. However, it was always in self-defense. This is undeniable. Re my final sentence: I have the right to assess my conduct when it is under constant attack. This is perfecly normal and it is ridiculous of you to suggest otherwise. --Loremaster 03:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your divinations are incorrect.  As for whether your behaviour was justified, I don't think anything I say is going to change your mind but consider this: what point is there in telling us that you think you're in the right?  Everybody thinks their behaviour is acceptable.  Telling us this tells us nothing, except that this last point has escaped you. It's just a waste of bandwidth. --Michael C. Price talk 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, I find it absurd that you are still arguing that someone should not defend their character and integrity when they are being attacked. Obviously, if they weren't being attacked, I wouldn't waste time and bandwith doing so. The fact that I have admitted to making mistake and apologized for them proves that one can think his behavior was unacceptable. The End. --Loremaster 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't mean to single any editor out; we, all of us, need to keep whatever modern prejudices we may have in check and allow a range of expert opinions... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; that is the essence of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.  --Michael C. Price talk 18:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with this. My question is how is the current version of the article specifically not neutral and factually accurate enough to require that the totallydisputed tag remains? Please tell me what needs to be fixed and I will work on it immediately. --Loremaster 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have previously said, see the rest of the talk page.  Also I will extra more specific points, no doubt, when my "Jesus Dynasty" arrives. BTW I not sure there's any point removing the totallydisputed tag since Ovadyah says he intends to slap it back on at some point (I hope he was joking).  --Michael C. Price talk 12:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asking Codex Sinaiticus, the person who actually added the tag. --Loremaster 13:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I just took a go at copyediting the whole article and removed the npov tag for now.  I added a footnote expanding the mention of Qumran slightly, that was the main thing left still needed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I'm glad we have been able to set aside our differences and work on this together. --Loremaster 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Dispute Over? 

message: BTW have you had time to read Rabinowitz yet?  Is he correct that Origen provides another source (besides Epiphanius) for the original text of the gospel of the Ebionites? --Michael C. Price talk 18:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudo-Origen

message: Can someone please work on adding the inline quotes, especially those for Epiphanius? --Loremaster 03:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the person who took them out?  :-)  --Michael C. Price talk 10:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the main reason why I want them included is to please you, CS and NM, I have more important things to do on and off Wikipedia. ;) --Loremaster 16:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline quotes needed 

message: In The Jewish Christians Of The Early Centuries Of Christianity According To A New Source by Shlomo Pines, he states,  In an attempt to sum up the mission of Jesus, our texts state: (folio 70a) Christ came in order to vivify and establish the Torah. Hereupon a saying of Jesus is cited which is very similar to, but not quite identical with, Matthew v:17-19:
:He said: "I come to you. For this reason I shall act in accordance with the Torah and the precepts of the prophets who were before me. I did not come to diminish, but, on the contrary, to complete" (or fulfill: mutammiman) .  "In truth, as far as God is concerned, it is more easy for the heaven to fall upon the earth than to take away anything from the Law of Moses. Whoever diminishes anything in it shall be called diminished."
The text adds that Jesus and his disciples acted in this manner until he departed from this world.  This passage clearly has a bearing on Christology (a subject which will now briefly engage our attention) as conceived in these texts. For it seems to imply that Jesus' rank was that of a prophet. Another passage (fol. 52a) clearly states that Jesus himself laid claim to this rank only.
:He (Jesus) stated (dhakara) that he was an envoy (rasul) of God (sent) to those created by Him (ila khalqihi),and that God had sent him, as He had sent the prophets prior to him.
The text of al-Jabbar continues (fol. 70a),
:He and his companions behaved constantly in this manner, until he left this world.  He said to his companions: "Act as you have seen me act, instruct people in accordance with instructions I have given you, and be for them what I have been for you."  His companions behaved constantly in this manner and in accordance with this. And so did those who (came) after the first generation of his companions, and (also) those who came long after (the second generation). Then they began to make changes and alterations, (to introduce) innovations into the religion (al-din), to seek dominion (ri`asa), to make friends with people by (indulging) their passions, to (try) to circumvent the Jews and to satisfy the anger (which) they (felt) against the latter, even if (in doing so) they (had) to abandon the religion. This is clear from the Gospels which are with them and to which they refer and from their book, known as the Book of Praxeis (Acts). It is (written) there: A group (qawm) of Christians left Jerusalem (bayt al-maqdis) and came to Antioch and other towns of Syria (a1-Sham).  They called upon the people (to obey) the law (al-sunna) of the Torah, to forbid offering sacrifices to those who have not the necessary qualifications (laysa min ahliha) (to practise) circumcision, to observe the Sabbath, to prohibit pork and other things (forbidden) by the Torah. These things were regarded as burdensome by the Gentiles and they took little notice (of the exhortations). Thereupon, the Christians of Jerusalem forgathered to take counsel as to the stratagems which were to be employed with regard to the Gentiles in order (to make) the latter respond and obey them. They were of the opinion that it was necessary to mix with the Gentiles, to make them concessions (rukhs), to descend to (the level of) their erroneous beliefs, to eat (a portion) of the sacrifices they offer, to adopt their customs and to approve of their way (of life). And they composed a book on this.
The events related in this quotation seem to correspond more or less to those referred to in Acts xi: 17-22 (or 21; cf. also xv:1-29). However, the attitude of the canonical Acts towards the conversion of the Gentiles in Antioch which they welcome, is diametrically opposed to that of the quotation which deplores the abandonment of the exigencies of the Mosaic Law with a view to this conversion.
This excerpt from al-Jabbar talks about Christian innovations that were introduced into the original Jewish religion as practiced by Jesus.  Therefore, I would not accept statements made about Acts 15 as undisputed facts, even if they are made by reputable secondary sources. Ovadyah 17:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abd al-Jabbar

message: Loremaster has given three invalid reasons for deleting the statement that the Ebionites were lead by James the Just.  His edit comment reads: Christians are never described in a lead as followers of Jesus and later Peter and Paul. 2) Primary sources do not support the claim being made James. 3) He is discussed in the History
:1) invalid analogy with Xianity, in which Jesus is uniquely divine.
:2) primary sources are not admissable; plenty of 2ndary sources state James was leader (e.g. Eisenman, Tabor, etc -- do you really dispute this?).
:3) non sequitur: Jesus is also discussed elsewhere.
There are no grounds for excluding naming James the Just as leader from the lead, considering that he lead the Ebionites for about ten times as long as Jesus. --Michael C. Price talk 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I disagree with your mischaracterization and dismissal of my reasons for deleting the statement about James as Ebionite leader, I've come to the conclusion that keeping it would be good since it will foster interest in one of the most important yet overlooked figures of the Second Temple period. --Loremaster 17:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how quoting all your edit summary comments and offering a point by point rebuttal is a "mischaracterization".  Anyway, a shame the issue couldn't be settled gracefully, but settled it is.  Now what about John the Baptist? :-) --Michael C. Price talk 17:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opposed for reasons explained in the past that can be found in the archives. --Loremaster 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you don't like a general referral to the talk pages, what are your specific objections? --Michael C. Price talk 09:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Ebionites/Archive 2#Lead section: John the Baptizer.2C Geography. --Loremaster 09:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I remember that it ends with you saying you'd reinserted the text about John the Baptist in the lead.  Please restore it. --Michael C. Price talk 13:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in the following section, it ends with me saying that John the Baptist will only be mentioned in the History section which he currently is. That being said, I am now opposed to , and have removed, to the mention of James the Just from the Lead due to the discussion at Talk:Ebionites#Peer Review for FA. --Loremaster 21:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Michael, a useful analogy to think about is a bushy tree.  You start with a revered figure like Jesus or James.  Over time and geography, different groups develop different beliefs and practices until they become mutually incompatible.  Yet each group continues to claim they represent a tradition dating back to the same famous founder.  In the case of Ebionites, they may well have claimed James as their leader, but so did others including various Gnostic groups.  This is how we end up with what we now call the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Apocryphon of James, the Apocalypse of James #1 and #2, and the Infancy Gospel of James.  All were likely written by different groups.  All claim the same founder.  But James clearly can't be all things to all people.  That's why it's not correct to claim James as the leader of the Ebionites.  It's like claiming there was a single linear tradition, when the model is more like a bushy tree. Ovadyah 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand your bushy argument, but if the movement splintered after James' leadership then you would get many groups claiming past leadership by James, which is reflected in the historical record (just as you do for Jesus). The argument is not a linear one. --Michael C. Price talk 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the movement splintered after James' leadership.  The question is what was the group called, and what did they call themselves, before the split.  Relying on Acts, they called themselves "the Way" and were referred to by others as Nazarenes.  I'm not arguing that there is no connection to Ebionites, just that the connection is not clear. Ovadyah 13:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and for that we must rely on secondary sources. --Michael C. Price talk 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to amend and clarify my position slightly by stating that I have no problem with stating that James was considered a founder, as long as we have credible sources to back up this claim.  Here I have the same problem that I have with the Qumran material.  I consider this kind of speculation, in the absence of primary sources, to be pseudo-scholarship bordering on tabloid journalism.  Your argument seems to be to let it all in, since selectively keeping sources out is original research.  But no publication is devoid of standards of evidence.  We can debate where to draw the line, and I'm fine with having those discussions.  But in the end, I have a limit as to what I can swallow, and I'm willing to make my arguments to ArbCom if necessary to get my point across. Ovadyah 02:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that James was founder; he was leader for about 30 years following Jesus' execution.  As for credible sources: there are plenty of secondary sources that state James was the leader of the Ebionites / Church of Jerusalem for this period -- are there any that deny this?  Any ArbCom will frown on the original research implied by your and Loremaster's arguments. --Michael C. Price talk 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, I'm content to discuss this on the talk page to understand your views.  The right way to go about this is to search the literature to see if there are any secondary sources that dispute the contention that James was the leader of the Ebionites.  If none can be found, then I support your position. Ovadyah 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I applaud your constructive attitude, especially with your apparent different POV. I completely agree that this is the right approach.  --Michael C. Price talk 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Coincidentally my copy of "James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls"  has just arrived, which states that there are more primary extra-biblical sources that attest to the leadership of James the Just than there are for Jesus himself (page xxi). --Michael C. Price talk 11:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you enjoy reading it, all 1000 pages.  I found the book to be a tough read because of Eisenman's writing style, but it's full of interesting nuggets of information.  BTW, I hope you can tell from my responses that I have no intention of getting into a flame war with you.  Far from it. Ovadyah 14:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I appreciate that.  I have no desire to engage in flame war with anyone, believe it or nor.  And I look forward to digesting the book.  It does look a toughie... --Michael C. Price talk 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: James the Just as leader in the lead

message: Sadly I've had to add an OR tag for the entire article because 
*original research continues to be pushed throughout the article, despite Alec's repeated strictures to the contrary.
*the lack of any understanding by more than one editor of the error of drawing inferences from primary sources.
Please read WP:OR and only report what the secondary sources say. Stop making inferences based on your personal interpretation of the sources. --Michael C. Price talk 09:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's inappropriate to apply this tag preemptively based on what you think other editor's might do, and a lack of understanding should be worked out on the talk page.  If you feel that there is original research already in the article, then discuss those specific points here.  Holding the article hostage by saying you have general concerns about OR, but then never identifying the specifics of what your concerns are, simply will not do. Ovadyah 14:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ovadyah. Please specifiy examples of original research and personal misinterpretation of sources or remove this tag immediately. --Loremaster 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loremaster, you are the worst offender here.  When you stop arguing from the primary sources, and clearly acknowledge that such a procedure is an error, then we might be in a position to remove the tag provided that you show the ability to consistently refrain from such OR over a reasonable period.  None of these criteria are presently met.--Michael C. Price talk 15:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to get distracted by your personal attacks, please specifiy examples of original research and personal misinterpretation of sources. --Loremaster 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Detailed elsewhere on the talk page. Plenty of people (not just me) have complained about your attitude and the effects of your OR on the article. When the complaints cease we can think about removing the tag.--Michael C. Price talk 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to go through this talk page to guess what you are refering to. I don't care if you remove the tag or not, I'm only interested in improving this article so summarize clear examples of original research and personal misinterpretation of sources so I or we can work on them immediately. As for my attitude, I franlky don't give a damn what people think of it since everyone here (including people I like working with) have attitude problems. That being said, CS removed the totallydisputed tag so his concerns have been dealt with. I've bent over backwards to address the extremely POV-based criticisms of NazirineMystic as much as the demand for neutrality can allow. The only person who still has a problem is you so let's hear it. --Loremaster 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if "everybody here" has "attitude problems" (which is debatable) that is no excuse for behaving likewise. --Michael C. Price talk 18:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is such an hypocritical statement when you behave likewise in the worse way! --Loremaster 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I believed I was behaving like you, yes that would be hypocritical.  But I don't believe that; regardless, it's still good advice.  You should try harder and assume good faith as I do about you: there is a difference between assuming bad faith (attribution of malice) and complaining about bad attitude. --Michael C. Price talk 09:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When will you learn that I will never take advice from someone with your track record. I've assumed and continue to assume good faith of everyone until they have given me evidence of the contrary such as you. So enough already. --Loremaster 09:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an optimist and hope that one day you will learn to separate the message from the messenger.  --Michael C. Price talk 10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I hope you learn that the way a messenger transmits a message affects the way it is received: The medium is the message. --Loremaster 10:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A message you would do well to take to heart as well. --Michael C. Price talk 13:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not say "the tag s[t]ays because I don't like your attitude"; I specifically said because of the continuing effects on the article. The article is slowly improving.  Eventually we can lose the OR tag. --Michael C. Price talk 17:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, I removed your OR tag because you refused, after repeated requests, to state the specific reasons for why you applied it.  If you restore the tag, we go to AN/I. Ovadyah 18:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the spirit of compromise I shall not re-insert it immediately; I'll read Tabor 2006 first :-).  BTW your characterization of my action in the edit summary as vandalism is incorrect: vandalism is defined as acting in bad faith and assuming bad faith of others on the talk page is contrary to the guidelines; something you might like to reflect upon if you ever do go to AN/I...  I nearly mentioned this to you when you reverted the christianity categorisation; clearly that wasn't vandalism, it was an honest mistake and should be described as such. --Michael C. Price talk 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that you have a skill for divining the motives of others.  While I am reflecting on this dispute and where to go next, you might want to do some reflecting as well on your general behavior on this page. Ovadyah 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I claim no powers of divination; I was pointing out this policy. --Michael C. Price talk 01:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am familar with the policy.  I call to your attention a sentence from the policy on assuming good faith that is particularly relevant here: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Ovadyah 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the it goes on to say: Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith.  Please reflect on why advice on policy was interpreted as attributing motives.  And, for the record, I don't think anyone here is acting in bad faith.--Michael C. Price talk 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OR tag

message: I suppose I am weighing in a little late here, but I see no reason to reject Ephanius out of hand.  The fact is, in dealing with early Christianity, we often have only one or two sources of info.  If you remove any of the info from, say, Irenaeus or Eusebius, about a given topic, we will likely be left with nothing.  So too with Epiphanius. Yes, he should be taken with a grain of salt, as modern historical method is not the same as the ancient method of writing history.  But unless there is direct contridiction of what Epiphanius says, I see no reason to leave it out.  Pastordavid 18:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has argued for leaving Epiphanius out and he hasn't been left out. --Loremaster 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response RfC on Epiphanius 

message: I propose that Loresmaster, Ovadyah, CS and myself all pleadge not to alter anything (except spelling mistakes) before obtaining the explicit agreement of all the other parties first. Any unauthorised changes get reverted; if someone's away on a break then we wait until they return.  If we agree this then I suggest we take this to Alec for him to act as enforcer. --Michael C. Price talk 16:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reject this proposal.  I have requested a long-term lock on the article.  We need to get some new editors in here that actually know something about the subject.  The current mix of editors are too ready to use flame wars as a substitute for knowledge. Ovadyah 16:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be more specific about your concerns with the article.--Michael C. Price talk 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, I am concerned that your behavior is so volatile that you are incapable of working with other editors. Ovadyah 01:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ad hominems are going to get us nowhere.  What are your concerns about the article?  For instance you seem concerned about the James the Just - Ebionite connection.  Can you be more specific? --Michael C. Price talk 01:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we are now beyond the point of just focusing on the content of the article.  I intend to pursue a more comprehensive solution. Ovadyah 01:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ovadyah, I don't think a long-term lock is necessary since I am no longer interested in fighting with Michael to preserve the factual accuracy of this article. I've decided to take the path of compromise through minimalism. I'm also skeptical that we will be able to find new editors that have a higher level of expertise since you've already made herculean efforts to try to find some in the past and failed. --Loremaster 19:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that new editors, experts or not, probably won't solve the problem here -- but no harm giving it a try.--Michael C. Price talk 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't comment on expertise levels, but you are included in my cabal proposal; under it if you think something is factually incorrect then you can block it.--Michael C. Price talk 16:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Micheal, I reject this proposal since unanimity among us is impossible in light of our different points of view and objectives. --Loremaster 19:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone believes unanimity is impossible then it obviously is.--Michael C. Price talk 02:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal II

message: Since the second Peer review got no responses, I have nominated the article for Article Improvement to get a wider variety of editors looking at this article as we move it toward FA. Ovadyah 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm skeptical that it is going to work but I am not opposed to the idea. I just think that the suggestions archived in the first peer review which haven't been acted upon are more than enough. --Loremaster 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not necessarily looking for more suggestions to improve the article.  I want more eyes on this page to prevent the kind of editorial abuses we have been experiencing.  One way to do that is to have more editors working on the page with the same goal.  The stated goal of AID is a group effort to get articles ready for FA. Ovadyah 22:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AID

message: I think the article should go down from protected status to semi-protected status. What do all of you think? --Loremaster 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since all the active editors have login accounts this would return us to the edit-warring; we need to resolve our differences and agree a way forward first.  I say keep the lock on as an incentive for us collectively learn how to interact in a civilised and productive fashion. --Michael C. Price talk 01:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there have been edis to the article by users with no login accounts. Regardless, I've always been willing to act in a civilized and productive fashion. So I am willing if you are. --Loremaster 10:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with the lock remaining indefinitely.  The article as it stands is trashed.  I am extremely skeptical that this current group of editors is capable of civility and editing productively.  The way forward is to shine a bright light on the article.  That can be accomplished by opening up the article to more editors and/or dragging some of the current editors before a tribunal.  Until one or both of these things happens, it can stay locked as far as I'm concerned. Ovadyah 01:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, I'm ready to focus on editing the article productively. --Loremaster 10:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request semi-unprotection 

message: I stopped by to inspect the recent progress on the article.  I find there has been little progress, other than Loremaster continuing to plug away alone on the wip page.  This just confirms what I suspected all along; the true purpose of our recent editors was to vandalize the article under the pretext of improving it.  Now that the article has been trashed and locked, there is little interest shown in improving it, despite the fact that these same editors remain quite active on Wikipedia.  If this isn't a case for AN/I, I don't know what is. Ovadyah 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I've done all the editing of the Ebionites/wip page, I've taken into account several of Michael's suggestions. We are currently waiting for him to finish his reading of of some secondary sources in order for him to expand the Views and practices section. As for the other editors not participating in the process, I think it might simply be that all the past flame wars on this talk page have driven them away. --Loremaster 02:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ovadyah, your comments are sounding increasingly shrill and petulant.  As I've said several times, any specific constructive criticism about the article would be welcome. General and unspecific claims of vandalism just make you look rather negative and, quite frankly, bigotted and silly (which everybody has the right to, of course).  I am completely at a loss to understand your current attitude.  If you feel your scholarly POV is not represented in the article then create a subsection over at wip and add your material.  If Loremaster and I can work together, surely anyone can? --Michael C. Price talk 11:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, I may seem silly to you, but I deeply resent the accusation that I am a bigot.  My attitude and increasingly shrill and petulant comments derive from an overwhelming frustration that you have caused so much harm to the esprit du cour we used to have on this talk page, while at the same time contributing so little to the article.  You are the one under observation here, not Loremaster.  Loremaster has demonsrated an amazing ability to work with others under extremely trying circumstances.  You, by contrast, have demonstrated a consistent ability to be disruptive.  So put your editorial skills where your mouth is and do something constructive to improve the quality of the article, rather than just defeating the efforts of other editors. Ovadyah 16:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are not a bigot then why do you describe others you disagree with as vandals?  The esprit du cour, as I remember it, was to ignore my concerns about the article's focus, which is why I left it for a few months.  As for whether I am disruptive, well I guess trying to educate gung-ho editors about Wikipedia's policy on original research can be viewed as disruptive.  Regarding your last sentence: take your own medicine and answer the specific queries I raised against your unspecific objections about reporting what the sources say about James the Just's role as Ebionite leader.--Michael C. Price talk 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always tried to take into account other's people legitimate concerns so I fail to see how I could ever be described as "gung-ho" or overzealous. I've never needed to be educated on Wikipedia's policy on original research since I've never included material in the Ebionites article that has not been published by a reliable source. That being said, I admit that I was unfamilar with the policy regarding mutiple points of views. --Loremaster 20:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loremaster, if you really understood the original research policy you would not be inserting inferences drawn from primary sources; legitimacy is subjective, which is why WP:NOR forbids all inferences.  You have never shown any sign of understanding this point.  That is why the only solution is for us to work on different sections of the article, as we are.  I'm glad we agree about the need for representing multiple viewpoints. --Michael C. Price talk 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the WP:NORpage: Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The White House's summary of a president's speech is a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Since I've always provided a secondary source that supports my interpretation of primary source material, your accusation has always been fallacious. --Loremaster 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reading wp:nor; I don't think that you've always provided a secondary source, but I'm glad that we now agree that secondary sources are required for every interpretative statement.--Michael C. Price talk 09:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even in the rare instances when I didn't specifically cite a secondary source to support an interpretative statement, I wrote such sentences based on my knowledge of one and I have had no porblem providing one when requested. I never disputed that secondary sources are required to support interpretative statements. My problem is that I disagree with the inclusion of secondary-source-based multiple points of view which are not supported by any primary sources. --Loremaster 12:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: My problem is that I disagree with the inclusion of secondary-source-based multiple points of view which are not supported by any primary sources.  I am afraid this shows that you still don't get WP:NOR, since whether not secondary sources are supported by primary sources is a matter of opinion, i.e. subjective. Talk pages are not meant to be debating fora for their subjects, but are about how to present primary and secondary sourced material.  Inferring that a secondary souces is not based on primary sources is an inference, and therefore subjective and not admissable.  The text you quoted is not a mandate for inclusion of your judgement into the article, although I can see how a superfical reading of it may seem to imply this -- but it doesn't.  Please reread it. --Michael C. Price talk 13:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to re-read it anything. As I've previously said, I would be opposed to the inclusion, or more precisely, the mention as fact of extremely dubious secondary source material such a fringe researcher's speculation that Ebionites wanted to crossbreed with angels in order to create a new generation of Nephilim. It's one thing to mention that this individual believes this non-sense because many people have read his bestselling book. It's quite another to mention this as a fact of Ebionite history, especially in the Lead of the article. I willing to argue this point with Wikipedia administrators if necessary. --Loremaster 21:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, why re-read something you disagree with, eh?  After all, you're right and the rest of the world can go to hell.  That those silly wikipedia folks don't agree, well that must be because they all very very stupid......  Actually, no, not really.  You see fringe, pseudo-scientific research is excluded by assessing the relability of the source by means other than judging the content -- which is forbidden. But hey, why am I wasting my breath, you're not listening, are you? --Michael C. Price talk 01:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, there was no need for this kind of antagonistic language. I thought we had passed this. That being said, beyond stating that some scholars are speculating which they themselves admit to, I don't judge content. I simply stated several times that I would be opposed to the inclusion of fringe, pseudo-scientific research. --Loremaster 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your 2nd sentence does not describe your behaviour. Loremaster, I used such language in attempt to get through to you that you still (despite innumerable previous attempts) don't understand Wikipedia's core concept, which is that we shouldn't judge content: no ifs or buts.  I see you have managed, in your latest response, to evade this issue of how to judge the relability of sources by other means than judging content.  As I said, nothing ever gets through to you, does it?  If you want people to treat you with respect then start addressing the issues raised and stop giving evasive responses.--Michael C. Price talk 08:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have again crossed the line by violating the guidelines of the talk page. Contribute to the ebionites/wip page and I will edit it if I feel necessary. Beyond that, I will discuss anything with someone with your attitude problems. --Loremaster 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your beliefs are of no concern to me.  I think you were and are motivated by a desire to put Loremaster in his place because he dared to reject your proposal to add inline citations.  Loremaster has conceded and you have won a mandate to add inline citations to the references.  And what have you proceeded to do with it?  Nothing, except to find something new to dispute.  Recall that I invited you to return to the article on your talk page, and I welcomed you when you arrived.  I have no pre-existing axe to grind.  My displeasure - what you call bigotry - derives soley from your behavior.  I call your behavior vandalism because you applied a totally disputed tag twice in an unjustified manner and managed to get the article locked with your edit warring.  Anyone can read this talk page and decide for themselves whether this behavior rises to the level of vandalism.  I am throwing down the conjecture that it is up to this point.  You can prove me wrong by your future positive contributions to improving the article. Ovadyah 23:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ovadyah: 1) I don't know which beliefs you think you are referring to, but all of our beliefs are irrelevant.  2) Yes, I objected to the removal of the in-line quotes because it enabled editors to push their own POV about what the sources said (this is no longer an issue and I intend restoring them, eventually), not from a desire to "put Loremaster in his place".  I explained this before I left and I also, at the time as you may recall, objected to the removal of John the Baptist from the lead.  3) Yes, you welcomed me when I returned, which was why I was all the more shocked by your sudden switch into bad language and constant accusations of vandalism.  If you're so keen on rational debate then look up the wiki-definition of vandalism; just to be clear I do not think anyone here is a vandal -- which means editting in bad faith, in case you haven't checked -- I do think some of us are just a trifle over-wrought, perhaps, and either ignorant of policy or lacking the objectivity to implement it. 4) still waiting for specific constructive feedback about the article. --Michael C. Price talk 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for any "bad" language I may have used, but not for calling out your malevolent behavior for what it is - vandalism. Ovadyah 07:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ovadyah, despite the issues you have with Michael, can you accept the current version of the Ebionites/wip page? I would greatly appreciate your input. --Loremaster 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to say that I can't accept the wip version.  I think the original pre-Michael version of the article was much better.  Removing the second paragraph of the lead, which contains the central claim that Jesus was considered to be a mere man, is a big step backwards.  Also, the subsections of Beliefs and Practices make it look like they are weighted equally, when the available evidence clearly doesn't support this.  The original version was much better, perhaps with small additions of the new material. Ovadyah 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to such a statement appearing in the lead, although I am deferring working on the lead until the various subsections are finished, and that I am deferring until after I've finished reading Eisenman.  I agree that the structure of the subsections is not necessarily weighted ideally; that is something else that will have to be addressed.  In my view instead of dealing with the various Ebionite characters one by one (which the sources have different views on) we should be dealing with the different sources group by group, and discussing the various characters and their relationships within each subsection. i.e. the material in sections 2.4 onwards should be moved into the preceeding sections, 2.1-2.3 That was why I wanted us to have a discussion about the structure before we started writing the bulk of the article. --Michael C. Price talk 09:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caution, vandals at work

message: Jews for Jesus is said to be a sect? From where? A sect is a grouping that originated and isolated from a main stream, but it's unclear what main stream. The article Jews for Jesus is not clear. If it's not a sect, it should preferably be termed religious movement. Rursus 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that Jews for Jesus is a sect that originated from mainstream evangelical Christianity that is isolated from the mainstream Judaism its claims to represent. I prefer sect to new religious movement in this context. --Loremaster 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I would argue that " = WP:OR --Michael C. Price talk 08:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like we're getting pretty far afield when we're discussing a semin-nonnotable modern ebionite group's semi-non-notable view on Jews for Jesus.  I'd suggest cutting the whole sentence about Jews for Jesus, with just 1-2 sentences on the modern ebionites which notes their existence and says they draw inspiration from the ancient ebionites.  The end.  If we're going to actually have an article or articles on the modern ebionites, then let those pages discuss those groups' views.--Alecmconroy 10:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Alec, since many people confuse Ebionites with Messianic Jews, I think its important to keep a version of this sentence in the article. Since the word sect seems to a problem for most of you I will replace it with something else. --Loremaster 14:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, we could discuss the differences between Ebionitism and Messianic Judaism seperate from the mention of modern Ebionites. --Loremaster 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is nothing perjorative about calling a small religious group a sect (as opposed to a cult).  Otherwise, every small group out there would be a religious movement.  BTW, while you are at it, you might want to discuss the views of Jews for Judaism about the historical Ebionites, since the Ebionites are mentioned in their anti-missionary handbook. Ovadyah 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree with your comment about using the word sect, I've decided to drop it  to avoid a pointless dispute. I'll have to think about whether or not mentioning Jews for Judaism is a good idea. --Loremaster 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Jews for Jesus is a Chalcedonian Christian sect, or whatever you want to call it.  Period.  It has absolutely no relation to mainstream Judaism beyond Christianity in general.  This battle has already been fought in Wiki articles on Judaism.  Let's not bring it here too. Ovadyah 17:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to change the sentence to include Jews for Judaism's mention of Ebionites and  exclude the opinion of Ebionite Jewish Community. See the History section of Ebionites/wip page. --Loremaster 04:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you Rursus and Ovadyah. This minor discussion about the word sect has contributed to making the Ebionites article even better now with the mention of Jews for Judaism. :) --Loremaster 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jews for Jesus

message: I propose that Loremaster and I cease all editorial activities for the month of February, including posting comments to this talk page, to test a hypothesis.  The null hypothesis is that Michael's only purpose for editing the article and commenting on the talk page is to subvert the efforts of other editors.  Therefore, with Loremaster and I away from the article, I would expect no meaningful editing to take place.  The alternate hypothesis is that Michael is editing the article with the genuine intention of improving it.  Therefore, I would expect to see a measurable contribution toward improving the article in a month's time.  After one month, the other editors can decide, perhaps with Alec's input, whether any significant effort has gone into improving the article.  If the article has been improved, the null hypothesis is rejected, and I will humbly apologize to Michael for doubting his intentions.  If there has been no meaningful progress toward improving the article, that will constitute a failure to reject the null hypothesis, and it will be a confirmation of Michael's bad-faith editing and flaming the talk page with the intention of undermining the article.  At that point, the other editors may seek a remedy to prevent further vandalism to the article.  Loremaster, is this proposal acceptable? Ovadyah 14:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. The Ebionites/wip page exists primary for his contributions. :) --Loremaster 15:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I accept. --Michael C. Price talk 14:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, except that no one asked you.  If Loremaster accepts my proposal, feel free to request that the article be unlocked.  Since you will be the only editor left standing, there is no reason to keep it protected. Ovadyah 14:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know no-one asked, but I thought you might like to know that I approve of you being prepared to test your ongoing assumption of my bad faith. --Michael C. Price talk 14:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent.  Thank you, Loremaster.  The challenge is made, and I will be awaiting an update of Michael's progress on March 1.  See you then. :) Ovadyah 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I should unlock the article if this is an agreement among you all. Metamagician3000 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I'll try semi-protect and see what happens. Metamagician3000 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll start work in a few days. --Michael C. Price talk 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Meta. --Loremaster 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loremaster, I notice you are editting the article; do you agree to Ovadyah's proposal?  Yes or no? --Michael C. Price talk 06:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax, Michael. I was only correcting a typo I made before the article was locked. --Loremaster 06:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can see that, nevertheless I would like to see the ground rules here made explicit. So, is that a yes or no? Is there an agreement amongst us all, or shall I request Meta to reapply full protection? --Michael C. Price talk 07:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we have an agreement. As long as it is understood that you are only improving and/or expanding the sections you previously stated you wanted to work on, and/or adding inline quotes in the Notes and References section. --Loremaster 07:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was an agreement that you now deny buying into. --Michael C. Price talk 07:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I later clarified, that was the only part I agreed with. --Loremaster 08:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, clarity is needed.  I don't see that Loremaster has committed himself to any agreement that means anything with either of us.  (The yes or no answer required was not forthcoming.)  Yes, I shall start editting within a week, but if they are immediately overwritten by Loremaster (which I expect, based on L's past form) then we are right back where we started. I'm puzzled by your statement: This means no excuses to avoid activity are acceptable, such as an inability to agree to who does what.  Your proposal was that I work without any interference over February from you or Loremaster, was it not? --Michael C. Price talk 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was my proposal.  I don't know how to make it any clearer. Ovadyah 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your delusions are getting quite tiresome. Read my 07:22, 30 January 2007 comment above. --Loremaster 19:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And see my response.  No, in fact don't bother, it's quite simple:  do you agree with Ovadyah's proposal "I propose that Loremaster and I cease all editorial activities for the month of February, including posting comments to this talk page, to test a hypothesis."?  No ifs or buts, just yes or no. --Michael C. Price talk 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I have already given you my answer (which quite clear to everyone but you, I am not going to repeat myself, Michael. --Loremaster 19:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suit yourself.  No deal then. --Michael C. Price talk 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. I am satisfied with the article as it currently is. Ovadyah, can you work on adding inline quotes and standardizing the Notes and References according to Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines? --Loremaster 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ovadyah, you have an agreement with me, but it takes three to tango here. Now perhaps you realise how obdurate and just plain stupid Loremaster can be?  Loremaster, how can Ovadyah edit the article when his proposal was that he (and you) NOT edit the article???  For February. --Michael C. Price talk 00:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Michael.  I am realizing things more clearly.  I was hoping to take a step back during my vacation and try to better understand what's going on here.  It seems to me there is a complex form of vandalism going on between two editors; the kind that only two extremely bright and capable editors could pull off.  Neither person recognizes their actions as inappropriate because vandalizing the article per se is not the motivation.  It's more like a war of wills between two intellectual heavyweights.  It's quite fascinating really, if you try to take the perspective of an outside observer.  I have never experienced anything like this before on Wikipedia. Ovadyah 02:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow... This nonsense is actually making me miss our disputes with NazireneMystic. Since I speficically stated that I agree with the proposal made by both Ovadyah and Micheal (see my 07:22, 30 January 2007 comment above). There is nothing that can be done to satisfy someone who is obviously resorting to excuses to avoid working on the article. --Loremaster 15:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: February proposal and a hypothesis test