Talk:Origin of the Eucharist/Archive 2

Passion of Christ
The eucharist is often identified as a meal, however this is not the entire definition. The article should try to identify links with the Passion of Christ, which remarkably shows the sacrificial character of the ceremony. There are also circumstancial similarities between the sacrifice of Isaac and the sacrifice of Jesus, and there is also a relationship with the liturgical decrees found in the biblical text of Leviticus. 69.157.229.14 (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ptolemy V Epiphanes
Eschoir has boldly inserted the following text both here and in the article on the Eucharist:
 * The adjectival form "Eucharistos" appears both in Colossians 3:15, and in the Rosetta Stone as a title for King Ptolemy V (reigned 204–181 BC), son of a God, decreeing twice-a-month feasts and libations to honor the "everliving king," in 196 B.C.


 * 1) The use of the adjective εὐχάριστος (grateful) in has not been shown to have any relation whatever with the Eucharistic rite, any more than the noun εὐχαριστία (thanksgiving) in 15 different NT verses or than the verb εὐχαριστῶ (to thank) in the 33 NT verses other than the 6 in which it is applied to the action of Jesus at his last supper. Eschoir's edit does not even claim that it is related.
 * 2) The Greek text of the Rosetta Stone gives King Ptolemy V Epiphanes of Egypt the titles, among others, of "the everliving", "the beloved of Ptah", "the God", "Epiphanes" (illustrious), "Eucharistos" (grateful), records his donations and grants of tax exemption to the temples and the decision of the priests to set up in all the temples an image of him to be honoured three times a day and that in every month a celebration with sacrifices and libations should be held on the days corresponding to those of his birthday and his accession to the throne. Again nothing related to the Eucharist.  Eschoir's edit does not even claim that it is related.

If Eschoir means to imply that these two items of information are related to the Eucharist, as he does in his summary of his edit to the article on the Eucharist, it is a case of WP:SYN. If he does not, it has no place in the article. Esoglou (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if this insertion turns out not to be a matter of opinion, information about the use of a related adjective 200 years earlier is not relevant to the subject here. Jpacobb (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou has left himself in an indefenssible position. If the criterion for a discussion of the origins of the noun Eucharist exclude adjectival references, they must exclude verb references too, in which case the section becomes very brief indeed. "The noun 'εύχαριστία' (thanksgiving, Eucharist), which became the usual term for the rite, does not appear in the New Testament asssociated with the Lord's Suppper." This approach would also doom the second paragraph of the lede.

If on the other hand "the earliest" reference to Eucharist is sought, the fact that it was in use as a title for Hellenic dynasts two hundred years before would appear to be germane. It is not an opinion, it is a translation, therefore WPSYN does not apply. Eschoir (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The verb εὐχαριστῶ is used 6 times in the New Testament of actions done by Jesus at his last supper. Later, Justin Martyr used it in relation to the Eucharistic rite.  It is also used both in the New Testament and in earlier and later writings with no reference to what Jesus did at his last supper or to the Eucharistic rite.
 * The noun εὐχαριστία is used many times in the New Testament and in earlier and later writings with no reference to the Last Supper or the Eucharist. But by the end of the last century (Didache, Ignatius) Christians were using it as a specific term for the Eucharist.
 * The adjective εὐχάριστος is used both in the New Testament and in earlier and later writings with no reference to the Eucharist.
 * The earliest reference to the Eucharist is in 1 Corinthians. Esoglou (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Try

The noun εὐχαριστία is used many times in the New Testament with no reference to the Last Supper or the Eucharist. Not until 150 AD were Christians using it to identify a rite with bread and wine.

END

If you want to include verbs you cannot connect them to "the Eucharist." Every reference to catching a football is not a reference to "the Catch" thrown by Joe Montana, as much as San Francisco 49ers fans revere Dwight Clark.

If you want to include verbs you must include adjectives. Ignoring the rites of Ptolemy V Epiphanes Eucharistos in an article on Origins of the Eucharist is like ignoring the Saturnalia in an article on the Origins of Christmas because "it is not related to Christmas."

"The earliest reference to the Eucharist is in 1 Corinthians." How is that? The verb to give thanks appears many times in 1 Corinthians, some earlier in the book, some later, none distinguishing anything special, not any THING.Eschoir (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To speak of what is called the Lord's Supper, Communion or Eucharist, the early Christians used the noun εὐχαριστία and the verbs εὐχαριστῶ and εὐχαριστίζω. They never used the adjective εὐχάριστος to speak of it.  The Rosetta Stone used the adjective εὐχάριστος to speak of King Ptolemy V Epiphanes only, not of anything else whatever.  Not, for instance, of what is called the Lord's Supper, Communion or Eucharist.  There is no place in this article for the irrelevant mention of the Rosetta Stone.  Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How did these Early Christians 'refer to' The Last Supper with verbs? Did they say Jesus "Eucharisted" the bread and then prepared to "Eucharist" the cup?  I don't think so.  They never used the verb to refer to a THING. If you include verb forms of euscharistia, then you are stuckk with adjectives too.  And Ptolemy.

Eschoir (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find the suggestions you make interesting, but unless you can find a reliable source that makes the connection I think it has no place in this article. Not even if you can prove to your own satisfaction that it's true. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What is "it" that needss to be proven true? Eschoir (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That the Rosetta Stone, which applies the word Eucharistos to Ptolemy, spoke of the Lord's Supper/Communion/Eucharist rite using that adjective or any part of speech whatever. Esoglou (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Or even just that a reliable source found it a hypothesis worthy of attention. If Eschoir came up with the connection himself, then it would be WP:OR, but if he took it from a book by a serious writer, then it could be worth including. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And your response illustrates the double standard which is my target. It is beyond dispute that the New Testament writers never spoke [wrote] of the Lord's Supper/Communion/Eucharist rite [THING] using that noun, eucharistia, which was in general use before and during that time, even in the LXX, see Lidell's Lexicon, but the argument is made that 1) a verb is as good as a noun in invoking historicity, and 2) adding up iterations in the NT of the etymologically similar verb denoting the simple and common ACTION of giving thanks bolsters the case that the THING was recognized by those NT writers, at least in the six [out of 33] appearances in CORINTHIANS, MARK, MATTHEW (which copies MARK) and LUKE (which also copies MARK), and was intended by their use of that verb to be marking the institution of the THING.  By that logic, an adjective is as good as a verb is as good as a noun. I say that is a logical fallacy, but if it isn't, then you're stuck with the fact that Strong's words 2268, 2169 and 2170 were in general use long before the Christian era, that the first written reference to the bread/wine THING was in 150 AD, and that in 196 BC the Memphis decree spelled out a schedule of rites done in honor of a God, son of a god, entitled Eucharistos.

So I repeat: what'll it be?Eschoir (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since all other editors who have intervened reject Eschoir's claim that, because certain Greek words that Christians apply to the Eucharist were in use long before with regard to other matters, the Rosetta Stone should be mentioned in this article, I think it best to close the discussion, let him have the last word and not feed him further. Esoglou (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will take that as an endorsement of the aforementioned edit

"The noun 'εύχαριστία' (thanksgiving, Eucharist), which became the usual term for the rite, does not appear in the New Testament asssociated with the Lord's Suppper or the Last Supper. It is not until 150 AD that it is used in a writing that mentions bread and wine." omitting any references to the verb or adjective forms. Eschoir (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Replacing sourced text with original composition
Replacing a sourced text with one of an editor's own composition is unjustified. If insisted on, it will appear to be vandalism. Esoglou (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, now, that looks a bit over the top to me. The citation (not marked as such) seems biased to me, and replacing it with a more neutral formulation would be a good thing. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was over the top. Perhaps it was not.  Don't forget that the paragraph is giving the opinion of "believers in the Eucharist".  In any case, even if it was thought biased, the remedy in Wikipedia is to insert a counterbalancing view in a reliable source, not by putting in a view merely of an editor.  I'm sure you are familiar with WP:OR and WP:V, but perhaps the editor who put in his own composition should reread them.  Esoglou (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of that, but a more neutral formulation isn't the same thing as a different view and the paragraph wasn't given as a citation from or even a summary of a specific source, but as a general statement supported by that source. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which source do you mean? The book by Mazza or the Encyclopaedia Britannica?  Do you think one or the other or both should be quoted, at least in a footnote?  I think the text represents the contents of each accurately.  Esoglou (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A quote in a footnote could be good. But I was reacting more from a feeling that often in discussions like this a source is used to needlessly impose biased wording. I'm not saying that happened in this case, just pointing out that we don't have to follow the literal wording of a source, as long the wording is still supported by its source or sources. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In this concrete case the wording closely follows the two cited sources and so is well supported. Esoglou (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, but I'm arguing that *insisting* it should closely follow the sources can lead to needless bias. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, I agree with that. But do you think it applies to this concrete case?  In this concrete case, the unsourced own-composition edits would have the article say, of the opinion of those who believe in the Eucharist, that Jesus was "offering his disciples the opportunity to eat his flesh and drink his blood while he was alive" (bolding not added by me)?
 * It may not apply in this case. I'm glad we agree and glad that we seem to be entering a new phase of more productive collaboration. Thanks for your efforts, and I hope you'll continue to contribute. I don't know much about the subject, I was only trying to make sure we maintain NPOV and that we follow WP procedures. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that someone else is involved in editing the article, and I thank you for that, I can for the most part (in particular, the lead) happily leave it to you, especially since the other editor has lowered the tone with which he is inserting his own point of view and obscuring any other. Esoglou (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Eschoir 4 Feb 2012
Prior to these edits Eschoir has made similar sorts of changes in the Article Eucharist These have been unacceptable to three other editors. I have concerns about the vast majority of the edits made here. For the moment, I shall indicate why I am concerned without proposing remedies. My comments can probably best be understood by comparing Mmeijeri's last edit with Eschoir's final one. Eschoir has eliminated the whole of the 5th paragraph. Jpacobb (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Opening Paragraph: The version before Eschoir's edits closely reflects the language of the sources cited to support the statements made wherever I have been able to check them. Most of his changes, notably the introduction of "Blessing" and "Enactment" depart from the source texts and the cumulative effect is considerable.  The same must be said of the quotation from Enc. Brit. at the end of the paragraph and similar considerations may well apply in other cases.
 * 2) Para. 2: In intermediate edits Eschoir replaces "night" with "evening" or introduces the latter as part of the rewrite.  In 1 Cor, the Greek is "nux" not "hespera" and AV, RV, RSV, JB and NEB all say "night".
 * 3) Para. 4: While retaining a statement of the Jesus Seminar's theory that the Euch. had its origins in a pagan context, Eschoir has deleted a referenced statement about the opposite stance, thus unbalancing the paragraph.
 * 4) Para. 5: While there is some overlap between this paragraph and the preceding ones, much of the content is fresh and should not be expunged but, in the interests of improving readability, could well be condensed a little & moved to other places.
 * 5) Para. 7 Eschoir has rewritten this in a form similar to a rejected draft of his in the Art. Eucharist and the reasons for the rejection can be found at length on the  talk page under the section Ptolemy V Epiphanes.
 * Perhaps Mmeijeri will be good enough to comment and perhaps defend Eschoir. To me, Eschoir seems to be consistently violating the rule in WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true."  Ignoring the objections of other editors, he inserts his own ideas, including that the Rosetta Stone is somehow related to the Eucharist, although challenged by Martijn Meijering (=Mmeijeri?) to produce a reliable source that found that idea even a hypothesis worthy of attention.  But for the moment I refrain from editing this article.  Esoglou (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with some of your criticism. At the same time I believe Eschoir is trying to correct what he perceives as Christian bias, though of course I'm not a mind reader. Changes that others feel introduce new bias can be changed again. I've done so with a few of his recent changes, and that seems perfectly in accordance with WP procedures. The key points are WP::NPOV and WP:V, and as long as we stick to that I think we can work something out. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is: Is Eschoir observing WP:NPOV and WP:V in, for instance, suggesting that the Rosetta Stone inscription, which decrees the erection of statues of King Ptolemy Epiphanes, the honours to be paid to the statues and the two monthly feasts to be celebrated in his honour, and which applies the word εὐχάριστος not to these honours but to the king himself, is somehow related to the Eucharist? You yourself questioned this, but you seem to be content now that it remain in the article.  Esoglou (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC) (signature and date copied from later, because of insertion of another edit in the text)
 * I think it could satisfy NPOV, but not WP:V or WP:NOR, at least not for now. At the very least a cn needs to be added. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The objection that it violates WP:V and WP:NOR has been adequately raised on Talk by more than editor. The obvious thing to do with its reinsertion would be to remove it as coming up against the expressed views of all involved editors other than the reinserter and to direct the reinserter to discuss it on Talk.  A "cn" is scarcely adequate: nobody denies that the adjective εὐχάριστος does appear in the Greek text on the Rosetta Stone.  Esoglou (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I said at the very least. But fine, let's delete it if you think it is important. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. This idea of Eschoir has been rejected also with regard to the Eucharist article.  Esoglou (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even after your revision of Eschoir's editing, in what way is this an improvement? In particular, how is the equation of Eucharist (εὐχαριστία) with "blessing" (εὐλογία) more in accord with WP:NPOV and WP:V? Esoglou (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC) (signature and date copied from later, because of insertion of another edit in the text)
 * I'm not claiming all problems have been solved, just trying to converge on a solution. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why not return to a text against which no specified objection has been raised, rather than keep a text that still does not observe WP:V and WP:NPOV? Esoglou (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, if that's what you prefer. I thought you agreed we were making progress and that we were just hashing out the details. If not, then by WP policy we need to return to the last consensus version first. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Perhaps we can then discuss any faults or perceived POV elements in the restored text.  Esoglou (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I am not asking about the request for identification of the "believers in the Eucharist", which you, not Eschoir, inserted. The phrase should, I suppose, be changed to indicate better the nature of the sources cited.  We can presume that three of the authors of the cited sources are believers in the Eucharist, namely Catholic Mazza and (perhaps presumably) Protestant Geddes and Griffiths; but I don't know how to prove that the author of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article was or was not a believer in the Eucharist.  There seems to be really no need to indicate here whether these scholars are believers in the Eucharist or not.  (By the way,it was Eschoir who introduced into this context the mention of believers in the Eucharist.)  Esoglou (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think believers in the Eucharist is too vague. "Church teaching holds that" could be a good solution, but I'm not sure all churches teach this, so it may need further qualification. I don't think there's any need to specify the religious beliefs or otherwise of the quoted authors. My point is more that their individual views are not inherently notable, I'm looking for a npov description of the teaching of the church(or the main denominations if they disagree), and I anticipate we may need more than just one source. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article does not specify, I think, the religious beliefs of those who hold that the Eucharist did not originate in the Last Supper but in mystery cults or funerary rites or what have you. Specifying the religion of those who hold on the contrary that the Eucharist did originate in the Last Supper suggests then that these have a prejudiced view, a suggestion that seems not to be fully in accord with Wikipedia's neutrality.  Mazza, as a leading scholar on the subject, is at least as notable as many that are cited for other views.  The Encyclopaedia Britannica also is surely a notable source.  Geddes and Griffiths claim to be reporting on the practices of five denominations.  And these are typical of many others.  What more do you need?  Esoglou (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * EB is, at best, a tertiary source per many past discussions here. In addition, the online version solicits revisions from readers, which has also been established at RS/N. And since "RS" has nothing to do with "truth", EB is pretty much ruled out as a source - you probably should look at the sources the EB cites instead. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)  Appending: The OP seems to also be posting related complaints at AN/I concurrently. Collect (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added Cheers article from EB as "Further reading" source rather than reference. If you want, you can still add EB articles into "Further reading" section; don't forget, be bold! Cheers, George Ho (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eschoir (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All the above, including what might appear to be an intervention here by two other editors is a fragment from this discussion page copied here by Eschoir. Esoglou (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems you are reacting to something I didn't say. Like you, I am against mentioning the religious affiliation of the source in question. I'm more concerned with getting an NPOV description of Church teachings on the origin of the Eucharist. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you really think we should include, as such, view of major denominations on the origin of the Eucharist? If you do, I will help search for reliable statements by the churches themselves (there must be many) rather than of scholars.  Esoglou (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not all the faults pointed out by Jpacobb have been attended to. Perhaps it is up to him to move now. I support what he has said. Esoglou (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And that NPOV would speak to and entertain views of not only Christians who agree upoon the divinity of Jesus, but disagree on liturgy, but of religious animists or Buddhists, who believe in another world structure, or secular unbelievers, who purport to believe in nothiing and with whom words like celebrate and ordinance and thanksgiving do not share a common context, and therefore find thiis article unenlightening in its use of jargon.

Eschoir (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ritual enactment
This is Talk. I ask again for the fifth time, is there anything inaccurate about this:

Eucharist, at least in part, is a ritual reenactment of Jesus' blessings at the beginning and end of the last Passover meal with his Disciples, as retold in the Synoptic Gospels (Paul, writing to Gentile converts in Corinth, doesn't mention Passover in connection with the meal).

Eschoir (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia Talk page is for discussing improvement of the corresponding Wikipedia article in accordance with Wikipedia rules. It is not a forum.  Esoglou (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Slower please!
Eschoir, I share some of your concerns about bias, but let's go very slowly so everyone has time to consider and discuss individual changes. Otherwise we're just headed for another mass reversion to the last consensus version. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine if some parties could be stimulated to actuallly discuss. :) Eschoir (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again Eschoir has replaced text closely based on cited reliable sources with a composition of his own, based on his own opinion alone, an opinion that he describes as NPOV. How about following WP:BRD?  Esoglou (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's revert and discuss only the first controversial change. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. Esoglou (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, which is the first controversial one? Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If we revert, I think Eschoir should be the one to choose "the first controversial one". I know that Jpacobb would quite rightly ask that more be reverted, but if, at least at first, we just revert the latest changes by Eschoir, the five he made since 16:39 (Has he violated WP:3RR? I won't insist on whether he has or has not), perhaps one that could be considered is Eschoir's objection to Mazza's use of "because" in describing what Jesus did and said at the Last Supper.  Eschoir claims that this word is not found in the New Testament.  (I presume he means not found in this context in the New Testament.)  In fact, it is used in this context in the New Testament.  Or rather, the synonym "for" is used: see  - "drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant" (ESV); "Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament" (KJV).  But I would not at all object, if you chose to alter this phrase in the (reverted) article.  I don't see why Eschoir attaches importance to it.  Esoglou (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * FOR is not a synonym of because:


 * because

as, by reason of, in that, on account of, owing to, since, thanks to English Collins Dictionary - English synonyms & Thesaurus Eschoir (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

How about this, for the seventh time: is there anything inaccurate about this:

Eucharist, at least in part, is a ritual reenactment of Jesus' blessings at the beginning and end of the last Passover meal with his Disciples, as retold in the Synoptic Gospels (Paul, writing to Gentile converts in Corinth, doesn't mention Passover in connection with the meal).

Eschoir (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Is thre anything inaccurate in this:

The contemporary Christian Church teaches that the origin of the Eucharist was during Jesus' last meal with his disciples before his arrest and execution, instituting a periodic reenactment of the blessings (eucharistia) he offered that night. First, at the beginning of the meal, when he broke bread and offered it to his disciples to eat, he told them it was his body, and second, at the end of the meal, when he took a cup and gave it to his disciples, he told them to drink it, and said it was his blood. Early Christian leaders eventually considered that the language "do this [now] in remembrance of me" meant "do this [now and in the future] in remembrance of me," requiring the periodic reenactment of the first and last parts of that meal, with the celebrant in the role of Jesus and the congregation acting as the disciples.

The only pre-Gospels recounting of what happpened before and after that last meal before Jesus was betrayed is that in the First Epistle to the Corinthians of the mid-50s, in which Paul the Apostle urges that congregation that when they come together and eat, they do it in a manner worthy of a proper "Supper of the Lord" which would have been more like the Last Supper of Jesus some 25 years earlier. Eschoir (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In line with WP:BRD, you have been asked to indicate, one point at a time, what in your view requires modification in the present text.
 * With regard to your renewed attempt to initiate a forum-type discussion, remember: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true." Esoglou (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, you have been asked eight times to indicate, in whatever order peases you, what in your view requires modification in this: Eucharist, at least in part, is a ritual reenactment of Jesus' blessings at the beginning and end of the last Passover meal with his Disciples, as retold in the Synoptic Gospels (Paul, writing to Gentile converts in Corinth, doesn't mention Passover in connection with the meal).

Eschoir (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis
What are the objections to deleting Eschoir's additions to the sentence mentioning C.S. Lewis? Singling out Lewis as an apologist may be considered biased, but not mentioning he was an apologist seems kind of unfair too. In any event, it's not Lewis himself that's relevant, but the fact that there are people who dispute the pagan origins argument. We must not give the impression that contemporary scholarship is of the opinion that this is fact - unless that happens to be the case and if we have reliable source to that effect. There may be more and more appropriate sources than Lewis. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(Assuming adoescent voice) B-but you can't cut CS Lewis-he wrote the movie about Narnia. . .. it had unicorns 'n' stuff in it (sniff)

(enough) The reiance on ann unquoted argument from a popuar novelist of a bygone age just makes the article loook trivial. Eschoir (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume, Martijn, you are referring to these additions. I personally have no strong objection either to keeping them or to deleting them, but I admit the justice of your observations.  I suppose it is up to Eschoir to defend his own work, but he doesn't seem disposed to do so.  More clearly questionable, in my opinion, is the appropriateness of singling out the Jesus Seminar view for explicit mention in the lead, ignoring the others.  Esoglou (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, how about finding better sources than Lewis for opinions counter to those of the Jesus Seminar, and perhaps better ones than the JS for the pagan origins argument? The JS does seem notable enough though. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to theories that the Eucharist originated not in the Last Supper but in a generic table fellowship practice of Jesus, an independent invention by Paul, various Jewish practices, non-Jewish symposia which were not strictly religious and so not "pagan" in that sense, but rather secular, unlike the mystery cults (another proposed origin), which were pagan in the religious sense. The only mention of "Jesus Seminar" in the body of the article is this: "Scholars of the Jesus Seminar generally regard the gospel accounts of the Last Supper as cult legend, that is, a story that accounts for some ritual practice in the Jesus movement."  Apart from that and, of course, the lead, the Jesus Seminar is only mentioned, but not in the body of the article, as part-author of  Funk, Robert, and the Jesus Seminar, "The Acts of Jesus" Harper Collins, 1998.  Nowhere in the body of the article is mention made of what the lead states: "Writers associated with the Jesus Seminar suggest that the Lord's supper (recte: Supper) seems to have had its origins in a pagan context, where dinners to memorialize the dead were common".  Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dang I thought the subject was CS Lewis Eschoir (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * there a false equivalence for you - CS Lewis v. the Fellows of the Jesus SeminnarEschoir (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Eschoir's comment to the effect that "(Assuming adoescent voice) B-but you can't cut CS Lewis-he wrote the movie about Narnia . . .. it had unicorns 'n' stuff in it (sniff) / (enough) The reiance on ann unquoted argument from a popuar novelist of a bygone age just makes the article loook trivial. Eschoir (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)" is misleading. Lewis took a First in Classics and Philosophy at Oxford and his first teaching post was as a philosopher there. He lived all his working life in a university setting where teachers from all faculties came together.  He wrote on Christian themes mainly for a non-academic readership but constructed his books with the same skill that he used in his academic writings and he is in principle a usable source.
 * Having said that, the particular passage which being is questioned should be removed because it appeals to a source which is not relevant. In the absence of page references, I have failed to verify that Lewis touched directly on the origin of the Eucharist and I doubt that he did so. In "Miracles", he mentions pagan miracles at the start of Chapter 15 but in another context.
 * I agree that the Jesus Seminar does not merit a place in the lede. If it is included anywhere, obviously it must be set in a proper balance.Jpacobb (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say that we should remove it not because it is irrelevant but that it is fictitious or unverifiable.

Eschoir (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I note that it was added by 134.193.112.62 in October 2010, and accepted uncritically by the editors, Lima even going so far as to amplify the bogus quote.

And there it still sits. Eschoir (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not being backed up in the body of the article, the singled-out reference to the Jesus Seminar does not merit, as Jpacobb rightly says, a place in the article's lead. Esoglou (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet a bogus quote does. . . hmmm

Eschoir (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Lima/Esoglou, did you know the quote was bogus when you edited it on Dec 19 last year saying that "CS Lewis had already answered and refuted the pagan-origins arguement?Eschoir (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss
Eschoir has reverted to a previous text of his, claiming that it was wrong to undo his numerous bold edits, which he called efforts to improve the page. Unsuccessful efforts, it seems: for instance, attributing to a single writer a statement that was backed up by citations of other authors too was a disimprovement, not an improvement, and is the sort of thing that, at least when challenged, should be discussed here before being definitively included in the article. To get Eschoir to follow WP:BRD procedures, other editors will have to undo his reverting. Esoglou (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have little patience for people who willingly refuse to follow the rules and I'm tempted to escalate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My dear colleagues-I cannot understand your umbrage. I was reading your sources, and I came to understand that the passage that I was reading was awfully familiar-in fact, the Wikipedia material was a word for word paraphrase of the source with the tenses of verbs changed. I know you will agree with me that it is better to quote the source directly than to paraphrase. Since so I replaced the paraphrase with a quote. Do you object to the quote of your source? I did not choose him I merely followed the footnotes. In following the other footnote, I noticed it had a contrasting view of the origin of the Eucharist and knowing that you would use it as a source I wanted to include it.

If you have changes to make, make them. BRD if he says you can't revert as a piece called once merely because you don't like them Eschoir (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2012


 * so if you want to discuss, let's discuss!

Did Jesus drink his own blood? since I have never thought ab toout before, but if the injunction is to do what Jesus did, and since hemoglobin is the special on the Eucharist menu that night Jesus must have drunk his own blood.

GO! Eschoir (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So your excuse is that you want Mazza quoted directly. Mmeijeri commented above that a quote in a footnote would be good.  But you have provided no excuse for presenting as the opinion of one person alone what is based not only on him but on four other sources as well.  It is the bold edit (yours) that must be reverted and discussed before being admitted.  So I will now remove it again, while inserting the quotation on which you place so much value (while transcribing it inaccurately).  And kindly now act in line with "Slower please!"  Esoglou (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So much for discussion, then.Eschoir (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Four years after writing "my vision is that Wikipedia should not say E is a fool when all it can really say is that D has called E a fool" Lima has taken the opposite opinion in the same article. The preferred edit is that church teaching places the origin of the Eucharist in last supper, and cites the Catholic catechism, and Orthodox Encyclopedia and an Anglican Bishop.  Reading the footnotes, one discovers the cited passages to not support that thesis.  And instead of reproducing quotes faithfully, or arguing for some exception to a policy which requires verifiability, the article is rerverted to the point of view of the editors,  without even selective quotation.

On the positive side, I'm learning a lot about Eucharist-not from this Wikipedia article, I have to say, as much as running down footnotes,

I never knew the Eucharist was announced before the Last Supper until I read in the Catholic catechism. That tidbit doesn't appear in any Wikipedia article I read.

The Last Supper is the institution of the Eucharist to Catholic, not the origin, according to the Catholic catechism cited here from 1993.

Yet you couldn't tell it from our little article

Eschoir (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, they're all out of step except you? Esoglou (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Un-discussed topics
In almost everyone's opinion, sourced information on what is being discussed (namely, meals in a first-century Greco-Roman host's dining room) is relevant. That anyone could think otherwise is surprising. Lima (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC) In some cases, if material is challenged and the specific quotation being used as a source is requested, it may be required to produce the full quotation upon which the material being introduced is based. For the purposes of this discussion, I think it would be best if the individuals involved provided diff links to the various sections which they consider dubious, and what specific phrasing requires sourcing, so that any other parties coming into the discussion will have a clearer and more obvious indication of what the specific points of contention are. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose the elimination of unsigned articles in tertiary sources.

Eschoir (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUM. Here it would be better to propose for discussion the insertion of some sourced information directly relevant to the origin of the Eucharist.  Esoglou (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Like thiis?

Church teaching holds that the Origin of the Eucharist is "(t)he 'cup of blessing' at the end of the Jewish Passover meal," the Announcement of the Eucharist was to the disciples in St. John 6:60 and the Institution of the Eucharist is placed in the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples, which the Orthodox teach is called the Mystical Supper. Anglican Bishop and writer Colin Buchanan writes that the Anglicans carefully excised the title "Eucharist," while tracing "eucharistia" in the Letters of Ignatius back to the "Lord's Supper itself." Enrico Mazza, Professor of Liturgical History at Catholic University of Sacro Cuore, places the origin of the Eucharist in the Last Supper at which "Jesus took bread blessed God, broke the bread, and gave it to his disciples, telling them to take it and eat of it, because it was his body . . . and took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to his disciples, telling them to drink of it because it was the cup of the covenant in his blood. . . . To celebrate the Eucharist, then, is to obey Christ's command and" imitate what he himself did in his supper in the upper room.

Eschoir (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Mind you this is not my opinion. I would style this

It has been dogma of the Roman Catholic denomination of Christianity since 1993 that... Eschoir (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Eschoir (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand what pertinent information you want added. A President can first announce that he will institute a national holiday and actually institute it later, originating its celebration.  I don't see what Church of England excisions of the term "Eucharist" a millennium and a half later have to do with the origin of the rite.  Esoglou (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't exactly know what to say. I'm pleased that you seem to be discussing the article.  Perhaps if you would use different words than "originating the celebration" it might illuminate your thought processes.  when you use religious jargon you lose me, and the countless unwashed readers of Wikipedia who frequent this article longing for illumination and enlightenment. But the source is your source, you used it in a footnote-attribution of some thought in the article and I can't find any reference in reading the source to your footnoted material.  As a matter of fact, in my view the actual citation contradicts the proposition that it is cited for.

Perhaps if you would be so kind as to quote the source for the proposition that you wish to propound it would be enlightening.

using your analogy, however, of the presidential holiday, is it misreading your expressed opinion that the origin of Veterans Day, or flag day, or Independence Day, is the day it was signed into law [instituted]? or perhaps you mean an even later date, not the date it was signed into law, but the first page it actually appeared on a calendar.

to my mind, Veterans Day is to Armistice Day as the Eucharist is to the Passover Seder, as related in the catechism of the Catholic Church that you cite. Veterans Day had its origins in Armistice Day, wouldn't you agree? Not on June 1, 1954, when it was instituted, nor on November 11, 1954, when it was "celebrated"

As for the Church of England, itt is your source, supporting the thesis that Eucharist originated in the Last Supper. However, reference to the footnote shows that the good Bishop, author of the cited reference material, actually said, well,the quote speaks for itself. That's why we quote authors and scholars and bishops. We allow people to make up their own mind. Just because you don't see the Church of England denial of Eucharist and the concomitant ascription of the origin of the rite to "a Suppper of the Lord" [arguably an agape meal] as relevant to the origin of the rite, doesn't give you the right to selectively edit your sources to exclude possible nonconforming references.

Cheers!

Eschoir (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You still have not explained how you imagine that your observation about the terminology of the Church of England, which, as you should know, declares the rite to be a sacrament "ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel", concerns the "origin of the Eucharist". Esoglou (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * it is hard to decipher your message without a footnote to your quote, and a roadmap through the religious jargon but I will make the attempt:

the Anglicans carefully excised the title "Eucharist," while tracing "eucharistia" in the Letters of Ignatius back to the "Lord's Supper itself."

Anglicans apparently deny the Biblical authenticity of a rite identified by the word Eucharist, and disapprove of describing what they call communion as such. they trace use of the word by Ignatius as referring to Paul's supper of the Lord, and no further,

thus they would disagree with the contention a which you propose that church teaching hold that the Eucharist originated in the Last Supper. Anglican teaching is church teaching, so your footnote does not support your thesis. cheers Eschoir (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that I am making no comment on Eschoir himself. Intelligent persons can sometimes make stupid statements and, unless they are too full of pride, they can admit it.  I am only pointing out the stupidity of a statement for insertion in Wikipedia consisting of an original synthesis that lacks any source that declares, independently of one editor's personal interpretation, that Anglicans deny that the rite that Christians celebrate originated in the Last Supper; the stupidity of a statement that the Church of England's use of the name "Holy Communion" rather than another of the very many by which the Christian rite is known somehow denies the rite's origin in the Last Supper; the stupidity of a statement that a source that explicitly says the rite is "the sacrament instituted by the Lord at the Last Supper" also says that the rite was not instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper; the stupidity of a statement about Anglican doctrine intended for insertion in an encyclopedia while displaying complete ignorance of the basic Anglican teaching of the Thirty-Nine Articles!  I cast no aspersions on Eschoir's own intelligence, but the argument fails to display intelligence.  Esoglou (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am so sorry! For a man (or woman) of your intellectual capacity and learning, to have to put up with such unintelligent discourse, must tax your patience to the maximum.  Sometimes I wonder what inner strength drives you, what altruistic motive there must be within you, to come here year after year, post after post, and not answer questions, and avoid discussions about your sources of your magnificent knowledge.  You know, there ought to be an exception to the sources rule that would allow you to opine based on your own knowledge and experience, rather than the so-called verifiability rule.

Perhaps, by next year, we will be able to litigate Wikipedia to allow you to quote yourself. In the meantime, perhaps you could find it in yourself to allow as how people are stupider than you, they need extra convincing to be led to your light. It may be slumming, but if you could pitch your argument and your diction to that of your stupid reader, you could find affirmation in your beliefs by winning over all sides with your argument.

Until we stupid people can understand what you mean by celebrate, sacrament, mass, ordnance, rite, institution, oblation, peristalsis-we shall labor in the darkness lacking your understanding of this religious jargon. We should be like the Corinthians, ignorantly and fecklessly sitting around the table sharing food and honoring Jesus in anticipation of his imminent return without the benefit of the priest telling us who is qualified and who is not qualified to share in a supper befitting the divine son of the great Hebrew god Yahweh-and where would we be then?

Cheers!

Eschoir (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Eschoir (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the word Eucharist
Eschoir proposed the following addition which was reverted: '' The noun "εύχαριστία" (thanksgiving, Eucharist), which became the usual term for the rite, does not appear in the New Testament asssociated with the Lord's Suppper or the Last Supper. It is not until 150 AD that it is used in a writing that mentions bread and wine''

Could the person who reverted this discuss his reasons below? I'll add mine too. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To stay in the article this requires a source that discusses this in the context of the origin of the Eucharist. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Bejabbers, that's a good edit. I think it qualifies under common knowlege, nobody actually disagrees with that general statement. It would be useful to describe what is going on when one is doing a "rite" [reenactment, routine, imitation offered but not demanded]  "does not appear in the manuscripts that became the New Testament asssociated with occurances that later became known as the Lord's Suppper or the Last Supper. The oldest manuscripts currently in the hands of religious scholars date the first mention of the word associated  with bread and wine to a lost letter of Justin Martyr in 150 AD

but that is probably overthinking

Eschoir (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

'' The noun "εύχαριστία" (thanksgiving, Eucharist), which became the usual term for the rite, does not appear in the New Testament asssociated with the Lord's Suppper or the Last Supper. It is not until 150 AD that it is used in a writing, the First Apology of Justin Martyr that mentions a weekly gathering where bread and wine are distributed to participants amid prayer and thanksgiving.. '' Eschoir (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I have failed to find when "The noun "εύχαριστία" (thanksgiving, Eucharist), which became the usual term for the rite, does not appear in the New Testament asssociated with the Lord's Suppper or the Last Supper. It is not until 150 AD that it is used in a writing that mentions bread and wine" was introduced and reverted. A diff would be good.  If it was I who reverted, the reason will have been - apart from the fact that the inserted text seems to ignore the Didache - that the first use of any of the names of the rite, whether "Eucharist" or "Sacrament of the Altar" (as Luther, following established tradition, called it) or any other, is unrelated to the rite's origin and so does not belong in this article.  Mmeijiri has also pointed out that, for acceptance in the article, the statement needs to cite a source that links it with the origin of the Eucharist.  Esoglou (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "the first use . . . Is unrelated . . . to the . . . origin" is a statement which I cannot understand being intellectually crippled and all. could you pitch it to the cheap seats over here? and you have a cite for that? or is that your personal opinion?

from this seat, it appears you think the "rite" whatever that is, existed full formed since the beginning of time, unchanging, a Platonic ideal without a name, but it took a while for people to call it by the right name. I'm not saying that is your opinion, it's just us stupids can't figure out what your kindness says. Eschoir (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We await your citation of any reliable source - one will do - that says the noun "Eucharist", which you say became the usual term for the rite whose form continues to change even today, first appeared in writing in the year 150 (and so not in the Didache nor in Ignatius) and that this first (according to you) appearance proves something or other about the origin of the rite. Just cite a source.  Esoglou (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * this underscores the difference between us. I am not out to prove anything.

wp:npov give information annd the reader can make up his own mind sans dogma or even with dogma. Eschoir (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you agree that  Eucharist is a commanded periodic incantation coupled with stylized imitative behavoir rxecuted sometimes daily in the expectation of prompting a miraculous transformation of bread into human flesh and wine into blood, which is then consumed by tthe participants" Eschoir (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are "not out to" justify your interventions in Wikipedia by citing reliable sources in support of them, you should keep off Wikipedia (see WP:OR) and make your interventions on some forum or other. Wikipedia is not a forum.  Esoglou (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

if a=b and a=c, then b=c

"prove anything"="justify [my] interventions ... by citing ... sources in support of them"

That explains a lot about your approach.

Eschoir (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Without a source it is OR. You are being increasingly disruptive and uncivil. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I take that as a personal attack on me. Eschoir (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a complaint about your behaviour, I'm sure you understand the difference. If you persist I'll be happy to escalate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And now what appears to be a threat.

What say we try to agree on common ground, some editing, some civil discussion grounded in mutual respect?

Eschoir (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's all I was asking for.Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Then how about you take a stab at editing my attempt to explain what a "Eucharist" is, without jargon: Eucharist is a scripted religious performance commanded to specific periodic incantation coupled with stylized imitative behavoir executed sometimes daily in the expectation of prompting a miraculous transformation of bread into human flesh and wine into blood, which is then consumed by tthe participants"

Eschoir (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OR Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and not a good basis for editing. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummm-is this your discussion?Eschoir (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmeijeri is discussing the matter rationally, not disruptively, on the basis of Wikipedia norms. Suggesting that another editor has no right to discuss shows a different attitude.  Esoglou (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica
That is absurd.Eschoir (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are we deleting references to unattributed articles in the EB? Is there some WP requirement to have an author, as opposed to an editorial board? Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes Eschoir (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you cite the rule? I thought encyclopedias were considered reliable sources, tertiary ones even, which makes them especially suitable. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose.

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. 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.

Eschoir (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This only says they can't be used in place of secondary sources, not that they aren't allowed at all. We shouldn't go on a quest to eliminate all primary and tertiary sources, we should rather strive to add secondary sources.Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Accordingly, unless you defend you deletions with something more than your own personal assertion, they must be undone. Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That resembles a threat to revert.

Eschoir (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BRD, in case of controversial edits we go back to the consensus first. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Eschoir still has produced no evidence to justify his deletion of citations of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His deletions put him in disagreement with the general community of Wikipedia editors who repeatedly cite various authoritative encyclopedias and, if in the public domain, even quote them verbatim.  Who is out of step?  Esoglou (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You mischaracterize my opposition to tertiary sources. Unsigned articles that are from any source are not acceptable sources. Signed EB articles survive.Eschoir (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Eschoir. There was a consensus about the stuff he deleted. He is welcome to make Bold edits, but if they are Reverted, we all should Discuss them first.Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Was this another ipse-dixit diktat by Eschoir (as if saying: "Everyone else must get into step with me"), or can he substantiate it? Eschoir would be better engaged in searching for reliable sources to support his view.  Esoglou (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Another formulation of "searching for reliable sources to support his view" would be 'naked POV pushing' although one seldom s ees it endorsed so blatantly.Eschoir (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A more exact description would be "searching for any reliable source whatever that propounds his view, instead of blatantly presenting his own merely personal POV as the only one to be allowed in Wikipedia". Be that as it may, the essential point is that Eschoir still has produced no support for his ipse-dixit statement about sources.  His unjustified bold erasures must be undone.   Esoglou (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * my use of the term "blatant" is over the top. It takes two to edit war, and I'm not going to be drawn into it.  You will not discuss, so be it. Cheers!Eschoir (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmeijiri and I are only asking you to cite reliable sources for your statements. You now declare that you refuse.  Then Wikipedia, with its WP:OR rule, is not the place for you.  You should make your claims elsewhere.  Esoglou (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinion from uninvolved 3rd party
I hope you don't mind me butting in here as an uninvolved 3rd party. EB is a tertiary source. And it is reliable. The policy does not prohibit tertiary sources, however, if a secondary source is found EB should be removed and replaced. But not until such secondary source is added. In addition, EB has consensus based on the views expressed here of multiple editors, myself included. Any editors who disagree with this finding may post to WP:RSN. Editors removing EB against consensus will be reported for disruption. See. – Lionel (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe noone will object if I summarise the dispute as follows: whereas the EB articles authored by reputable scientists or scholars can be used as a source for Wikipedia in the absence of better sources, it would be desirable to replace them with references to reliable secondary sources when such possibility exists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC) (@ Fifelfoo) During famines, not only dogs eat dogs, but even humans eat humans, so, whereas EB should be avoided, in the absence of better sources it is better then nothing. By writing that, I, however, do not support the idea to use EB in parallel with reliable mainstream secondary sources. When such sources are available, EB can and should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

1 Corinthians
According to WP:BRD, the bold Eschoir must first justify here, by source or exact quotation, his description of 1 Corinthians as newsletter-like, his claiming as support for his irrelevant statement about the oldest manuscript containing the text of 1 Corinthians citations that instead support the mid-50s date of the letter, and the other irrelevancies such as the small size of the Corinth church (whether it was small, large or medium does not alter the content of what Paul wrote), and the alleged composite character of 1 Corinthians (unless some reliable source says that, in spite of what the already cited sources say, the relevant part of 1 Corinthians is not of the mid-50s). The oldest of the extant manuscripts containing Julius Caesar's account of his war in Gaul is of a millennium after his time, but historians quote the account as Caesar's. Esoglou (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you have again inserted your bold edit without first debating it here. Esoglou (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I won't participate in edit- or revert-warring I just note that these concerns contrast with Revision as of 07:39, February 22, 2012 in which the objectionable illustration was bumped higher in the article by the same editor who dramatically denounces it todayEschoir (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have spent some time reading Wiki policy but I can't find in BRD the obligation to "debate" or "justify here, by source or exact quotation," anything and everything that another editor has reverted. Is the policy you are thinking about concerning deletions (rather than wholesale reversions), is horatory and prophylactic against the occurrance of edit-warring, a symptom of which is the aforementioned wholesale reversion, dear Lima?
 * Anyway, it surprisess me that you contest the mid-fifties date. I invite you as always to add your sources' opinions to the article, as I did to address and balance your concerns about Ignatius and Didache.
 * I truly don't understand the reason for the Julius Ceasar reference. It seemed reflexive.  Did it seem that I was offering opinions that we don't know who wrote I Corinthians?  I have never heard that argument made. Perhaps, my brother, you can enlighten us.Eschoir (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Attempts at dialogue seem futile with an obstructive editor who declares he will not edit-war when doing precisely that, who insists on maintaining questioned bold edits without answering the objections raised against them, who insistently inserts his own original-research texts while ignoring requests that he cite a reliable source to support them, who misinterprets another editor as contesting the mid-50s date of 1 Corinthians, when it was that other editor who provided three reliable sources in support of the mid-50s date, sources that the obstructive editor insists on presenting as supporting instead his statement about the date of the earliest extant copy of 1 Corinthians, comparable to attributing Caesar's account of Gaul to the time of the earliest extant copy, a millennium after Caesar's death ...
 * All I can do is to let others discuss him as suggested by Martijn above. Esoglou (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede: can we clean it up?
Instead of edit-warring over the references, can we do something to improve the lede? One version is somewhat incoherent; the other is disorganized. Mangoe (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think any help would be appreciated. The lede/lead, of course, but also other parts have over time grown over-complicated because of disputes over the contents and the wording.  It might be wise to wait a little, so as to see whether the edit-warring will shortly come to an end, after which the needed improvements can be made in greater tranquillity.  Esoglou (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait a little, while another reverts the entire article without a word of talk! Nice! Cheers! Eschoir (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Mangoe: I have been trying for a month to get a consensus on such seemmingly innocuous lede type statements such as Eucharist, at least in part, is a ritual reenactment of Jesus' blessings at the beginning and end of the last Passover meal with his Disciples, as retold in the Synoptic Gospels (Paul, writing to Gentile converts in Corinth, doesn't mention Passover in connection with the meal but even though they agree with it they won't respond so as to make working on the lede to be impossible, and no pretense is made of NPOV. Eschoir (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or this: "Eucharist is a scripted religious performance commanded to specific periodic incantation coupled with stylized imitative behavoir executed sometimes daily in the expectation of prompting a miraculous transformation of bread into human flesh and wine into blood, which is then consumed by tthe participants". Using the Hegelian model of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, can you modify the above statement into a consensus winner? Cheers! Eschoir (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This lede was proposed four years ago by John Carter"The history (or origins) of the Eucharist cannot be absolutely determined. Though "giving thanks" [eucharistia] has been a part of religious meal practice from time immemorial, chronologically, many scholars conclude the first Christian aothority to reference the idea of the Eucharist is Justin Martyr, writing around 150, who is generally credited with the first explicit mention of the Eucharist as rite. Around that time Eucharist and the Last Supper started becoming placed in a relation of dependence in many, but not all, Eucharist liturgies, and excerpts from St. Paul's account of a Supper of the Lord in 1 Corinthians, as well as portions of the Synoptic Gospels recounting the Last Supper began being quoted as Words of Institution of the liturgies of Paschal sacrifice."

Eschoir (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that a lead proposed four years ago was not accepted should have indicated that it had faults. It unsourcedly and falsely says that the first explicit mention of the Eucharist as a rite is Justin Martyr's, not that of the Didache or that of Ignatius of Antioch.  Although Paul explicitly placed the Christian rite in a relation of dependence on the Last Supper, it unsourcedly and falsely says that the relation of dependence on the Last Supper started being posited only a whole century later.  It unsourcedly and, in the view of most Protestants, falsely speaks of sacrifice in relation to the liturgies in question.  Esoglou (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Eschoir may well be right in his proposed change, but we need a source and we need to clear up the Justin Martyr / Ignatius issue. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Once more Eschoir has declared that there is "consensus" for something that only he maintains, something also that is based on no source whatever. No source has been produced for the claim that Justin Martyr was the first to make explicit mention of the Eucharist as a rite and that, in spite of 1 Corinthians, Paul did not place the rite in a relation of dependence on the Last Supper.  Esoglou (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wiki reversion policy holds that editors should not revert due to 'no consensus' but rather should 'reword rathere than revert.' I appreciate your support on the lede change and propose the changes in response to your cavils with rewording which nobody would find controversial: changing the reference to include Ignatius and Didache. I hope you liike it. Cheers! Eschoir (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You still have not produced any reliable source for your insistent original-research edit. Esoglou (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the time has come to report Eschoir for disruptive editing and edit-warring. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed rewriting
I have tried to retain most of the material in the lede as "rolled back" but recast it into a properly structured form bearing in mind comments made on this page. The bit about the Eucharist being the principal rite of various churches seems out of place here, so I have omitted it. In the other hand, I have inserted a new paragraph on Justin Martyr which I hope speaks for itself.

My draft is as follows:

Personally I have doubts about including notes/references in a lede and if any of the material included here is developed in a later section of the edited article, the notes/references should be transfered.Jpacobb (talk) 15:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * While I would not object to replacing the present text with the above, I think it would be well to retouch it first rather than afterwards. Perhaps it would be good to add the word "detailed" to the statement about Justin Martyr and say that he "gives the oldest detailed description of something that can be recognised as the rite that is in use today".  I do not deny that, even as it stands, the statement can well be defended, but it might seem to declare what the Didache says to be in no sense a "description" of the Eucharist. Perhaps also, instead of saying "Information from the intervening period is scanty", it would be better to say "Earlier information from outside the New Testament is much less detailed."  The statement attributed to Noakes that Justin Martyr indicates that "The bread and wine are transformed into the Flesh and Blood of Jesus" is sure to be questioned by some editors (more than if it said "the bread and wine are considered to be the flesh(? or body?) and blood of Christ"), so it had better be quite firmly and solidly based on the cited source.  Capitalization could also be reduced.  These are some comments by me.  What do others think?  Esoglou (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I posted the proposal here so that it could be discussed and modified before being moved to the main page. Let's retouch it here and try to move a stable version across.
 * So far as Esoglou's comments are concerned, a few immediate clarifications may help to focus the debate. The capitalisation of flesh and blood follows Noakes but could be dropped; while "transformed" is based on Noakes and "transformation" is found in Bettenson's translation of the passage.
 * The point about Justin is that he gives us virtually all the basic components of a complete eucharistic liturgy as found today (the only possible omission would be a penitential section). As a matter of fact, the Didache gives us more detail of the eucharistic thanksgivings themselves, but almost no information about the other five elements identified by Noakes which complete the skeleton of the rite.  Therefore I don't think that "detailed" is the way forward, if it solves one problem, it causes another misunderstanding.  I hope that someone can come up with a viable alternative.Jpacobb (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the typo in the edit summary, please read "light" for "blight"Jpacobb (talk) 23:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of stable version
This article has been subjected to disruption for a couple months now. I think we should restore the article to a pre-disruption version. Based on the history, it appears the last stable version was 12/31/11. Thoughts? – Lionel (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the proposal. Interested editors can then gradually restore good edits that have been made since then, only one or two at a time and making sure that there is agreement on them before advancing further, not doing a whole bunch together.  Esoglou (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we need to go that far back? We did a reset recently and not everything done since is without value. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That reset was one that, for the sake of not disturbing Eschoir more than absolutely necessary, overlooked much of his unhelpful changes. I still support Lionel's proposal, considering that the edits of value done since then can be restored bit by bit.  I would suggest that each editor restore a couple each day, without trying to rewrite it entirely all at once.  At that rate, it should take only a very few days to bring it entirely up to date.  Jpacobb must be unaware of this discussion.  Perhaps, as an exception, his latest edit could be incorporated immediately in the New Year's Eve version.  Esoglou (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a less drastic revert, but I'll be happy to go along if others think it is a good idea. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can accept the revert, although I want everyone to know that it is still possible to discuss any of the changes made since then, and have them approved and restored if sufficient cause is given. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that Lionel's proposal is accepted, so I will make bold to do the reverting in the way I suggested above. If anyone objects to my preserving Jpacobb's edit of a short time ago, they can easily revert to the exact version of New Year's Eve, and Jpacobb can make his edit again, like anybody else.  It is because of this comment by History2007 that I think an exception can perhaps be made in this one instance.  Esoglou (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to such an exception in that one individual case. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor comments
It is getting to look better now, but are references 30 and 31 trying to set some kind of record in length? And per WP:LEDE should have at most 4 parags, so you guys need to trim that, the lede looks too long. I think 3 or 4 people will probably read through the Crossan and Chilton tables within the next year, so the lede should be shorter and more informative. Remember, this is the 21st century, if you can't say it in 140 characters, don' even try anyway.... History2007 (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have dealt - successfully, I hope - with reference 31. Esoglou (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor Comments sometimes have major consequences. I'll deal with the "minor/minor" ones first


 * 1) Ref 31 -Esoglou: thanks for pruning ref 31: I would have been more drastic and simply reduced it to the original text in the article and a bare reference as note.
 * 2) ref 30 - This needs more thought and may depend on whether some sections are reworked (see below)
 * 3) Chilton - see new section below where I propose elimination.
 * 4) Lede - If the 4 paragraph instruction is a rule, we can temporaly patch the lede by combining the first two very short paragraphs of my proposed revision into one. I do not think this revision is the last word, but it seems to me to be a reasonable step in the right direction and further work can wait more substantial modifications to the body of the article have been agreed.
 * "Not so minor"


 * 1) There is no clear cut-off between this article on the origin of the eucharist and the related one Eucharist. For example, "The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a modern summary of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the Eucharist.[100]" is clearly out of place as is the whole panel of links to Roman Catholic material at the end of the article.  What should the cut-off be?  This is not clear to me.  If we follow generally accepted chronological divisions, 325 or 451/461 are possibilities and I incline to favour the first because by then the outline of the eucharist is clear and everything afterwards is properly described as development.  (This in itself does not exclude the use of documents from a later date provided there is a reasonable consensus that they contain evidence related to the earlier period.)
 * 2) In its present form the material lacks coherent structure. If I were starting from scratch I would make the point early on that there are three main types of data to be considered: that which comes from the New Testament; that which mainly comes from early christian authors and gives specific information about the Eucharist; and, finally, anthropological data from Jewish and pagan sources which might help to illuminate the previous types and explain why certain elements were undesrtood and developed in particular ways.
 * Without clarity as to limits and overall structure the article will never be really satisfactory.Jpacobb (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let us think of it this way: X% of the readers only read the lede. Y% will read half of the article, and Z% will read all of it, with X=Y+Z=100. My guess is that Z < 5 and Y < 20, making X about 75 or so in the long term. So the lede should telegram the basic idea. And the 5% who read all of it will certainly compare it to other sources, for they will be serious readers and will not accept Wikipedia content as certain. So My suggestion is:


 * The lede to be half the length it is and like 4 long tweets. I am not kidding there. The new crop of readers has a short attention span.
 * There should be a first section upfront (no longer than 1.5 screens worth of text) called "overview" that caters to the Y% crowd.
 * The rest can then be for the theology students, etc. Given 40,000 page views a year that group is about 2,000 views a year while the first group is 30,000 views.


 * And I would support the deletion of Chilton type table, and perhaps the other one too. It just gives people indigestion really and stops them from reading - given the strange Wiki-format for tables. There are also a number of subsections with one paragraph each - they are just hard to read. This article has the reverse-Wiki problem: it has substance, but lacks presentation. So it is just a question of packaging as a first step to improvement. The group to look after first is the 30,000 views a year group. History2007 (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to delete section on Chilton and modify table of New Testament source material
In the absence of convincing evidence from another editor that Chilton is not a "fringe figure", I propose the deletion of the whole section. Basically, the first column of the "Six Eucharists" table neither offers or insinuates reasons for thinking that the generalized table-fellowship customs would have in themselves carried any eucharistic implications at the time and the fourth on James offers no NT evidence at all. In short, there is so much hypothetical reconstruction here that, unless main stream commentators have approved the theory, its inclusion is not justified.

The table Paul and the Synoptic Gospels in parallel columns is unbalanced by the length of the quotation from 1 Corinthians. I recommend replacing vv 17-22 with the following (In vv 17-22 Paul criticises abuses of the Lord's Supper prevalent in Corinth, he continues:), then quote 23-29, eliminating vv.30 onwards.Jpacobb (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No objection on my part to shortening the quotation from 1 Corinthians.
 * It seems that as source for Chilton we only have a report on him by Daly, which I have not read. Does Daly approve Chilton's idea?  Does he perhaps reject it?  In this last case, Chilton's idea probably deserves no mention here, and quite certainly not in the prominent form in which it is now presented.  I am not sure what to think if Daly is strictly neutral, but perhaps Daly gives some indication for or against including Chilton.  I agree with Jpacobb's evaluation, but is it Daly's?  We are constrained to depend on the opinions of published sources.  Esoglou (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree we are constrained by wiki to depend on the opinions of duly published sources for material which is included in an article. I am not sure that we are bound to find a duly published source to justify the non-inclusion/deletion of a view found in a single author (or group of authors) wp:due.  If we are, it may be very difficult to stop an article being inflated with a large number of published views which have not even been noticed in print by the recognised authorities in a particular field.  I sense there must be more editorial discretion for exclusion than inclusion.Jpacobb (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see we can get to read Daly's article by free trial or paid subscription at http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5009563450 A preview of Chilton's A Feast of Meanings (Leiden 1994) is available on Google Books. Google's "About this book" indicates that Chilton's book has in fact been cited by other scholars (favourably or unfavourably, I don't know) and gives a summary of the six stages of development postulated by Chilton, a summary that, unless there are copyright obstacles, would provide an adequate account of his view better proportioned to this article than the long table in which it is now presented.  I think that, instead of just having us two discuss it, it would be good if some other editor would join in.  Esoglou (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I myself think it might be enough to mention Chilton's six-stages theory briefly (even more briefly than in the summary I referred to) in the section "Allusions to the Eucharist in the New Testament", where Chilton is already mentioned. Do others agree?  Esoglou (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)