Talk:Ebionites/Archive 4

message: In many places, we say "Ebionites did this/ Ebionites did that", where it would seem much more natural English to say, "The Ebionites ..." as in the very first sentence. Is there a reason for this? Metamagician3000 08:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you replace Ebionites with "the Christians", you will quickly see how strange that sounds. --Loremaster 12:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if I replaced it with "the Carvakas" or "the Epicureans" or "the Aztecs"? Those would be better analogies, as Christianity is still a going concern. We talk differently about the members of historical movements, religions, peoples, etc., that came and went, perhaps because we are referring to a finite, closed number of individuals who existed in the past. E.g., when we say "Greeks do this and that" we mean people from the present day and continuing country of Greece; when we say "the Greeks did this and that" we mean the finite number of people who belonged to the historical Hellenic civilisation that existed in antiquity. Similarly, we are likely to say "Mexicans celebrate this and that festival every year" (to say "the Mexicans" would sound strange) but "the Aztecs worshipped such and such gods" (which doesn't sound strange at all). Metamagician3000 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to edit the article to add "the". --Loremaster 02:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It's not a big deal - just something that struck me when I looked at the article to see if there was any copyediting I could do. I thought I should raise it here rather than leaping in, in case there was some sensitivity I was unaware of. I'll have a run through the article again later. Metamagician3000 02:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "The"

message: So now that Michael has finally shown his good faith by contributing content to the Ebionites article, can we move on to finishing the work that needed to be done, specifically including inline quotations and standardizing the citation of sources? --Loremaster 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only "finally" because you were reverting my earlier attempts. --Michael C. Price talk 09:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your earlier attempts deserved to be edited or even reverted for the same reasons that your recent attempts had to be edited. That being said, you spent more time criticizing contributors to the article before you ever made those earlier attempts. --Loremaster 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the contributors insist on ad hominem speculations and refuse to assume good faith, instead of debating the issues.  They also are (still) woefully ignorant of what original research means. --Michael C. Price talk 00:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously lessons from you on ad hominem attacks and refusal to assume good faith are a joke. As for the issue of original research, virtually eveything I have contributed to the Ebionites article is supported by a secondary source. Some of the sentences you were most critical of (simply because they contradicted your POV) were almost copied and pasted from the sources you hold so dear. --Loremaster 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More ad hominem speculation: you assumed I objected because it contradicted my assumed POV, rather than actually debate the issues.--Michael C. Price talk 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that debating with you is pointless since you insist always adding an ad hominem attack with your substantive argument. It's sad really. --Loremaster 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's sad is your own lack of objectivity; you entire previous response was an ad hominem.  BTW please don't make substantive changes to previous comments which have been replied to. --Michael C. Price talk 18:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone remind me why I am wasting my time debating with you? I don't care what you think or say nor should anyone else. The end. --Loremaster 18:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the idea of debating an issue out is foreign to you, but I didn't expect you to be so brazen about it. --Michael C. Price talk 18:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ;) --Loremaster 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we put an end to the debates and go back to the system we had in place when Alec was acting as RFC.  Let's decide what goes into the article by simple majority concensus.  A majority vote among those recently editing the article will suffice.  Loremaster, Michael, Meta, what say you? Ovadyah 18:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, stick to policy, which means debating things out, providing sources etc. --Michael C. Price talk 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, Ovadyah is simply suggesting that debates can obviously go on forever and must end with a simple majority consensus. --Loremaster 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the way Wikipedia operates.  Perhaps if people stuck to the issues instead of indulging in ad hominem attacks the debates would conclude in some time less than forever. --Michael C. Price talk 19:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL How can we when you can't resist indulging in ad homimen attacks every chance you get? Anyway, I must go back to focusing on more important things and ignoring you as I've  promised myself. --Loremaster 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: What Michael is painfully slow to realize is that NOR and NPOV must be applied together. Ovadyah 02:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall telling you this. --Michael C. Price talk 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving on 

message: I've improved the Ebionite Jewish Community article. Those interested should feel free to expand it although I don't see what could added to it at this point. --Loremaster 23:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link to the EJC article from the Talipot Tomb (Jesus Family Tomb) website.  There is a brief mention of modern Ebionites and a link to the EJC website near the bottom.  Ovadyah 23:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ebionite Jewish Community

message: I would suggest that there be inserted in the Ebionite article a link to Jacob Rabinowitz' book "Buried Angels," which is cited in the end of the article. the entire book is online without charge at: http://www.invisiblebooks.com/Angels.pdf
:Done. By the way, please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). --Loremaster 20:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. I love how you remind everyone to do that, Loremaster. Oh and FYI, that's not criticizing you, I think your cool actually. 208.102.209.167 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. You should really consider creating a Wikipedia user account. Not only does it have many useful options but it also contributes to a culture of relative accountability. --Loremaster 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, I just read Jacob Rabinowitz' book "Buried Angels, getting back on topic here. My conclusion is that it's very shallow. 208.102.209.167 00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was Ovadyah's conclusion as well but Michael insisted that we include this information in the article. I've edited the article to remove the POV language which seems to endorse Rabinowitz's work. --Loremaster 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  This section was contributed by Rabinowitz himself and read like a self-endorsement.  I still believe it's scholarship lite.  His article is based on some obscure Italian manuscript. Ovadyah 23:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No wonder it sounded so POV. --Loremaster 02:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh oh! Basing scholarship and theories on OMS(Obscure Manuscript Syndrome)! I've heard this one before many o' times. A perfect example of this is Yuri Kuchinsky's 'The Magdalene Gospel: a Journey Behind the New Testament". A sad, sad and garbled piece of psuedo-scholarship. Not to say I'm comparing the degree of Buried Angels to such a work. 208.102.209.167 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Buried Angels''

message: I've finished the last things that needed to be done for this article to be complete before nominating the Ebionites article for Featured Article candidacy. Any comments? Any objections? --Loremaster 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is based on the best available sources, and frankly it's the best expose I've seen on the Ebionites, and the most honest. I have no objections. All I ask is that we please do not forget that we have very limited knowledge on the Ebionites, dealing with a group whose texts have not reached us, and a form of sectarianism that has long been extinct, nearly 1500 years or more. 208.102.209.167 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the positive assessment. --Loremaster 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Give us thru the weekend to look it over and check sources.  I may point out some potential weak spots that lack primary support, but I probably won't make changes.  The article is lite on facts for what caused the demise of the historical Ebionites, probably because there aren't any.  Let's also reread the comments of Slrubenstein and Alecmconroy. Ovadyah 13:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion. --Loremaster 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the comments of Slrub and Alec, I've concluded that most of their concerns have been addressed in the current version of the article. However, Slrub's comment have inspired me to create a template for Jewish Christianity page. --Loremaster 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it.  Good work.  Should the template also be placed on the Nazarene (sect) page? Ovadyah 23:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It should be placed in the articles listed in the template (except for the first four figures and articles that already have templates). --Loremaster 23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The only theory I've heard on the demise of the Ebionites goes something like, they were originally called Nazarenes or followers of 'the Way'. Upon the destruction ravaged by the Jewish Wars in ca. 70 and the Second Jewish Wars ca. 140, most Jewish sectarian movements were utterly whiped out, the Ebionites fled to Pella. With the rise of proto-orthodoxy, they fled to the orient, where their ideals, such as one gospel, and nontrinitarianism, influenced Islam, and later the Sufis. See here http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pella.html and here http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulorigin.html#jerufate 208.102.209.167 13:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning their fleeing to the East is a good idea. --Loremaster 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that I am not advocating the above theory at all. I was simply pointing out what I had heard. I am largely skeptical of it all. 208.102.209.167 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. --Loremaster 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: May I also mention the superb publication 'The New Testament Code: The Cup of the Lord, the Damascus Covenant, and the Blood of Christ' by Robert Eisenman also discusses the 'Flight of Pella' at length.  208.102.209.167 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you aware that many of Eisenman's theories, especially those connecting the Essenes to the early Christians, have been discredited. --Loremaster 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmmmm. No, I was not aware of that. Well I revoke my comments, are you sure they are discredited? Well I'm also a fan of Robert M. Price (whom I actually talk to) and John Dominic Crossan. I haven't heard of or read any like major criticisms of Eisenman, so I was unaware. The only critique articles I read on him were from conservative christian sources, and I discarded them as not even timeworthy. One of which was an article from Answering-Islam. 208.102.209.167 20:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joshua, there are many academic editorial summaries, blog articles, and list discussions discrediting Eisenman's theories.  No scholar is going to publish a book or journal article specifically to refute another scholar's work.  That doesn't stop me from reading his books, though, because they encourage me to think about old problems in new ways. Ovadyah 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. --Loremaster 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. --Loremaster 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Complete?

message: I've created the Template:Jewish Christianity. Any comments? --Loremaster 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the Elcesaites page?  Is this too gnostic? Ovadyah 00:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to say too gnostic but let me think about it. --Loremaster 00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've decided to add them. --Loremaster 00:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've updated the template with a writings section. --Loremaster 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Jewish Christianity 

message: The article (2007.04.09) states 
::However, in 58 C.E., Paul complains in one of his epistles of "super-apostles", most likely the Ebionites, sent from Jerusalem who question his honesty and continue to counter his mission.
"Most likely" is too strong.  Scholars such as Margaret Thrall, Kasemann, Hafemann,  and Barrett believe that υπεραποστολοι refer to the chief apostles -- i.e., Peter and the other apostles.  Betz and Georgi argue for some sort of early Gnostic-like intruders.  Other commentators (Carson, Barnett) agree that the "superapostles" are Paul's opponents, but leave their exact identity as unknown.  I've not come across any commentators who have suggested that the superapostles were Ebionites.
In light of all that, "most likely" seems overly confident, possibly even original research. A citation and a more tentative qualifier such as "possibly" seem helpful here. jrcagle 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I have made the change to "possibly".  Please indicate your support on the nomination page if you are now satisfied with the article. Ovadyah 00:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the change. --Loremaster 02:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested slight improvement 

message: Before we push the article to Peer review - a step that should always be taken before the Featured Articles Candidacy step - , we need to 1) preserve a neutral point of view ; and 2) extensively provided references for every paragraph in this article following Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines. --Loremaster 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards Featured Article status 

message: Congrats!  You have made the requested changes and your article now qualifies under Wikipedia:Good Articles.  That said, I enourage you to continue to work on it, especially to resolve the issues you have been discussing.  You may now want to submit it once again to peer review, as I believe it still has a ways to go to meet FA criteria. Montanabw 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Montanabw. Ovadyah 00:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, thank you. Good work, Ovadyah! :)  --Loremaster 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, Loremaster! Ovadyah 14:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Passed GA

message: I beleive my recent edits have addressed all concerns. Let me know if you have others. --Loremaster 18:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am satisfied with your changes.  Please nominate the article for FA. Ovadyah 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. --Loremaster 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Show your support on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ebionites page. :) --Loremaster 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Complete

message: Bartmanand dropped his opposition to the Featured Article candidacy of the Ebionites article on the condition that we delete the Sources section, which I have done. He suggests that we preserve this information in Wikisource. Can someone work on this? --Loremaster 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will work on this when I can find the time.  Meanwhile, please archive the primary sources to their own talk page for now. Ovadyah 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Loremaster 21:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please link the primary sources in the notes section to the archived talk page, where appropriate, so that readers will have easy access to them.  I will change the links later when I am finished with the Wikisource page. Ovadyah 07:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Loremaster 19:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting Sources section to Talk page

message: I have informed James Tabor of the Featured Article nomination and asked him to support it or suggest further changes.  I also requested that he post a notice of the nomination on his blog. Ovadyah 07:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JT said he will try to find some time to stop by. :-) Ovadyah 15:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Good. --Loremaster 19:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show your support on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ebionites page. Ovadyah 14:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination for Featured Article

message: I joined the second and third paragraphs in the History section - both of which essentially describe one hypothesis about the "open question" of paragraph 3 - into the one. The paragraph beginning "it was during the stewardship of James, whose authority was accepted ..." is clearly part of the hypothesis that the Ebionites split from the early Jerusalem Church.
:I am opposed to this fusion because it makes the paragraph too heavy. --Loremaster 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case, can the paragraph be prefaced with "according to those scholars" or something like that? I maintain that it isn't clear that the content of the latter paragraph is within the hypothesis discussed in the former. Leon 07:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, unlike the previous paragraph which includes a schorly hypothesis, this paragraph is an actual historical account. --Loremaster 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's ironic you should mention this.  The talk subpage now linked to the opening section was a section of the article until FAC.  It was removed to satisfy the objections of a reviewer.  I would be happy to see it restored, if there is a consensus to do so, rather than move the primary sources to Wikisources. Ovadyah 13:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reviewer was right. An encyclopedic article should not be a repository for primary sources. They should be moved to Wikisource. How is that coming along? --Loremaster 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources have been copied to Wikisource  Ovadyah 19:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect. --Loremaster 20:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the link to the Sources talk page in the Writings section of the article.  I assume this was an oversight. Ovadyah 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Thank you. --Loremaster 17:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure the references to the Third Quest and the New Perspective on Paul belong in the lead.  These have more to do with the Historical Jesus than the Ebionites.  However, I have no problem mentioning them in the body of the article. Ovadyah 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted those references since they do have more to do with the Historical Jesus than the Ebionites. --Loremaster 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why I expanded them (to clarify) was that there was a long and not very clear wikilink to the Third Quest previously. Leon 07:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood that. --Loremaster 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fused paragraphs 

message: The article does not mention what secondary sources think about the eucharistic practices of the Ebionites, but I found the following quotation from Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.1.3, mentioned on an Islamic web resource on the Ebionites.   Ovadyah 01:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add this information in the Judaism subsection of the Views and practices section. I'll edit it if necessary. --Loremaster 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Ovadyah 03:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The new primary sources have been copied to the Sources archive and Wikisource. Ovadyah 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. --Loremaster 18:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ebionite Eucharist?

message: I deleted this reference to James's execution. "(which may have triggered the First Jewish-Roman War from 66 to 73 C.E.)," It looks like Roman idolatry and other Jewish and Roman issues triggered the war. Eisenman's hypothesis belongs on the First Jewish-Roman War page, and maybe the James the Just page, but not here. Jonathan Tweet 05:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit comment is incorrect -- the referenced book is about the Ebionites, and anything about James the Just (their leader at the time) is relevant to the Ebionites, according to Eisenman and other sources.  I have restored the material. --Michael C. Price talk 09:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for correcting me. Does Eisenman say that James's execution caused the war or that it may have? If this is a one-scholar hypothesis, name the scholar, as in "(which Eisenman says triggered the First Jewish-Roman War from 66 to 73 C.E.)" or "(which Eisenman says may have triggered the First Jewish-Roman War from 66 to 73 C.E.)" Jonathan Tweet 13:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eisenman is the scholar who makes the claim (which is why he was given as the reference, not someone else).  That's not to say that "Roman idolatry and other Jewish and Roman issues" were not also factors, but Eisenman is specifically saying that James' execution was he trigger based on his reading of Jerome, Josephus and other sources, after which the war was "ineveitable" (pg 489). --Michael C. Price talk 10:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ;) --Loremaster 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first jewish war 

message: Nice try, but Torah-observant Christians are in no way similar to Ebionites.  TOC believe Jesus is the divine, pre-existent son of God, just like any other mainstream Christians.  Likewise, the Ebionites were not early Christians in any sense that would be understood by modern Christians.  The implication of this Christian-imposed definition is that Ebionites were heretics and "re-Judaizers" who deviated from the original "true" Christian religion.  Sorry, but the emerging evidence suggests otherwise. Ovadyah 02:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Michael C. Price talk 09:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Several editors will try to "Christianize" the Ebionites article on the day it will be featured on the main page of Wikipedia so we will have to be vigilant. --Loremaster 18:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I recommend locking the article. If you feel it is sufficient, please go ahead with this, I would support it. The term Ebionites is an emotionally loaded term, very often misused and usually interpreted from the vantage of someone pushing their own theories which they are in love with, rather than truth. I've repeatedly said that if an ebionite of the 1st century knew what was being said of the ebionites today, he/she would roll over in his grave. 72.49.194.145 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ebionites article was locked with a  tag and I was hoping that it would remain locked during the day it is featured on the main page of Wikipedia but User:Raul654 unlocked it on April 20th. Only Wikipedia administrators can lock and unlock Wikipedia articles, and they usually only do so when there is evidence of recent acts of vandalism rather then the prospect of some in the future. --Loremaster 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Christianizing" the Ebionites article

message: I want to continue the thread I began on your talk page here with the statement, "there isn't a scholarly consensus either way on whether or not Jewish Christians and/or Ebionites were more faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus".  Let's look at that section of the lead in the current and previous versions. Ovadyah 13:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You made the exact change I was thinking of for the first issue. :0) Ovadyah 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've finished editing the lead according to your suggestions. --Loremaster 17:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am satisfied with your recent changes. Ovadyah 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholarly consensus