Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites/Archive 1

NPOV?
The text as written implies that the Ebionites edited the Gospel to make Jesus fit with their philosophy. What evidence is there that it was the Ebionites who changed Jesus to match their teachings and not the Synoptic Gospels which changed Jesus to fit theirs? Marwood 13:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The wording should be altered. --Michael C. Price talk 16:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree 139.142.167.190 (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Early textual variants of Matthew
There are several early "orthodox" texts of Matthew in the Alexandrian family that lack the genealogy and virgin birth. I'll try to locate the specific variants. This could point to a second century origin for the gospel harmony. Ovadyah (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to correct the record, I did some checking and I was wrong about early texts of Matthew lacking the genealogy and virgin birth. --Ovadyah (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Overlap with Ebionites
Much of this article is talking about the Ebionites, rather than their gospel. As such I suggest that that material be moved to Ebionites.--Michael C. Price talk 05:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general idea that the material on the Ebionite group is comparatively excessive here, although I am not sure that all the material necessarily has to be added to the Ebionites article, as that might produce similar problems there. I wouldn't see any objections to shortening that section. Also, I question the use of the term "Ebionite Community", as (1) that is apparently the current name of an internet church, and (2) I have rarely seen the term used in academic literature to describe the Ebionites of the early Christian era. I would think "Ebionites", as per the title of that other article, would be more reasonable. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The part covering the Edionites might be long at this point, I first have to get all the ducks on the water before I can start paring down. The sentice with "Ebionite Community" in it is a left over from the original version; I have seen no evidence that there was a community, so that terminology is a misnomer, based on the meager data that exists. Hardyplants (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I applied a merge tag to indicate this content should be incorporated into the Ebionites article. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Matthaei Authenticum section
I applied a tag proposing that the Matthaei Authenticum material be merged into the Gospel of the Hebrews or possibly the Jewish-Christian Gospels article. This is the least likely place to put this material out of the four pages on Jewish-Christian Gospels. What little we know about the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites is contained in Epiphanius' Panarion chapter 30. The material quoted by Epiphanius suggests it was composed in Greek and was a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels. (I suggest the Gospel of the Hebrews as a fourth synoptic gospel and the probable source of the great light on the water during the baptism of Jesus.) The reference to "us" in the text, referring to the apostles, suggests the source may be the Gospel of The Twelve mentioned by Origen. This is the majority view among scholars in the last 20 years. There is only a single mention by Jerome of a different gospel that may have been used the Ebionites. That is the same gospel used by the Nazoraeans (and is indistinguishable from the Gospel of the Hebrews). Ovadyah (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read up on what you have said and you have won me over. However I think the material should be merged into the article on the Ebionites. I will be bold and give it a go. The trick will be to balance the liberal position with the more conservative position. If anyone feels I acted too hastily feel free to revert and discuss. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems okay to me. Merging is hard work. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The merge seems okay, but why has this material suddenly appeared in Ebionites? I suggest that Matthaei Authenticum (which redirects to the Gospel of the Hebrews), Jewish Christians and Ebionites are distinct enough to merit their own articles, and that the material just moved into the latter should remain the former. A simple link or two will suffice to link to the material where required.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a shame, some merging is needed. But the real problem with all these 6 or 7 articles is they don't simply lay out the original fragments in the standard (Schneemelcher) numbering. At the end of the day all these "Gospels" are editorial theories. What actually exists is citations in Jerome etc. and as it stands the articles don't allow the reader to access those citations. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not familar with Wilhelm Schneemelcher and his numbering, but it sounds like a worthwhile project. Do you want to get a composite  article going (leaving the others in place) so that we can see what you mean and how it pans out? I'm sure everybody here would support such a project. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 10:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you are not familiar "standard (Schneemelcher) numbering", as there is no such thing. Please see the Hebrew Paralipomena below. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Three thoughts... 1) Matthaei Authenticum is ok as a section of the Gospel of the Hebrews. 2) Jewish Christianity was always intended to be a gateway article. The term is completely modern and has no precise meaning, other than ethnically Jewish believers.  As the dialogues and polemics of the Church Fathers show, the Christology of Jewish believers ranged from adoptionist (Dialogue with Trypho) to docetic (Gospel of the Hebrews). 3) I agree that a merge of the Gospel of the Ebionites article into the Ebionites article is a good idea.  It has no meaning apart from the Ebionites (nor does the Ebion article). Speculations about what the so-called GoE might really be can be linked to the Gospel of The Twelve article. Ovadyah (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Undid merge?
Ret.Prof, does this mean you changed your mind? I still think it's a good idea. It's just not as simple as a cut and paste. How about a compromise. We can leave the GoE article intact while the GoE section of the Ebionites article is expanded to incorporate relevant new information (relevant being the key word and open to discussion). After a majority of the editors are happy with the changes (nothing is ever unanimous on the Ebionites article), we can complete the merge. Any thoughts? Ovadyah (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read my edits you may be able to deduce that I would love to delete/merge the Gospel of Ebionites as it is a non existent Gospel. There is no text, nor is it mentioned in the Early Church Catalogs, nor is mentioned by any of the Church Fathers. This gospel is purely the figment of the fertile imaginations of modern scholars who believe they can say anything, write anything as long as it is titillating enough to get published. It is an imaginary gospel or as Edwards politely puts it a scholarly neologism


 * Now that I have finished my little "POV rant", the reliable sources preclude my merge. The Gospel of the Ebionites is a notable topic found in thousands of sources, as well as most encyclopedias and Biblical dictionaries. Therefore I must oppose any merge or become a totally hypocritical Wikipedia editor. Does that make any sense to you? - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha,ha perfectly! In fact, this is one of the worst examples of "fertile imaginations" I can think of in textual criticism.  Note the following reasoning:
 * The testimony of Epiphanius, that the Ebionites corrupted their text by making a word-for-word substitution of pancakes (egkris) for locusts (akris), is accepted uncritically as a fact. (Possibly, but there are other explanations that fit as well.)
 * Therefore, the Ebionites created a parallelism in their text, pancakes and honey vs. locusts and honey. (This is a pseudo-parallelism. The text Epiphanius quotes says no such thing.)
 * Therefore, the motivation behind this change was to emphasize their practice of vegetarianism. (Epiphanius offers no explanation of why the text is different.)
 * And, it "proves" that the gospel was originally composed in Greek. (All this based on one word.)


 * A different explanation has been offered by Skarsaune, "Jewish Believers in Jesus", p.251: The text is a scriptural reference to 1Kgs 19:6, where Elijah eats cakes and oil. Thus, the text attempts to offer a proof from prophesy: that John the Baptist is Elijah, returning to inaugurate the salvation of Israel.  By this reasoning, the two textual traditions are independent, and Epiphanius' attempt to explain the difference is itself a pseudo-parallelism.  Which explanation makes more sense for a group of Jewish-Christians with a low Christology? Ovadyah (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Of course Epiphanius is on a rant against the Ebionites which may not make him the most objective source. It would be like having Fox News as being your only source on Obama. Ehrman makes the point that what Ebionites believed was that meat from animal sacrifices should not be eaten. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. That idea comes from a quote read from the gospel where Jesus says (according to the text), 'I came to destroy the sacrifices, and if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you' or from a subsequent quote 'Have I desired with desire to eat this flesh of the Passover with you?'. This again is taken by some as advocacy for vegetarianism, but a more likely meaning is the replacement of the temple cult - the animal sacrifices for the forgiveness of sin have been replaced by a baptism of repentance and intercessory prayer. Ovadyah (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Made comment in the above section. In favour of merges. Particularly if standard Schneemelcher numbering can be added. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the google books link to Schneemelcher; have added it to the external links sections. It has a number useful statements about the GoE, as well as the Ebionites themselves. I have deleted the section that spoke solely about the Ebionites - we must strive to avoid duplicating material in other articles. Some of the remaining material looks a bit POV, but that's for the future. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no trouble with it but if any editor has concerns they should feel free to revert until consensus is reached. I must say I like the the tone of the debate. I am working on my 'reply". My hope is to work a compromise on the disputed material that presents all the facts but does not push one side or the other. Just for the record my POV is closer to Parker than to either Edwards or Schneemelcher and so far his work seems to be underrepresented. But I will put that "dog" in the race tomorrow. Thanks again for all the good will. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Bernhard Pick Hebrew Paralipomena (1908)
Over the past two months I have been reading up on the Jewish gospels starting with Clement and finishing with Casey.


 * First Clement,
 * Didache,
 * Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans
 * Polycarp to the Philippians
 * Barnabas,
 * Justin, Dialogue,
 * Irenaeus, Against Heresies
 * Tertullian, On Prayer 26
 * Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
 * Origen,
 * Eusebius, Theophany on Matthew
 * Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
 * Didymus, Commentary on Psalm
 * Epiphanius, Panarion
 * Jerome, On Psalm 135
 * Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah
 * Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel
 * Jerome, Commentary on Micah
 * Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
 * Jerome’s Letter to Damascus 20 on Matthew 21.9
 * Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia
 * Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians
 * Jerome, Against Pelagius
 * Jerome, On Illustrious Men,
 * Pick Bernhard, Paralipomena: Remains of Gospels and Sayings of Christ BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009
 * Sabine Baring-gould, The Lost And Hostile Gospels, Nabu Press, 2010.
 * Waite Burlingame, History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred, BiblioBazaarPub, 2009. p 278
 * Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005.
 * "Artifact Record Details: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932: Letter, Thaius to Tigrius (Fragment)". Spurlock Museum at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2001. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/search/details.php?a=1914.21.0010. Retrieved 30 May 2007. "Artifact of the Month: Letter from Thaius to Tirius, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932". Spurlock Museum. 2002. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/collections/artifact/oxyrhynchus.html. Retrieved 30 May 2007.
 * S. Kent Brown comments on the text of Oxyrhynchus 840 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5,
 * Discourse on Maria Theotokos by Cyril 12A
 * Grabe, Johann Ernst - Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Seculi Post Christum natum
 * Kitto, John - A cyclopædia of Biblical literature.
 * von Harnack, Adolf - Texte und untersuchungen zur geschichte der
 * Weber, Christian Friedrich - Neue Untersuchung über das Alter und Ansehen des Evangeliums.
 * Boyce, William Binnington - The higher criticism and the Bible.
 * Archibald Hamilton Charteris, Johannes Kirchhofer - Canonicity: a collection of early testimonies :to the canonical books of the New Testament.
 * Handmann, Rudolf - Das Hebräer-Evangelium.
 * Pick, Bernhard. The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005
 * Nicholson, Edward Byron - The Gospel According to the Hebrews.
 * Pierson Parker - A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews".
 * Farmer, William - The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
 * Schoemaker, W. R. - The Gospel According to the Hebrews. The University of Chicago Press.
 * Walter Richard Cassels - Supernatural Religion.
 * Edwards, J.R. - The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition, 2009.
 * Casey, Maurice - Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, 2010

It has been a lot of work to read through this mountain of material. I would sum up these sources as follows:

1. Occam's razor
In a topic where there are many strange ideas ranging from "Jesus as alien being" to "Jesus as a mythical God", Occam's razor states the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one. In other words, Jesus was probably ''a 'Jewish' rabbi and one of his followers wrote some 'stuff' about him in the 'local dialect'. ''
 * OR In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Hebrew Gospel Tradition 75/12
The simplest explanation is also supported by the historical evidence. During the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link

3. Gospel of the Ebionites 0/0
During the formative years of Early Christianity 0 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Gospel of the Ebionites in circulation. Also it is listed in 0 ancient catalogs. Indeed there is no historical evidence from either Christian or non Christian sources that the Ebionites ever composed a gospel. The Church Fathers all state that the Ebionites only used one gospel which was composed by Matthew in Hebrew and was referred to by "most people" as the Authentic Gospel of Matthew or less frequently the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Therefore Schneemelcher's "imaginary" Gospel of the Ebionites is a non existent gospel or as Edwards politely puts it a scholarly neologism

Schneemelcher's "numbering" has also been weighed, measured and found wanting for the following reasons.
 * 1) It is based on scholarly neologisms
 * 2) Schneemelcher numbers are incomplete as he only cites the "fragments" as opposed to the more extensive Hebrew "paralipomena".

Finally, I may have been a little hard Schneemelcher, as
 * Wilson who translated the 1959 work into English did a poor job.
 * His book was not meant to be a study of this topic but a broad survey of the non canonical gospels, of which his entry on this topic only consisted of a few pages.
 * Schneemelcher himself admits the weakness of his position when he says, "Thus the number of Jewish Gospels -- whether there be one, two or three such gospels -- is uncertain, the identification of the several fragments is also uncertain and, finally the character and the relationship to one another of the several Jewish gospels is uncertain." Google Link

Therefore I strongly oppose any change to the present numbering. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But whose is the present numbering? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are whetting my apetite, RT, now I definitely want to read Schneemelcher's reconstruction of the GoE! -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a good thing, I hope? You can probably tell that I have been reading Casey's Jesus of Nazareth. Although Casey is a non Christian his rebuke of both pro Christian and anti Christian scholars has had a great impact on me. When studying the topic Jesus we must be bound by historical methodology and should not just make stuff up. The historical evidence is important. Having said that, I have no problem with including Schneemelcher's interesting speculations, as long as they are presented from a NPOV. Thus we should not delete or merge this topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a good thing. I would like to see Schneemelcher's interesting speculations.  Most biblical research has a high component of speculation, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't report it as such here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A likely explanation for all this confusion is that there is only one so-called Hebrew gospel; it is the same gospel that Jerome had in his possession, which was written in Syriac using Hebrew letters and with OT quotations in the Hebrew language. The title of this gospel was almost certainly "According to Matthew". That's how Jerome identifies it the first time he mentions it. (The first and only time, presumably before he was able to read it in Syriac.) However, once Jerome (and others) realized the text was different than canonical Matthew, that presented a problem. Jerome subsequently refers to the text as "According to the Hebrews", following Eusebius, to distinguish it from canonical Matthew. Ovadyah (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof deletion
Okay, I'm listening: please explain Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem very agitated. Your tag spam, comments and edits are inappropriate. In fact you are scaring me a little. Please calm down. This is a difficult topic and we should work together to build consensus. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Please first propose your edits on the talk page as all of us are now doing. Generally you do good work but today has not been one of your better days. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not remotely agitated (does the above sound agitated to you?) on the contrary you seem extremely agitated and desperate to delete any reference to mainstream scholarship on these pages which seem to believe are your private territory. You yourself need to calm down, control your temper, and take your finger off the delete trigger when sources are cited which do not fit your/Nicholson's theory. I have repeatedly proposed edits on the talk page, and then see you dismiss mainstream scholars for no reason. At least allow readers of wikipedia to see mainstream scholarship. Frankly to be deleting Schneemelcher's numbering system from the standard academic work is NPOV of the worst sort. You are an enthusiast for this subject, fine, I am not. But mainstream scholarly content should not be deleted in favour of anonymous contributions.In ictu oculi (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
Some non-enthusiast mainstream editors are needed here to allow that e.g. the mainstream Schneemelcher numbering system and majority point of view needs to take precedence over Melissa from the Bangkok internet cafe and other enthusiastic OR NPOV contributions: In ictu oculi (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels
 * Talk:Gospel of the Nazarenes
 * Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites
 * Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews

I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I would be happy to help out as an informal mediator, if asked. Biblical textual criticism is a big interest of mine, so I know a wee bit about the subject matter. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My dog isn't in the hunt, but itches when BiblioBazaar and Nabu Press stuff appears in refs. haven't restored any of what's been deleted - probably Jewish-Christian Gospels more than here. So please have a browse of what I did this morning and feel free to do or not do as fits. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I took a look. Frankly, I would consider going back to this version as a starting point. The current section on the Ebionites is basically a duplicate of the material in the Ebionites article. The section on the Matthaei Authenticum was added shortly after this version by an anon. It has nothing to do with the gospel quoted by Epiphanius, which appears to be a gospel harmony of the three synoptic gospels (probably plus the GoH). We know enough about the baptismal scene in the GoH, based on quotations by Jerome from his personal copy, to know that it can't possibly be that gospel. So, I would consider starting with this older version and adding in what we do know based on the testimony of Epiphanius. His specific quotations from the gospel might be added in the reference section. Most modern scholars equate the GoE to the Gospel of The Twelve. The article should reflect that with proper sourcing. I hope this helps. Ovadyah (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks..

I would agree with going back to your version of 9 May 2009 as a starting point.
 * What is it? = seven quotes by Epiphanius.
 * Where does the name come from? = Andrews Norton (1846)? earlier?
 * Where is the text? = The standard critical edition is found in Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha where the 7 citations by Epiphanius are numbered GE-1 to GE-7.
 * Who is (a) Ephiphanius (b) the group he is criticizing? = Epiphanius of Salamis was a critic of the Ebionites as heretics. His citations may not be reliable.
 * Possible relation to other Jewish-Christian Gospels?= e.g. Which modern scholars equate the GoE to the Gospel of the Twelve?
 * And mainstream modern sources. No BiblioBazaar sources.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of good work in the current article, and I'm not suggesting that it all be thrown away. However, it was expanded in two different directions, a description of the Ebionites as a sect and the Matthaei Authenticum, that are covered more completely elsewhere. Apart from a single mention by Jerome of a gospel that the Nazaraeans and Ebionites use (likely a mistake on his part as the two christologies are incompatible), all we know about the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites (modern name) is contained in Epiphanius' Panarion 30. I would start there with reliable secondary sources. Ovadyah (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 100% agree with the above comment. Which is why I marked that as "duplicate material".In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Primary Sources - what do we know for sure based on quotations from the Church Fathers?
I will list all the primary source material before Epiphanius in chronological order. All of the quotations are taken from Skarsaune, Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007):

Irenaeus

Irenaeus claims they are using a gospel text that contradicts their own beliefs.

Pseudo-Tertullian

Ps. Tertullian seems to imply that they exclude the gospel (italics are mine).

I could not find any quotations by Origen about the gospel the Ebionites used, but I will recheck.

Eusebius

Eusebius' report is similar to Irenaeus before him, but he refers to the gospel as the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews (italics mine), possibly implying that it is called that name by others to distinguish the text from canonical Matthew.

Jerome

Here, Jerome explicitly states that a good many regard it as the authentic text of Matthew (italics mine).

This is everything excluding Epiphanius. Everything up to this point suggests (to me) that the Ebionites used a gospel text they called the Gospel of Matthew and others called the Gospel of the Hebrews to distinguish it from the canonical Gospel of Matthew. The confusion begins with the report of Epiphanius in Panarion 30. Ovadyah (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Certainly above is very useful for the other pages: Jewish-Christian Gospels, please see Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels, though Klijn and Vielhauer give reasons why the standard academic assumption is 3 JGs not 2 JGs, and Wikipedia's job is to reflect mainstream scholars. And re Talk:Gospel of the Nazarenes, yes, but the full sentence being; Notandum quoque quod in Evangelio secundum Hebraeos, quo utuntur Nazaraeni et Ebionitae, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum, Jerome evidently means "a good many Nazarenes and Ebionites" not "a good many of all non-Nazarene/Ebionite Christians".
 * But here Gospel of the Ebionites is solely about the texts of Epiphanius only isn't it? "For our knowledge we are dependent on the accounts and quotations in Epiphanius" (Schneemelcher Vol.1 p166)
 * Matthaei authenticum is just an invention of 1 or more Wikipedia editors, there is no such term in English- or German-language scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Matthaei authenticum is Latin, Google Link often translated into English as authentic Matthew or the authentic gospel of Matthew Google Link by English Biblical scholars? Please explain why you think "there is no such term" and it "is just an invention of 1 or more Wikipedia editors" Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Ps now I am having fun as I do enjoy good natured scholarly debate - thanks guys!
 * Hello RetProf
 * Gladly. When I say "there is no such term" as Matthaei authenticum that means the term is not in use in English language scholarly/academic standard texts, even those discussing Jerome's comment in Latin, even those Victorian translations into English. As for Matthaei authenticum "is just an invention of 1 or more Wikipedia editors" = it may have had it's own page (previously) on Wikipedia, and large chunks of 4 JG articles, but it remains just an invention of 1 or more Wikipedians. Basically all the Matthaei authenticum content should be deleted and replaced with 1 line in the JG main article and 2 lines under GN not using the term Matthaei authenticum or even "the authentic Matthew" (as those Victorian translations on Google Books) but a modern translation would be used of Jerome.
 * Hence this. Any chance of restoring the subsection/sentence about Epiphanius please? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The point of the above quotations was to show what the Church Fathers said about a gospel or gospels used by the Ebionites in chronological order. All the Church Fathers depend to some extent on the reports of those that came before them. I may have been too hasty when I said Jerome was probably mistaken when he reported that both the Nazaraeans and Ebionites use the Gospel of the Hebrews. Jerome's report agrees with that of Irenaeus 200 years earlier when he said the Ebionites use a gospel that contradicts their own beliefs. Anyway, all of this was intended to be background information for an analysis of what Epiphanius had to say in Panarion 30. The problem confounding scholars (and editors) is that Panarion 30 has a big internal contradiction. Part of his report is consistent with the prior witnesses I listed above, and part is totally different. The probable reason is that Epiphanius is believed to have written the Panarion in at least two drafts (probably three according to Glen Alan Koch). The base text is a historical report that conflates the testimony of the previous Fathers. There may be an intermediate draft containing material from the Circuits of Peter (what Origen calls the Vagaries of Clement) where he believes that the Ebionites have corrupted the text. Epiphanius is believed to have then inserted new material based on his own experience, including the gospel he quotes from and the Count Joseph story, into the final version he wrote in Cyprus. That gospel (probably the Gospel of The Twelve), and the beliefs and practices he associates with it (like Samaritans), is completely different and incompatible with the material contained in his previous version (testimony of the earlier Fathers including the Gospel of the Hebrews). One way out of the trap is to lay out what Epiphanius said and separate the two versions (using reliable sources of course). Hope this helps. Ovadyah (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

One more thing and then I'm moving on. I'm sure you guys have plenty of sources, but I find textexcavation to be a valuable resource for this area of study. The original Greek and Latin transcriptions are all there along with the English translation. Good luck on sorting it all out. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a useful link. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. I am off to the library to work on my reply. I am beginning to see where Oculi "is coming from". - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

GE Primary language
I would like to add in here Gospel of the Ebionites mention of mainstream scholarship Schneemelcher etc, Martin Dibelius, Anchor Bible Dictionary, that the GE of Epiphanius was composed in Greek, per p167 Schneemelcher Vol.1 In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please give me a day or so to work on a scholarly reply. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources see (PRIMARY)
I noticed we seem to be talking at cross purposes.Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Schneemelcher etc
Starting with Andrews Norton (1846), Schneemelcher etc have argued that the Ebionites actually composed a gospel called the Gospel of the Ebionites.

Nicholson, Edwards etc
Nicholson, Edwards etc argue that the Ebionites only used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. They argue that the Gospel of the Ebionites is a scholarly neologism with no historical evidence to support it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What's the problem? Just report both views. That's what NPOV is all about. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Michael C. Price, you are indeed a wise man. I do believe we have moved one step closer to consensus - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly I'll believe that when I see Ret.Prof allow the majority view to even be presented without deleting it.In ictu oculi (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews section
I restored the Gospel of the Hebrews section, properly sourced it, and made a few changes to the text (hopefully improvements). As I mentioned previously on the talk page, all of the Church Fathers prior to Epiphanius and including Jerome refer back to this gospel. I covered off on them in two sentences, using inline primary quotations and sources in the reference section. Ovadyah (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

One possibility for how to handle the conflicting Epiphanius material in Panarion 30 would be to put all of his references to the Gospel of the Hebrews, including reports based on the earlier Church Fathers and possibly some quotations he derived from the GoH, into this section. That would free up the main section to discuss what scholars typically think of as the Gospel of the Ebionites. Another way to organize the material would be to leave out all the testimony of Epiphanius from this section, the way it is now, and cover the conflicting gospel references in a separate main section. Ovadyah (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is getting interesting, so I decided to dig a little deeper into the structure of the Panarion 30. Skarsaune claims that 30.3.7 connected directly to 30.15.1 in the original version, and that 30.4-12 and 30.13-14 are large inserts which were added later (p.457). Chapters 30.4-12 are the Count Joseph story and 30.13-14 are the so-called Ebionite Gospel. Chapter 30.15 begins the Pseudo-Clementine material that Epiphanius refers to in 30.15.1 as the Journeys of Peter.

The report in 30.3.7 about the gospel used by the Ebionites is in agreement with Jerome and the earlier Church Fathers as follows:

Skarsaune claims this account is a conflation of information provided by Papias, Irenaeus, and Eusebius on the Gospel used by the Ebionites. Ovadyah (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Skarsaune (p.458) mentions in footnotes that Schmidtke thought 30.14.15 might be an addendum to the material Epiphanius excerpted from the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites, and his paraphrase may have come from Origen's Commentary on John 2.12 about the Gospel of the Hebrews, possibly along with a quotation from that gospel. Skarsaune summarizes the point, so I reproduce the translation from Glen Alan Koch as follows:

The verse in Origen's commentary translates as follows:

However, Skarsaune is not convinced of Schmidtke's argument. If I can indulge in a little OR, by best guess is that Epiphanius may be alluding to Comm. Jo. 2.12 above, but the verse in 30.14.15 is probably still from the gospel harmony in 30.13-14 the Gospel of the Hebrews based on an analysis of the parallel passages here. You will need a browser that can read Symbol font to view it properly. Ovadyah (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed my mind about the quotation above based on internal considerations. The commentary and quotations in 30.14.15 and 30.16.4-5 are parallel passages. They both come at the end of a section and both are used to contrast a preceding comment about adoptionist Christology. Epiphanius attributes the quotation in 30.16.4-5 to the Gospel of the Hebrews as follows:

Both of these taken together suggest they may have come from the same polemical commentary. Note that the commentary doesn't seem to align very well with either quotation. Ovadyah (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ovadyah, thanks very much for those edits. I have moved 2 duplicate comments (misquotes) of Jerome into GHeb section so you can, please, edit/amalgamate/delete as appropriate.
 * That leaves this line in the header: "It is not clear if this (Panarion) is the same one of the Jewish-Christian Gospels as the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans." So how do we address this? Schneemelcher, Klijn, Hennecke, Vielhauer etc. all think it is clear that GE ≠ GHeb. So which 20thC scholars do not think it is clear and propose instead GE = GHeb, or GE = GN? If the only one is James R. Edwards (2009) then the words "controversial" could be applied and ref to "Professor’s book ‘controversial’" In ictu oculi (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposals to group sources (secondary and primary)
This discussion will go a lot faster if we can reach a consensus on how to group the disparate gospel references within Panarion 30. The analysis shows that there are three internal contradictions regarding the gospel(s) the Ebionites used within Panarion 30, based on Skarsaune. I can dig out the refs from Koch too if needed.

1) Chp 1.1 to 3.7 is a historical review of the previous Church Fathers plus Epiphanius' comments on that material. The only section relevant for our purposes is 3.7, which agrees with the Gospel of the Hebrews.

2) Chp 13.1 to 14.5 is the new material added in the final draft that contains the gospel harmony in Greek plus Epiphanius' comments on that material. The first four gospel quotations almost surely come from this material.  The quotation in 14.5 possibly does too, but it might be from the GoH.  It's clear that Epiphanius associates it with a docetic Christology.

3) Chp 15.1 to the end uses the Journeys of Peter as a base text with other material added, possibly from the an alternative Acts of the Apostles and the Book of Elxsai. The emphasis of this whole section is on Peter and the True Prophet.  The material relevant for out purposes are the last two gospel quotations in chapter 16 and 22 along with numerous comments by Epiphanius about how the Ebionites corrupted their text.  Epiphanius says explicitly that the quotation in chapter 16 comes from the Gospel of the Hebrews.  There is a paraphrase of the quotation in Homilies 3.51.2, so Epiphanius probably found the quotation in materials he received from Origen. The Christology is completely consistent with what we know from other sources citing the GoH, where Jesus is said to be the first-born of creation.  The last quotation in Chp 22 is the trickiest to identify but most consistent with the Journeys of Peter.

I'm going to take a short wiki-break and then get to the specifics of the proposals. Ovadyah (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #1 - Group by sources first, GoH vs the rest (putative GoE)
Almost no one thinks GoH = GoE, so move all sources relevant to GoH, including parts of Panarion 30, to the GoH section and refer readers to the main GoH article. Then proceed to lay out the conjectures of the secondary sources regarding the origin of the remaining primary source material in Panarion 30.

Proposal #2 - Group by historical perspective and modern conjectures first
Begin with the historical perspective of what Epiphanius believed to be true, taking all primary sources into consideration together. Follow this with the speculations of modern scholars beginning with the predominant conjecture, the so-called "standard model", if one exists, followed by newer or more controversial conjectures. I believe the most recent consensus is that there is none, so don't be shy about reporting ideas from the "fertile imaginations" of modern scholars (Panarion 30 being the source of the manure). It will make the article messier but more NPOV.

How about beginning a discussion with these two proposals, and feel free to add more proposals. Attention to detail on the talk page will head off bigger edit wars later. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ovadyah. I propose that under this article 'Gospel of the Ebionites / ==The texts== we put up the mainstream traditional view of 7 verses = GE in the standard NTA text first, and then under it note other views.In ictu oculi (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good approach. Let's give Ret.Prof and Michael a chance to respond too and come back with more ideas. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ret.Prof has already responded by another reversion, a completely mindless reversion if I might be so bold, which puts 3 duplicate comments of Jerome on the same Gospel of the Hebrews scattered back at 3 different places in the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mindless" seems a bit harsh. I am old, a bit "absent-minded" but . . . mindless. I don' think I am a few bricks short of a load. It would probably if we if we use avoid such terms. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Harsh", it seems that any objection to your behaviour is "harsh", but by any definition this was mindless reversion, degrouping 3 duplicates. Why? Why any of your reversions and deletions? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's ok for now. We can't put the bricks in their proper place until we agree on the design of the house, so to speak. Ovadyah (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as the design goes correct. I wonder if it's more personal; I note he hasn't deleted your changes, he only seems to delete mine. Anyway, as it stands (following reversion) there are 3 duplicate comments by Jerome on GHeb which isn't the subject of the article.
 * Back to the subject, would you consider Oscar Skarsaune a variation on Vielhauer-Klijn etc, or significant to justify a separate entry as an alternative view? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I have not taken offense at your comments although some of them do seem a bit harsh. It is best not to call each other names. No hard-feelings - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The personal hard-feelings will subside once we start making progress. I'm more familiar with Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence.  Are Vielhauer-Klijn et al., the main proponents of the 3G theory?  If so, that should be considered the "standard model" in the literature.  I think Skarsaune is more 2G in the GH = GN sense, but I will verify that because he argues that the issue is more complicated. Ovadyah (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This scholarly debate is very similar to the Synoptic Problem, where the 2 Source (or 4 Source) theory has been around for 100 years and is kind of the "standard model". Along comes the Farrar/Goulder/Goodacre theory to challenge the conventional wisdom, which they argue is a simpler explanation (but not without its own problems). By analogy, lay out the 3G theory first with the main advocates. Then bring in the 2G challenger, and let the sources argue for themselves why their solution is simpler (parsimonious) without an appreciable loss of explanatory power. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Some good ideas. Does this address Oculi's concern about overlap? I would like to see more "focus" in this and related articles. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually my edit moving the three identical quotes from Jerome together so Ovadayah or another editor could edit/delete addressed my concern about overlap. If you would stop deleting my edits, then that would also address my concern about overlap. And guess what, I would also like to see more "focus" in this and related articles - but I cannot edit because you have decided to continue deleting every attempt to bring in mainstream sources.In ictu oculi (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is important to calm down. I am not deleting your hard work, but merely reverting it temporarily until we reach consensus. Although I disagree that your sources are the "standard" or more "mainline" than Parker etc. they will be fully represented in the article. Good humor and not taking ourselves to seriously would be good. Also it is important that we stop calling each other names.  Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RetProf, I can see where you've been calling me names, "harsh" etc. but all I see from myself is requests from you to explain your deletions. As for consensus, there were before only 2 of us; myself introducing mainstream academic content, and you deleting it. Consensus isn't going to be obtained where there are two editors - one (I admit it) wanting the majority view represented, the other promoting, it seems, the view of James R. Edwards "controversial" new book, or just "strongly" opposing removal of Melissa from Bangkok's GHeb numbers.

So......... I'll say to all what I think would be best for these pages is that you and I both walk away from all 4 pages. Seeing as my edits are deleted anyway, and seeing as the 2 other editors who have arrived both look able and willing to add mainstream sources and remove OR, NPOV and OVERWEIGHT, that would be great. And I can get on editing articles about classical music etc. How about that? Sound good? Let's just walk away? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was not calling you harsh but the comment harsh. However I may have read the comment the wrong way. However stepping our stepping back from this article may be a good thing. Before doing that, I would appreciate it for you to summarize your concerns, using your best references to back up what you write. Also, I have never quite understood why you take such offense at Print on demand. Cheers  - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Ret.Prof
 * If you review these 4 Talk pages I have already explained:
 * (i) why BiblioBazaar/Googlebooks sources should be shown under the real publication date, and are no substitute for mainstream 20C sources.
 * (ii) why Melissa from Bangkok's invented GHeb numbers aren't as good as the standard Schneemelcher numbering generally found in SBL texts and journals.
 * (iii) why "Matthei authenticum" and "Hebrew paralipomena" don't exist outside the OR of these pages.
 * (iv) why Schneemelcher is considered the "standard" edition of the NTA.
 * (etc)
 * ......so at this point nothing further remains but to both walk away, and let others fix the OR and NPOV problems on these 4 pages. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Klijn
Ovadyah, yes Klijn considers the mainstream 3x GE/GN/GHeb division proven beyond all doubt - a very strong statement from an academic. It was footnote I included in one of the 4x pages before RetProf deleted everything on Saturday, I cannot remember now which one of the 4x pages. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest we build the 3G case based on Klijn then, and others aligned with this view, to keep things moving. Do you propose laying out all 7 primary quotations with the proper sourcing?  What about the other comments, by Epiphanius and others, referring to an Ebionite gospel that don't have quotations? Ovadyah (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would recommend using Schneemelcher as it is the "standard"< a word which can be ref.ed > edition of NTA. p166 onwards. I won't be participating as anything I post RetProf will delete. Good luck! In ictu oculi (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow I plan to bring references that will show conclusively that Schneemelcher is not the "standard". Also no "reputable" scholar that would say 3x GE/GN/GHeb division has been proven beyond all doubt.  Certainly not Parker, Nicholson, Edwards or Casey. Even Schneemelcher states "Thus the number of Jewish Gospels -- whether there be one, two or three such gospels -- is uncertain, the identification of the several fragments is also uncertain and, finally the character and the relationship to one another of the several Jewish gospels is uncertain." Google Link- Ret.Prof (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above is NPOV and Fringe view - someone who doesn't know that Schneemelcher is the "standard edition of NTA", shouldn't be editing on this subject let alone appointing himself gatekeeper and deleting other editors. The fact that Klijn has said that (which was among the refs RetProf deleted) shows that some have said that. And by all means include "Schneemelcher" i.e. Vielhauer and Strecker's comment from p135 - all of it, and the conclusion, not just RetProf's selected bit. This editor is clearly obstructing the mainstream scholarly view from being given equal weight with the theories of an amateur Nicholson (1879), someone who admits his new book is "controversial" Edwards (2009).
 * It's the responsibility of other editors to ensure that the article allows mainstream/majority academic view to be heard. Good luck in listing both views and list the majority view first. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the reliable sources do not support your position. Drama is no substitute for solid research. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you guys considered the Mediation cabal? I don't know what more I can do. Ovadyah (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ovadyah, thanks but I'm really not interested enough in these 4x pages to justify spending any more time here. I've made edits which are completely reasonable and restore some mainstream academic content to the articles, and an individual with a pet theory is blocking them, fine. I have other things to do. I wish you better luck in getting standard SBL sources into these articles. But please someone, get rid of the unique-to-Wikipedia Matthei authenticum title and GHeb numbers which have been sown here. Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done some research and found some references to Matthaei Authenticum outside Wikipedia. Quite a few actually. I think your problem was in your spelling. (Not a put down for I have made the same spelling error). In any event this should deal with the problem and move us closer to consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhh. This is exactly what you did last time - you stuck a Latin phrase in a search Engine and found, guess what, that the Latin words appear in Latin where the original phrase in Latin occurs in books. And then I explained to you that "Matthaei Authenticum" does not exist in English outside the make-up-your-own-scholarship fantasy world of Melissa from Bangkok and the earlier editors of these 4x (previously 5x before the Matthaei Authenticum page was canned) articles. And you said you were getting it, and now 2 days later do the same search of a Latin phrase and forget that you've already had this explained to you once. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Matthaei authenticum and Wikipedia
You are making an old guy do some work - which is fine. I have researched the topic and can now address the concerns you raised here and earlier in the discussion. Matthaei authenticum is not just an invention of 1 or more Wikipedia editors. It is to be found in many English scholarly works. Google Link Although term is Latin, English speaking scholars often use Latin when writing. Using Latin is a sort of scholarly tradition. The term Matthaei authenticum has been translated as meaning the authentic gospel Matthew, authentic Matthew, true Matthew, original Matthew etc. Google Link. According to most scholars the gospel that the Nazarenes and Ebionites used was called Matthaei authenticum by "most" people in the the early Church.

As far as Wikipedia is concerned the first editor to use the term Matthaei authenticum was Peter Kirby (2005?) but it would wrong to argue that he invented the term. If the early Church fathers are right and the gospel that the Ebionites and Nazarenes used is truly Matthew's authentic gospel, then this has implications, not only for the Canonical Gospel of Matthew but the whole Synoptic tradition. This is the reason for the heated debate among scholars and why care must be taken to write this article from a NPOV. A final note is that I tend to lean toward using the Latin name as there are several English translations of the term which often causes confusion. I hope this addresses the concern you raised. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * RetProf. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a blog: See WP:NOT. It is irrelevant that "I (RetProf, or anyone else) tend to lean toward using the Latin name" since (a) you/I/anyone else are not a published source (b) there is no "Latin name": not in Latin, not in English.
 * Repeat: (b) there is no "Latin name": not in Latin, not in English.
 * Re Peter Kirby, Melissa, etc etc etc OR making up the bulk of these 4 pages please see WP:IRS and WP:OR and in the specific case of 2005 Conflict of interest. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup
I'm going to do a little tidying up. If any of the editors actively working on the article has a problem, I will self-revert and then be happy to discuss. Please don't revert my edits without discussion. Let's avoid unnecessary trips to ANI. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's most of the easy stuff. Much more work to be done. Ovadyah (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I reordered the sections putting the description of the Ebionites as a sect first. I like the concept of three short sentences describing who they were, but the wording sounds rather OR. One or two encyclopedic references covering the same points are needed here to provide reliable sources and tighten up the wording. I also collapsed the single sentence about Epiphanius into the main body and reworded it. Ovadyah (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Ebionites section was copied almost word for word from Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities. This should either be paraphrased better or quoted.  Right now it's more like a quotation without attribution.  I'll work on it. Ovadyah (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I replaced the Ebionites section with a new summary based on multiple reliable sources. Ovadyah (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

An important point I'm trying to get across about Panarion 30 is that Epiphanius intended it to be contradictory. Epiphanius is often described as ignorant, confused, mistaken, etc., but that is from the perspective of modern scholars trying to recreate a gospel from their "fertile imaginations". Epiphanius' intent here was straightforward - the Church has the one right-belief, heresy many false ones. He deliberately combined disparate materials, which he uses to point out over and over how the Ebionites are internally inconsistent in their doctrines. I need to find a better reliable source that describes the aims of Epiphanius. That is a key to understanding his use of sources. Ovadyah (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was able to locate a Ph.D. dissertation by Gregory Finley (2009) that examines the attitudes of the early Church Fathers toward the Ebionites and "Jewish-Christianity" in general. I excerpted some of his conclusions about Epiphanius' use of Panarion 30 in the footnotes of the article. Ovadyah (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the reference for Schneemelcher and Robert McLachlan Wilson along with a URL link. Ovadyah (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the first part of the paragraph (shown here), since it relates to the Gospel of the Hebrews (which I already covered) rather than the Gospel harmony described by Epiphanius. I incorporated the rest along with the Ehrman reference. Ovadyah (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

These small paragraphs are largely redundant and don't have anything to do with the gospel harmony described by Epiphanius. Ovadyah (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A partial list of mainly 19th Century sources would include:
 * Johann Ernst Grabe (1666–1711) - Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Seculi Post Christum natum 1700
 * John Kitto - A cyclopædia of Biblical literature. 1861
 * Adolf von Harnack - Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 2.1-2 Leipzig: JC Hinrichs, 1884.
 * Christian Friedrich Weber - Neue Untersuchung über das Alter und Ansehen des Evangeliums. 1827
 * William Binnington Boyce - The higher criticism and the Bible. A Manual for Students. 1881
 * Archibald Hamilton Charteris, Johannes Kirchhofer - Canonicity: a collection of early testimonies :to the canonical books of the New Testament. 1880
 * Rudolf Handmann - Das Hebräer-Evangelium. 1888
 * Edward Byron Nicholson - The Gospel According to the Hebrews. 1879
 * Pierson Parker -  ''A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews". JBL 59 (1940), pp471-478
 * William Reuben Farmer - The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan. 1964
 * Walter Richard Cassels - Supernatural Religion. 1902
 * James R. Edwards - The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition. 2009
 * Andrews Norton Additions made in the second edition of the first volume of Norton's Evidences Of The Genuineness Of The Gospels 1846 p46
 * Bernhard Pick Paralipomena: Remains of Gospels and Sayings of Christ Chicago 1908

Archived from Controversy section of the article. Replace with one or two current reliable sources to support the content. Ovadyah (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Bart D. Ehrman (2003). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press. p. 96 pp. 101-102 Google Link Ovadyah (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica: Ebionites Ovadyah (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved James Edwards' hypothesis about a Hebrew gospel underlying the L-source of the Gospel of Luke to the talk page for now.

This may have something to do with a common vorlage underlying GN/GH and Luke, but it doesn't seem relevant to the GE gospel harmony. Ovadyah (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hypotyposis
I will continue to use the previous "Cleanup" section to document any changes to the current material. I want to use this new section to "sketch" some thoughts on the direction of the main section of the article. Ovadyah (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer that the article not begin and end with a list of seven quotations extracted from Panarion 30, organized into a list devoid of any context, and called a gospel. Several scholars have done just that, so we are obligated to report it, but I want to take it further by considering the intentions of Epiphanius in writing Panarion 30 and the characteristics of the specific group of "Ebionites" he has personal knowledge of on Cyprus.

I have already reported on Finley's recent Ph.D. thesis regarding the "attitude" of Epiphanius toward the Ebionites in Panarion 30. Finley goes even further by stating that he believes Epiphanius grouped together all of the low Christologies he knew of, only some of which were an accurate reflection of previous accounts and his personal knowledge of the Ebionites, as a polemic against the Arians of his time. It was common practice in the 4th century, and later, to insult Christians suspected of having a lower Christology than orthodoxy by referring to them as "Ebionites". I may add more about this to the article eventually, but in any case, it's important for understanding why Epiphanius selected the materials he used for Panarion 30.

Skarsaune reports that he believes Epiphanius only inferred Ebionites had been living on Cyprus, based on the Gospel harmony he found there, which he attributed to the Ebionites. Chapters 13 and 14 of Panarion 30, where most of the quotations are located, are believed to be a late insertion of material from this Gospel harmony. Epiphanius refers to Cyprus as one of the "roots" of the Ebionites along with the Trans-Jordan region and others. However, his description of the Ebionites sounds much more like Samaritans (they used the Pentateuch only) than Jews, probably based on materials that originated from the Circuits of Peter. Petri Luomanen concludes Epiphanius was probably referring to a sect of Hellenistic-Samaritan Jewish-Christians that were independent of the Judaic sect we associate with the term Ebionites based on the testimony of the earlier Church Fathers. So, it is extremely important to the context that we understand which "Ebionites" are in view in this so-called Gospel of the Ebionites. I may add a short paragraph under the Ebionite section explaining this difference. Ovadyah (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked the stichometry of the first three verses. There are 944 Greek letters with no spaces (yes, I counted them twice). Allowing for nomina sacra for Jesus, God, and Lord, that might reduce the number of letters to 932. At 30 letters per line (a typical line length for a papyrus codex), that would result in 32 lines on the first page. That is a typical number of lines for a bible codex. The reason I checked was to verify there is no way that the fourth verse could fit on the same page. I think the "fourth verse" is actually a dedication on the title page of the codex by Matthew speaking in the first person. That's why Epiphanius discusses it first, right after the title. Ovadyah (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to divide the main body into sections following a brief introduction. The sections I will include for now are Name, Provenance and Date, and Composition. I may include additional sections such as Christology, Vegetarianism, One Gospel Text or Many?, and Relationship to Authentic Matthew. Some of these will attempt to document ongoing controversies in this field of study. Ovadyah (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to add a section after Composition called Christologies, and I added a new section for Controversies. The Controversies section will have multiple subsections such as Vegetarianism or Proof from Prophesy?, One Gospel Text or Many?, Is the Gospel of the Ebionites an Ebionite Gospel? The point of the Controversies section is to attempt to capture hot topics now under discussion by scholars in one place. Ovadyah (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Christology and Vegetarianism sections have been added to the article. The Controversies section could still use some work, but the article is now reasonably complete (ie. a C-class article as opposed to a Start-class). I double-checked all the references and everything seems to be complete. The Lead section now needs to be rewritten to accurately reflect a summary of the main body of the article. Ovadyah (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

inaccurate content in 3rd para of lede

 * Many thanks for all your work Ovadyah. I have made a change in the refs, changing Schneemelcher page link from p9 to p166 where the intro on GE begins, although in fact p169 where the 7 GE fragments begin.


 * Also as a favour I'd like to ask you to please do something with the 3rd para of the lede.
 * "It is not clear if this is the same one of the Jewish-Christian Gospels as the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans. Jerome names it as being the same as the Gospel of the Hebrews and states that most ancient Biblical scholars called it "Matthaei Authenticum" (or the true Gospel of Matthew). It survives only as fragments in quotations, and so it is difficult to tell if it is an independent text, or whether it is in fact simply a slight variation on the others. It was used by the Ebionite community during the time of the early church.[citation needed]"

since: Can you please rectify the 3rd lede paragraph using the above? Thanks again for your work. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * a. Jerome does not name GE (the fragments of Epiphanius) as being the same as what we know today as GH (the fragments of Jerome).
 * b. Jerome does not state that "most ancient Biblical scholars called it "Matthaei Authenticum"" (an NPOV statement put in by an enthusiast), Jerome says that "most of them (i.e. the Nazarenes) considered it the original of Matthew." Also since the term "Matthaei Authenticum" does not exist in English scholarship (an invention of an earlier Wikipedia editor). If the Latin is needed, then the complete Latin sentence, can be in full in a footnote. If anything, if a foreign term is needed, the term would be Ur-Matthew which at least exists in English scholarly texts.
 * c. Vielhauer's intro provides refs to the citation needed final sentence as follows: "Since the GE presupposes the Synoptics, it can have originated at the earliest in the beginning of the 2nd century. ... It was possibly composed in the region east of Jordan, where according to the accounts of the Church Fathers the Ebionites had their headquarters..." p169
 * In fact b. can be deleted, it relates to GH not GE.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the page numbers and your points above. I know the third paragraph of the lead has multiple problems.  I will rectify them in due time.  I want to make more progress on the main body, so that I can see how the entire article flows, before I come back to the lead and finish up.  Progress has been slower than I expected because I am quite busy off-wiki, but I will get there.  Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, Vielhauer's speculation about where the gospel was composed is nothing more than guess. It depends on two critical assumptions that are highly disputed, 1) that the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites was really written by Ebionites, and even if that were true, 2) that the flight to Pella narrated by Eusebius is a historical account as opposed to pious fiction.  I will address these issues in the main body of the article once I get a bit further along. Ovadyah (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, in the meantime I will delete b anyway, it has no place in GE article, isn't true, and promotes the neologism "Matthaei Authenticum" of a Wikipedian which does not exist in English.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just copy it to the Cleanup section before you delete it, as I have done with the others.  You would be surprised how many edit wars are avoided that way. It's mostly psychological, but people can become really irate when they see all of their hard work atomized rather than archived.  Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Like this?

Cleaned up
 * It is not clear if this is the same one of the Jewish-Christian Gospels as the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans. Jerome names it as being the same as the Gospel of the Hebrews and states that most ancient Biblical scholars called it "Matthaei Authenticum" (or the true Gospel of Matthew). It survives only as fragments in quotations, and so it is difficult to tell if it is an independent text, or whether it is in fact simply a slight variation on the others. It was used by the Ebionite community during the time of the early church.

Now
 * It is not clear if and how Gospel of the Ebionites is connected with other Jewish-Christian Gospels such as the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans. All Jewish-Christian Gospels survive only as fragments in quotations, and so it is difficult to tell if they are independent texts, or whether they are in fact simply slight variations on the others. Gospel of the Ebionites was used by the Ebionite community during the time of the early church.

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant just archive the old content, but this is fine too. The text now reads much better. Ovadyah (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ovadyah. 1. Sorry, archive where? Here in Clean Up, above? 2. This is a further sterling set of edits. 3. There is another "Matthaei Authenticum" statement on the tail of the article implying that scholars used to use the term, which is not true. About to reword. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 4. edited out "Andrews Norton (1846)" with "conventional name given at least as early as the French priest Richard Simon (1689)" and moved Norton 1846 and Pick 1908 to final biblio footnote. Also changed "modern scholarly neologism" to "scholarly convention" and broke following sentence with a stop/period. reworded to "in the Gospel used by them" which is what Epiphanius says and ref. I suspect that Richard Simon is far from the earliest but just put 1846 back to 1689. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My responses are as follows:
 * 1. I meant the Cleanup section that I created above, but don't worry about it.
 * 2. Thanks.
 * 3. Feel free to archive it. I may return to this, briefly, at the very end of the article in a sub-section on controversial issues.
 * 4. All look ok to me.
 * Thanks. The article is progressing nicely. Ovadyah (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that reference 11 is missing a page number. Please add it when you have time. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have taken care of it. Ovadyah (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Epiphanius refers to the Gospel harmony "found among them" as "according to Matthew" and "the Hebrew [Gospel]" in 13.1-2. I'm going to move this content from the "Composition" section to the "Name" section. Ovadyah (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am now convinced this quotation is a dedication on the title page of the Gospel harmony that served as the title. Unfortunately, I can't say so (OR), unless we find at least one reliable source that makes the same connection. Please check your sources and see what you can find. Ovadyah (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, never come across that, but doesn't mean it hasn't been advanced. I moved GH para to article end. Also changed the section heading ==Gospel texts quoted by Epiph..== to == "G E as quoted by Epiph.== since he also quotes Synoptics. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved the GH section back to its original location early in the article. The point of locating it there was to direct readers that are more interested in the GH as an Ebionite Gospel to the main GH article. Ovadyah (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We still need a citation for the third paragraph in the lead section. I will check to see if it was deleted accidentally. Ovadyah (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the content was never sourced, so we either need a source to support this content, or we should change the content to be consistent with a reliable source. Ovadyah (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine with the location back btw. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "It is not clear if and how Gospel of the Ebionites is connected with other Jewish-Christian Gospels such as the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans." -- well this is toned down from what it said before. Personally I'd be happy with leaving it.
 * "All Jewish-Christian Gospels survive only as fragments in quotations, and so it is difficult to tell if they are independent texts, or whether it is in fact simply slight variations on the others." -- This again is toned down. All Jewish-Christian Gospels survive only as fragments in quotations, [Source can be Schneemelcher or anyone]. But it seems that most scholars ARE clear that they are independent texts.
 * "Gospel of the Ebionites was used by the Ebionite community during the time of the early church.[citation needed]" This sentence is more of a problem -> The sections quoted by Epiphanius were used by some specific Ebionites when and were he found them used.
 * I agree that the statement in the third bullet point is problematic. I'm going to add a verification-needed tag to it.  The only evidence the GE was ever used by Ebionites is based on Epiphanius as you said, and even that is disputed in recent scholarship. Ovadyah (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I qualified the truism that the Gospel of the Ebionites was used by Ebionites to make it more nuanced, removed the v-n tag, and added a reliable source. Ovadyah (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a reference for Klijn which covers the first two bullet points. We still need a reliable source for the last section of the article that covers the relationship between the Jewish Christian Gospels and the Synoptic Gospels. Ovadyah (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Ovadyah (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Ovadyah (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point about the Davidic genealogy via Solomon in Matthew as opposed to via Nathan as per Luke. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything is now properly sourced with reliable sources, and all references to primary sources have been subordinated as inline comments of reliable secondary sources. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you've done a sterling job here in cleaning this up.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead Section
I am going to start rebuilding the Lead Section to accurately reflect a summary of the main content. As usual, I will copy anything I don't use over to the talk page so that nothing is lost. Ovadyah (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not clear if and how Gospel of the Ebionites is connected with other Jewish-Christian Gospels such as the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans. All Jewish-Christian Gospels survive only as fragments in quotations, and so it is difficult to tell if they are independent texts, or whether it is in fact simply slight variations on the others. The Gospel text was said to be used by "Ebionites" during the time of the early church, however the identity of the group or groups that used the text remains uncertain.

This second paragraph of the Lead section is problematic and needs some thought. It doesn't summarize anything in the main body. Ovadyah (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence provides a useful link to the Jewish-Christian Gospels gateway article. That part should be kept. Maybe it should be reworded like this: **The Gospel of the Ebionites is one of three Jewish-Christian Gospels, along with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans.** The rest is irrelevant, since we just said the GE consists of 7 quotations. It is also obvious that the GE is not a slight variation of the others. The confusion is whether the GH and the GN are slight variations of each other. I will give this some more thought. Ovadyah (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved the controversy statement about the relationship between the three Jewish-Christian Gospels from the Lead section to the Controversies section to expand that section, and I replaced it with a more neutral descriptive statement about the Jewish-Christian Gospels to retain the wikis in the Lead section. That should fix the problem. Now I can expand the Lead section further with summary statements about the content in the main body. Ovadyah (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems fine, except that I almost think that you're trying to polish this article to the point of perfection wheras the Jewish-Christian Gospels and worse Gospel of the Hebrews articles are logjammed in Wikipedia-only reality from 2006 or earlier edits and mainstream academic content largely excluded. For example Gospel of the Hebrews "The Authentic Gospel of Matthew (Latin Matthaei Authenticum), is the hypothesis or belief that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the true gospel of Matthew." ...yet the only source for this is the same Wikipedia editor back in 2006 who sowed the phrase across several articles. I'd ask you to take a days break from fine-tuning this article and remove the absolute worst from Gospel of the Hebrews. You clearly know enough about mainstream academic sources for it to be a change for the better. PleaseIn ictu oculi (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. The problems there are almost intractable.  My plan is to finish up the Lead section in the next 2 or 3 days (time permitting).  I would like you to go over everything, if you have time.  We need to make sure everything is accurate and properly sourced.  At that point, I'm going to submit the article for Peer Review.  Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will look over the other articles you mentioned and leave an opinion on your talk page, since this is really not the right place to do that. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Lead section is now completed. Please check everything over one more time. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
It usually takes some time for editors to respond to a request for peer review. I'm going to apply the template to the top of the talk page to initiate the process, and meanwhile, we can make any final changes to improve the article for review by a wider group of editors. Ovadyah (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed Llywrch's bullet points 3 and 4 by, (3) substituting Ehrman's Lost Christianities as a RS for the Encyclopedia Britannica, and (4) rewording the sentence about Shneemelcher to make it sound less dogmatic by removing "the standard critical edition". I think Llywrch makes a good point that if we believe it is the critical edition, we need to prove it somewhere, i.e. not just an editor's POV, or if there is more than one critical edition, we should list all the additions. In any case, this sounds like a disclaimer that belongs in the references rather than the article content. Ovadyah (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are various sources easily accessible which call it "the standard", though the main point is that Schneemelcher's editions are often listed as sources in scholarly works. example.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please recommend a source that describes Schneemelcher as "the standard critical edition", and I will be happy to add that inline the first time Schneemelcher is referenced. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Christopher R. Matthews Philip, Apostle and Evangelist: configurations of a tradition 2002 " given the high visibility of Schneemelcher's assessment in the standard edition of the New Testament Apocrypha, ..."
 * Helmut Koester From Jesus to the Gospels: interpreting the New Testament 2007 p311 "The new standard edition of the New Testament Apocrypha in English translation is somewhat more cautious. Wilhelm Schneemelcher grants that some of the apocryphal writings “appear in ... "
 * Michael J. Wilkins, James Porter Moreland - Jesus under fire 1995 "The standard edition is the two-volume work of E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, trans. R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965)"
 * etc. I actually agree with Llywrch's feeling about "the standard" and probably "a standard" would be better. Particularly seeing as there are 1 or 2 alternatives now. But still it's a bit like Charlesworth's OTP. Everyone starts with Charlesworth for OTP and Schneemelcher for NTA. And in many ways that's a good thing; anchors the skyhooks a little.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * These are all great sources. I will add one of them (probably Koester, since that one is the most recent) as an inline reference to Schneemelcher in the Lead section.  This should take care of any concerns about the numbering convention. Thank you for locating them.  Ovadyah (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Llywrch's bullet points 1 and 2 are about style and readability, (1) rewording the Lead section, and (2) condensing paragraphs or moving around the order. I will address these style questions after all changes to the article content are finished. Bullet points 5, 6, and 7, are about omissions from the article, potentially involving the addition of sourced content. I will address these next. Bullet point 8 was an oversight. Vegetarianism is already mentioned in the Lead section as well as the main body. Ovadyah (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I addressed bullet point 1 by rearranging and condensing the four short paragraphs in Lead section down to two paragraphs. There's always room for improvement, but I think the changes substantially address the point that the Lead section appeared to be too fragmented. Ovadyah (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed Llywrch's bullet point 7, discussing the uncertainty of the relationship between the GE and the other Jewish-Gospels and a hypothetical original Matthew. In ictu oculi, is this ok with you? Ovadyah (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ovadyah, looks fine to me both in lede and main section. Just picked up a small typo it's for its. Would you check the corresponding 2 mentions of Epiphanius in Hebrew Gospel hypothesis‎ (or in fact hypotheses) that the refs correctly represent those German scholars.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference I used appears as a Google web link (link 1) on the Authentic Matthew page, but not as a reference. I linked to a different copy as a e-book (it is out of print, so no ISBN #).  If you can find a better reference to replace it that links the GE to a hypothetical authentic Matthew, that's fine by me.  I did not see the same reference in the Hebrew Gospel Hypothesis article.  I'm going to call bullet point 7 done if there are no objections. Ovadyah (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Llywrch asked an interesting question in bullet point 6 about the name of the Gospel, and I have been pondering it for a few days. Why did scholars name it the Gospel of the Ebionites rather than refer to it by the same title used by Epiphanius? That's a good question. I think the answer is, to avoid confusion with two other gospels that are more widely known, the canonical Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of the Hebrews, they named it after the writers of the Gospel instead. I inserted a sentence in the name section to explain this as follows (as hidden text for the moment):


 * The neologism is used to distinguish the gospel text known only to Epiphanius from the Gospel of the Hebrews, which was widely known in the Early Church.

This seems logical enough, but I have never read this explanation (or any other) in a reliable secondary source. Does anyone know of a source that explains the origin of the name? Ovadyah (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Hi These 3 together as one ref would probably be sufficient?: Except that the origin is not modern, it is at least as early as Grotius: In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible 2000 p364 2000 "Epiphanius connects his Ebionites with the Pseudo-Clementines, with the anti-Pauline Ascents of James, and with a gospel conveniently called the Gospel of the Ebionites by modern scholars."
 * Gnostic studies 34 Gilles Quispel - 1974 "C'etait l'opinion de Hugo Grotius qui dans ses Annotationes s'exprime comme suit: Puto autem Tatianum, ... 38: quam et adauxit (Tatianus) postmodum, id enim omnino videtur, historiolis nonnullis sumtis ex Evangelio Ebionitarum."
 * Calmet's Dictionnaire historique, critique, chronologique, géographique et littéral de la Bible Paris, 1720 Latin edition: Dictionarium Historicum, Criticum, Chronologicum, Geographicum (then list copied in Viator de Cocaglio Tentamina Theologico-Scholastica 1768 etc.) contains a list of 39 non-canonical gospels which features "17. Evangelium Ebionitarum".
 * So, as an answer to the question of why scholars call it the Gospel of the Ebionites, is the answer convenience? That's very interesting.  I would have thought the answer is to avoid confusion with other, more widely known texts. Ovadyah (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a modification of the inline text along with Eerdman's as a reference. I changed the wording a bit to get around the difficulty that the origin, strictly speaking, is not modern.  This could use an additional reference as to the name GE being used to avoid confusion with the GH.  I'm going to add a request citation tag for the time being. Ovadyah (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed the wording a bit to more accurately reflect that the name GE was applied because of an assumption that the Ebionites probably used it and to correct for Epiphanius' mistaken belief that he was looking at a Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew. I also added Cameron as a second reference to back up this content.  I think that takes care of bullet point 6. Ovadyah (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am reproducing Llywrch's fifth bullet point here on the talk page for further discussion:


 * Something that I missed in this article was an explanation of why this lost work is important. In the lead section there is a brief mention that this is "one of the Jewish-Christian Gospels" -- why is this significant? You need to explain the context for this lost work: what the ancient authorities thought of it, & how they reacted to its contents.

This is a deep question that can be approached on three levels, 1) Why was this text important to Epiphanius? This gets into his aims in using it as a source in Panarion 30, 2) Why is this text important to scholars? How does it fit into the larger picture of the study of J-C Gospels, and what does it tell us, if anything, about the Ebionites?, and 3) Why is this text important to the reader? Why should the reader care about an article on the GE?  If we can comprehensively answer this series of "why" questions, this article will be a lot closer to professional quality. Ovadyah (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have briefly summarized the context of Epiphanius' use of the text in the Lead section. I had previously included that material in the main body. Ovadyah (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have expanded on the relationship of the GE to the other J-C Gospels, and I added a link the the article on a hypothetical Hebrew Gospel. It seems to me that is the underlying reason: to study the J-C Gospels as a way to make inferences about an original Hebrew Gospel to the Circumcision.  Recent scholarship sees the GE as a distinctive text apart from the GN/GH, and it rather points to an identification with the G12, which was described by Origen.  I think this covers bullet point 5 pretty well. Ovadyah (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I addressed some of the organization and style comments in bullet point 2 by collapsing the Gospel of the Hebrews section into the Relationship to other Gospels section at the bottom. I think this improves the flow of the article. I also collapsed the Name and Provenance and Date sub-sections into an introduction with no sub-heading (yet). Ovadyah (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reorganized and simplified the sections as Llywrch suggested in bullet point 2 by moving the Ebionites section to a new Inferences about the Ebionites sub-section at the bottom. That allowed me to get rid of the Gospel of the Ebionites section header and replace it with a Background sub-header. The structure of the article is now much simpler and more readable. I believe that addresses all of Llywrch's points in peer review. Ovadyah (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I still need to expand the new section on Inferences about the Ebionites. The material I copied over describes the Ebionites known to the Church Fathers that report on them except Epiphanius. I need to add another paragraph that describes characteristics of the "Ebionites" known to Epiphanius, and I probably need to add a third paragraph describing how our knowledge of the GE influences that characterization. Ovadyah (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I expanded the section on the relationship between the "GE and other gospels" to the "GE and other texts" by adding some content on the similarities between the GE and the Ascents of James to the Lead section and the main body. Ovadyah (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have finished my primary editing on the article. I now consider the article to be reasonably complete and the Lead section to stand on it's own. I will work to incorporate any additional suggestions that seem appropriate while peer review is still open. Ovadyah (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)