Talk:Ebionites/Peer Review Archive

This page is only for discussions related to improving the article following Ebionites Peer Review. Older discussions about improving the article leading up to peer review can be found at Archive 2. Discussions about the RFC process, peer review process, or competing modern groups, including preaching, rants, and personal attacks, were moved to Neo-Ebionite 2 for the sake of civility and clarity for the editors. Ovadyah 00:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Way Forward (from peer review)
Now that we have taken a bit of a break, I thought I would get things rolling. UberCryxic had some questions about sources as follows:

1. ''There are some claims in there that definitely appear sketchy to average readers....like...."Accordingly they dispossessed themselves of all their goods and lived in communistic societies"

2. "While Ebionites undoubtedly drew their doctrines from ideas circulating in the 1st century CE, Judeo-Christian origins scholar Robert Eisenman argues that they existed as a distinct group from Pauline Christians and Gnostic Christians before the destruction of Jerusalem," among many others.''

Can we identify the sources of these entries and provide citations? Any others? Let's nail down our source material before we take on organization and style issues. Ovadyah 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Jewish Encyclopedia: Ebionites
 * 2. Eisenman, Robert. James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Viking, 1996
 * --Loremaster 01:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That was quick!

How do you feel about UberCryxic's other suggestion:

''The section Ebionite writings should be written in summary style, not lists. Same thing with the Sources section.''

There is content overlap between Sources and Writings. The summary style comment may reflect a preference for inline citations. Ovadyah 03:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The rationale for summary style is that the length of a given Wikipedia entry tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long entries would cause problems. However, I don't expect the Sources and Writings sections to grow. However, I have no problem with these sections being merged. --Loremaster 06:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should merge Sources 1 into History and Sources 2 into Writings. If we decide to expand the article later to list writings of the church fathers about Ebionites, we can create a separate bullet for Panarion 30.


 * BTW, this is refreshing. Been down so long I was starting to forget what up was like. Ovadyah 18:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Merged Sources into History and Writings sections as we discussed and used summary style. I think these changes address most of UberCryxic's suggestions. Ovadyah 02:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Beautiful! :) --Loremaster 02:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * I will continue to make some minor edits to the article but nothing that will change it's structure or core content. --Loremaster 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

See Peer review/Ebionites


 * I have just made a series of suggestions here Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Loremaster 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster I suggest we reserve this page for disussions relating to peer review and follow-up work resulting from the peer review. I suggest moving the last two sections discussing editorial changes made prior to the peer review to Archive 2. I would move the rant about changes to the archived pages to Archive 1, where it can be combined with all the other POV material. Ovadyah 02:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Done. --Loremaster 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Its interesting that actual discussion about changes to the artical you call rants. then archiving it by moving it to a different section only makes for confusion. Do smoke screens and confusion work in your favor?NazireneMystic 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether they are rants or not, I only archive discussions that have ended and disputes have been resolved. Anyone can easily find and read the archives so my acts cannot be interpreted as some attempt to limit your freedom of speech. --Loremaster 16:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

'''The peer review has been archived. It contains several ideas we can use to improve the Ebionites article.''' --Loremaster 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's suggestions
This is an important article but clearly it needs work. I have three general comments.
 * 1) A definition or account of what the Ebionites believed should be in the first paragraph.  Later in the text we find this: "All these Christian sources agree that Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and the death of Jesus as an atonement for the Original Sin. Ebionites seemed to have emphasized the humanity of Jesus as the mortal son of Mary and Joseph who became the Messiah as "prophet like Moses" when he was anointed with the "holy spirit" at his baptism. Sources also suggest that Ebionites believed all Jews and Gentiles must observe Mosaic Law; but it must be understood through the Sermon on the Mount's expounding of the Law by Jesus."  I think an abbreviated version of this should be the second sentence.  I am not sure that the vows of poverty needs to be in the first paragraph.

Loremaster, let's consider Slrub's first suggestion. Basically, he's arguing for an abstract of Ebionite beliefs. Can you craft this in one sentence for the lead paragraph? I think the vow of poverty material should stay as is in a third sentence. Ovadyah 02:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Craft it and I will improve it if necessary. --Loremaster 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, I made the suggested improvements to the lead paragraph. Here are the references to back up the changes:

Catholic Encyclopedia

They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew. Some Ebionites accept, but others reject, the virginal birth of Christ, though all reject His pre-existence and His Divinity. Those who accepted the virginal birth seem to have had more exalted views concerning Christ and, besides observing the Sabbath, to have kept the Sunday as a memorial of His Resurrection. The milder sort of Ebionites were probably fewer and less important than their stricter brethren, because the denial of the virgin birth was commonly attributed to all.

Jewish Encyclopedia

They believed in the Messianic character of Jesus, but denied his divinity and supernatural origin; observed all the Jewish rites, such as circumcision and the seventh-day Sabbath; and used a gospel according to Matthew written in Hebrew or Aramaic, while rejecting the writings of Paul as those of an apostate.

Robert Van Voorst "Ascents of James"

As the AJ has a form of pre-existence christology and shows no evidence of adoptionism or an ideal of poverty, its community probably should not be considered Ebionite.

I took the statement about the last and greatest of the prophets from your earlier version of the article. Ovadyah 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

2.
 * I think this article needs to be conceived as one of a series of articles on non-Pauline early Christianity e.g. along with the so-called gnostics, Nazarenes, etc. So I suggest an overview article on 2nd century Christianity i.e. Christianity before Pauline :Christianity emerged as the clear dominant form of Christianity (I am no expert, I know the Council of Jerusalem is important and the Nicean councils would provide an outer limit, or whenever most people agree the NT was effectively canonized).  Such an article would provide a brief description of each variant of Christianity, and I would encourage editors to coordinate their work on developing corresponding articles for each movement (like Ebionites) so that each one has a similar organization, they are all linked to one another, and a clear portrait of heterogeneous and heterodox early Christianity emerges.

I think Slrub's second suggestion about the need for an umbrella article has much to recommend it. However, it is beyond the scope of the current article. Let's table this one for a future project. Ovadyah 19:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Good work. --Loremaster 21:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Loremaster, thanks for your helpful edits. The lead paragraph looks great! Ovadyah 00:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

3.
 * I know one problem with the discussion of most early non-Pauline is that the primary sources were written by opponents of these movements. I think every article in this series therefore should have three components (1) a summary of what people like Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote about the movement, (2) a discussion of how historians have used these texts to better understand the early Catholic Church - i.e. make the point that before interpreting what these sources reveal about groups like the Ebionites, historians first try to figure out what they reveal about early Catholic orthodoxy and struggles among early Christians (e.g. Elaine Pagels argues that one thing that made the Gnostic Gospels so threatening to Irenaeus and others was not just the theological claims about Jesus, but the threat to the authority of the bishops which is what early Church fathers were struggling to establish), (3) finally a more detailed presentations of how historians have tried to reconstuct what the Ebionites (and other groups) really believed and practiced, and why.  One strength of this article is that it names major scholars researching this area.  The problem is these scholars are named in the second paragraph.  I think the introduction is too early to name specific scholars (instead, the second paragraph should just summarize what it is these scholars are asking or arguing over).  The good news is that this list provides a starting point for a more detailed section that really draws on these sources to spell out (a) what they all agree about (b) what most agree about and (c) what many of them are still arguing about or unsure of.

I don't have the energy to take this one on tonight. Loremaster, what do you recommend we do in response to Slrub's last comment? Ovadyah 01:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've followed Alec's last suggestion regarding the naming of sholars in the second paragraph of the lead (which should be expanded). As for the rest of his great suggestions, I will be too busy in the next weeks to follow them. --Loremaster 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will attempt to expand the summary in the second paragraph of the lead while you are away and leave the final edits to you. Ovadyah 04:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I created a short second paragraph in the lead section to mention the polemics of the early church fathers. This could be expanded, but I wanted to keep it general. I kept the material about scholars intact as a third paragraph. I also added info to the history section about Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, as the oldest second century sources. Ovadyah 03:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, I am finished incorporating Slrub's suggestions for improving the lead section. I also added two references to the Writings section to clear up a few points. Please review my changes and let's discuss next steps. Ovadyah 17:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I approve of all your changes. --Loremaster 17:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

POV comments regarding peer review
Since Scholars have such different views of the source of thier writings from one claiming they are Gnostic christian in an attempt to make them sound wrongfuly atributed to Ebionite and anothers that claim they came directly from jewish thought that already existed at the time, to try to follow that editors sugestion would clearly be tring to deside truth rather then lay out a factual artical when the facts themselves are highly debated "NazireneMystic"


 * NM, scholars agree on certain basic facts about the Ebionites, even if you don't. These could be captured in a sentence in the lead paragraph.  In any case, we have an obligation to address the comments of the reviewers. Ovadyah 02:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The request i put in yesterday for my password just arrived AOL is just wonderful.

A Scholar who thinks the universal mindset shown in the Clementine writings come directly from Hebrew foundations that preexisted them in the form of Enoch and Jubilees or one who states Ebionite's believed the literal Torah had been falsified would have a totally different idea of Ebionite beliefs then a scholar that formed their opinion based on a medieval Muslims account of a group that had no authentic ties to Ebionites or claimed to be Ebionites. Ironically the very short intro paragraph your looking for already exist in a few different forms in the early Christian witnesses but you call all these Gnostic Christian POV. Even the earliest of them all state Ebionites Believed He became the Messiah/Christ at baptism because he forfilled the law and THEY to become the Messiah/Christ when they forfill the law. Having a paragraph start off claiming all the early Christian sources agree.... and then leaving out that they ALL claimed Ebionites believed THEY TO become Messiah/ Christ's when they forfill the law is kind of silly to anyone who has read them. That part of what all the sources agree with is currently only being withheld to appease you Ovadyah NazireneMystic 03:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What is silly is your idea that becoming a Christ is somehow a unique characteristic of the historical Ebionites (and by extension your group). This supposed great revelation, called theosis, is common to Eastern Orthodox Christian denominations.  They regard salvation as a journey (perfection in the way) rather than a condition, as is more typical in Western denominations.  It is of minimal relevance from an Ebionite perspective, but highly relevant to certain Christian groups. Ovadyah 05:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster,

You do not own this artical and should explain yourself before moving edits of mine into a section called POV. My comments were directly related to this section. BTW isnt Slrubenstein a POV that Ovadyah went shopping for? I remember seeing this on his contribution page. No wonder his sugestion was to try to force a POV while the scholars are so divided.

Ovadyah's replay I do agree is POV and his pretending that Ebionite thought has nothing to do with spiritual revelation is pure silly. All the Hebrew prophets were not only seeking the "small still voice" of the true prophet the clementine writings spoke of but like Danial they didnt eat meat. Like Jeremiah they said Noone ever commanded the animal sacrifices.

Scholars have stated the mind set shown in the Clementine writings was founded apart from the church or temple but in the writings of hebrews and copies of these writings were later discovered in the Dead sea scrolls. A certain early christian witness that has been nailed to the cross in the main artical by a vandalous POV also agrees with the clementine writings. On top of this a reincarnating soul that evolves to perfection over a number of lives is accepted doctorine among many sect of jews still today so Ovadyah's reply was realy just a rant because he can not give one GOOD reason to surpress the fact all the early christian witnesses claim " They to become Christ/Messiah's when they to forfill the law." This agrees with the clementine writings which scholars agree reflect Ebionite views... of which Scholars claim are founded in pre christian, Jewish writings. You have some thinking to do before you write your short paragraph.NazireneMystic 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * NM, it's interesting that you spend your time trolling on my contribution page. For your information, Rubenstein is a PhD scholar with extensive knowledge of early Christianity and Judaism.  This should be obvious, even to you, from a cursory examination of his many contributions on Wikipedia.  He is quite simply, one of the best reviewers we have on this subject. Ovadyah 19:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * NazireneMystic, I have never acted like I own the Ebionite article or its talk page. However, I have a right to edit them as I see fit as long as I respect Wikipedia guidelines. For the record, I didn't move your comments in a section called POV but feel free to rename it. --Loremaster 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You have acted like you own the artical the whole time ive been hear and you still act like it. Your correct you didnt move my edit to another section someone else did and after I restored it THEN you reverted it so are we spliting hairs now?NazireneMystic 08:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Lore and Ovad-- just for the record, don't feel like you have to convince all parties of the direction the article needs to go. Between you, SLRubenstein, and myself, I'd say you've got a pretty good mandate to try to improve in the directions suggested by the peer review.  By all means, keep discussing the issue if you feel it helpful, but after a certain point, some discussion may just degrade into incivility, rather than being productive.  --Alecmconroy 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Loremaster 00:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Alec, thanks for your perspective, as always. Ovadyah 00:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Easy Yoke" Halakha?
Due to my coming to this subject from a Jesus Seminar perspective, I've always thought that the Ebionites struggled to follow a third way between the extreme legalism of Pharisee Jews and the extreme antinomianism of Pauline Christians.

James Tabor argues that the Ebionites were dedicate to following the whole Torah, as applicable to Israel and to Gentiles, but through the "easy yoke" halakha of their Teacher Jesus, which emphasized the spirit of the biblical prophets in a restoration of the "True Faith," the Ancient Paths (Jeremiah 6:16), from which, by and large, they believed the establishment Jewish groups of 2nd Temple times had lost.

Ovadyah, from everything you've read, do you believe that, while not rejecting the Torah like Paul preached, Jesus thought a more liberal observation of the Torah but the Ebionites were swayed by the more fundamentalist teachings of James and his successors? --Loremaster 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A great question! This was much debated earler this year on Mark Goodacre's and Loren Rosson's blogs. A view currently held by many scholars is that Jesus relaxed the requirements of the Torah for Gentiles because he expected the imminent coming of the kingdom, part of which was to be the ingathering of the Gentiles. Problems arose, however, when the kingdom did not come as expected, as to what to do with all the Gentiles that had been admitted into the nascent Nazarene movement. The thinking is that the Jerusalem Church insisted that they either convert to Judaism or be expelled, since table-fellowship with Goyim was considered a violation of Jewish Law. A more liberal group, Peter's faction perhaps, may have thought that the Gentiles could remain as Gentiles but maintain a kind of separate but equal relationship within the sect. It's doubtful that anyone, other than Paul and his followers, advocated that Jews stop following the halakha of Jewish Law before their expulsion from the synagogue and curse of the Birkat ha-Minim. So, I don't agree with James T.'s interpetation of a kind of compromise solution.

Restoration of the True Faith, imho, was a dispute over the relative importance of Prophesy vs. the Oral Torah. The Pharisees (and Rabbis later) declared an end to prophesy with Malachi and sought to codify the Oral Law in the Mishnah. Other groups undoubtedly disputed this means of interpretation of scripture. I also think it is significant that the disputes over Divorce, Riches, and the Cleansing of the Temple in the gospel of Mark closely parallel the Three Nets of Belial (Fornication, Riches, and Pollution of the Temple) in the Covenant of Damascus. In every case, the proclamation stories move from the lesser to the greater, arguing against using strict adherence to narrow rules as a way of subverting the intent of more fundamental principles. Ovadyah 18:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A great answer! --Loremaster 18:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Drive-by Observations
I'll do some further examination of the article later, but here are a few suggestion:

This is quite close, if not at Good Article state. Why not nominate it and get another review? Having weighed in here already, I can't do that review, but an other editor will.

Since the majority of Christians would have a hard time with calling the Ebionites Christian, I think you need to find language that does not take the position that they are Christian. You can quote them or others saying they are Christian (with a cite, of course) and other nuanced language. Having been through the mind-numbing process with articles on theologians who confess Jesus as the Christ, but being asked not to use language in the article that calls him the Christ directly (only on Wikipedia would this happen), I can understand how difficult that can be. If you haven't had a hostile reaction from some committed Christians on this point, expect it will sometime come up.

Are there any images you can put in here?

Include page numbers in your inline citations. The point behind these citations is that a reader can quickly find the source of your information or quote, sometimes so that they can learn more about the detail you've mentioned. Page numbers are not strictly necessary in the works cited section, unless you are referencing a specific portion of a whole book. So, if there were a chapter by a John Brown entitled Ebionites in an imaginary book Early Challenges to Orthodox Christianity, you would put the page range in the Works Cited list. If the whole work is about the Ebionites, however, no pagination is needed in such a list.

Move all the parenthetical references to Church Fathers, etc. to their own notes. You may even want to link to the text as it appears online in the Ante-Nicene Fathers set.

That's all for a quickie. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt reply! All good points.  I agree with you, speaking personally as an Ebionite.  I don't consider Ebionites to be Christian, whether historical or modern.  Some of our fellow editors who are Jewish, however, will have problems with the historical context of Ebionites within Judaism. Ovadyah 14:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thinking about your comments in a more historical context, I'm having second thoughts. While I don't think of Ebionites as Christian (particularly Chalcedonian), the Church Fathers clearly did in some sense, or they wouldn't be denouncing them as heretics.  In that context, I can live with the majority of Christians being offended.  It's not Wikipedia's burden to assuage their hostility to historical facts. Ovadyah 00:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Loremaster 21:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added the chapter reference for Jerome and an online link. Can someone add the missing chapter/page references for the Homilies/Recognitions?  I think that will cover the missing inline citations. Ovadyah 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference check
To save time, I decided to verify the chapter and page references myself for the Recognitions and Homilies that are cited in the article (R 1.36, R 1.54, H 3.54, H 7.4, H 7.8). What I found was that these citations have nothing whatever to do with Ebionites. R 1.36 concerns sacrifice in the temple and says that it is temporary, but it appears to be addressed to Jews in general. R 1.54 lists various Jewish sects including Sadducees, Pharisees, and followers of John the Baptist. It says nothing whatever about Ebionites. H 3.54 retells Jesus' pronouncement story to the Sadducees regarding marriage. Nothing to do with Ebionites. H 7.4 Lists the Noahide Laws, similar to what is found in Acts, and recites the Golden Rule. Nothing to do with Ebionites. H 7.8 again discusses the Noahide Laws. Again, nothing whatever to do with Ebionites. Unless someone can explain why these references belong in the article, I am striking the entire sentence. Ovadyah 02:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course for you to strike them you are piting personal research against many scholars that view them as describing Ebionite views. At the same time with the same reasoning this makes all your evidence strikable since your muslim historian you love so much never calls his jewsih bunch ebionites and they themselves do not call themselves Ebionites. I think placing your personal research above the sources cited should not sit well with wikipedians regardless of political pressures they may face however if person research is an issue admins have desided to toss the rules out the window over then lets start striking because the artical would be vastly improved by removing the speculations, presumptions,and assumptions the artical is plagued with.NazireneMystic 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strike it. --Loremaster 21:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. I also removed the next sentence citing Schoeps about Clementine literature parallels, as it was completely dependent on the previous R & H citations. Ovadyah 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I corrected your vandalism and reincerted Schoeps as I was responsible for its incert to begain with and contrary to your excuse it was in no way dependent on citations made by other editors. Schoeps opinions were based on fact ,facts that threaten your POV so I see your desperation in tring to remove it. I wonder what we have other points of view from scholars that supports your presidents positionin the artical even thoe its clear the view is pure speculation, but try to delete facts and call them vandalism?NazireneMystic 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * NazireneMystic, if this passage was restored, would you be satisfied with the article as it is? This dispute is getting quite old and tiresome... --Loremaster 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Loremaster it does get old but it is the nature of things. If you reincerted it in a day or two to counter act it some other well dreamed up disclaimer would be included so while i would be happy if it were included if I were to leave now never to return within a few months it would revert back to a billboard for you know who's group. I may get bann but I am given no choice given the way people are acting because im not going to backdown.NazireneMystic 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't revert the article without consensus as per the RFC. :) Ovadyah 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? When did we have a RFC regarding anything in the artical but the spiritual ebionite section that was ruled by the same editor that turned out to be a meat puppet in the Ebionite Restoration Movements deletion hearing in which he actulay lied when justifing his vote?NazireneMystic 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)