Talk:Ebionites/wip/Archive 1

Phase 1

Loremaster, I suggest you and I (and I hope CS) work here (rather than the original talk page) to sort out the rules and structure of the wip, along with minor details.

As you may have noticed I do not tend to jump headfirst into things without having some structure defined first. Time taken to sort out the metadetails now will save time later. So, I think we need to agree some rules. I suggest

1. we define the POV sections and allocate editors.
2. editors agree only to work on the allocated POV sections.
3. the lead and introduction get written last, and only contains statements that we all agree on.

If you agree these rules then we can start to sort out what POV sections there should be. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with your suggestions. Do you find the current structure and content of the Ebionites/wip page a good foundation to work on? --Loremaster 19:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll interpret "no problems" as "I agree"? The overall structure and content looks good, although I'd like to get CS's (and Ovadyah's) input as well before investing a lot of effort. I have a few concerns with the John/Jesus/James demarcation, but they maybe minor. Perhaps John => Essene, and may be merge the James seciton into it? Should there be a Gnostic section? Also I must finish reading Eisenman on James, which will take awhile.

I assume you wish to be one of the (probably the only) "Jesus" editors? My interest is in the John /James sections. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation would be fallacious. I have "no problems" doesn't mean "I agree". That being said, I do agree with rules 1 and 2 but I don't agree with 3 since I am satisfied with the current version of the Lead. --Loremaster 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the structure according to some of your suggestions but I don't think fusing the John section and the James section into the Qumran Essene section is a good idea. --Loremaster 03:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Are there any sources that emphasize just James or John but not both? -- first I'll finish Eisenman, though. I've asked CS to look in. Catch up with everything in a week or so. (BTW finished Tabor's "Jesus Dynasty" whilst we were blocked; I recommend it; whether or not you agree with its thesis it draws on some very interesting material e.g. the Didache.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Eisenman emphasize both James and John in his book about James? I think it is significant that patristic sources mention John but not James when discussing the Ebionites. Regardless, you can start working on the sections you prefer. I'll edit if necessary. --Loremaster 09:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Let you know for sure when I've finished Eisenman. But my guess is that anyone who subscribes to the "Ebionites as Essenes" POV is going to focus more on John than the NT does, simply because John has so many Essene-like features. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, I think the John section should focus on how he is portrayed in the Gospel of the Ebionites and then include scholarly speculation. Same goes for James. --Loremaster 18:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am inclining more to the "Ebionites as Essenes" as a single subsection since Rabinowitz, Tabor, Eisenman, Larson et al all seems to agree on this basic approach. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad we can agree on this. As I said earlier I'll be taking a break to read and throughly digest Eisenman before I start to fill out the Essene section. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait... When you talked of a single Ebionites as Essenes subsection, did you mean that there would be no John section nor James section? I think this would be a mistake since a case could be made that Ebionites were Essenes even if John and James were not Essene themselves (in the same way some Ebionites could have embraced gnosticism despite the fact that neither John, Jesus or James were Gnostics). Ultimately, it doesn't matter if some information in the Qumranism and Essenism section can also be found in the John section or the James section. --Loremaster 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me write the Essene section first and then we'll see if we need a separate section for John and James each. As I said I think everyone who buys into the Essene POV accepts that John (for example) fits into this quite naturally. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. However, my point is that if the Ebionites as Essenes hypothesis is ever refuted, we should be able to, in theory, delete that sub-section and still have information about Ebionite views of John and James in the article. --Loremaster 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, because that would require a major rewrite of those sections as well. Anyway, I must take a break. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. We would just delete the speculative claims about John and James, and stick to the few facts that there are. ;) --Loremaster 01:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Phase 2

I'm pretty much done with my draft. If everyone is comfortable with the structure and current content, the only things left to do are 1) expanding the Views and practices section, 2) adding inline quotes, and 3) standardizing the references. --Loremaster 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Phase 3

The status of Ebionites article has been lowered to semi-protected. This will prevent anonymous users from vandalizing the article as it has happened several times in the past. I've moved the content from the Ebionites/wip page to the Ebionites article. I've left in the wip page the sections that some editors expressed an interest in expanding without interference. --Loremaster 10:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you have removed the protection before seeking a consensus on the issue.--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, due to User:MichealCPrice's behavior on the Talk:Ebionites page and the fact that no other editor has contributed to the Ebionites/wip page or posted comments on this talk page, I reasonably feel that seeking a consensus is almost impossible. --Loremaster 11:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Notes and references section to the Ebionites/wip page so that Michael or anyone else interested may work on it by adding inline quotes. --Loremaster 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Persecution and decline

After the end of the First Jewish-Roman War, the importance of the Jerusalem church began to fade. Jewish Christianity became dispersed throughout the Jewish diaspora in Southwest Asia, where it was slowly eclipsed by Pauline Christianity. The proto-orthodox Christian church, which had previously been struggling to survive against the disapproval of Jerusalem, now spread throughout the Roman Empire without impediment.Once the Jewish leadership of the movement was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost the struggle for their claim to being the true followers of Jesus. This defeat was due to marginalization and persecution by both Jews and Christians. Following the defeat of the rebellion and the expulsion of all Jews from Judea, Jerusalem became the gentile city of Aelia Capitolina. Many of the Jewish-Christians residing at Pella renounced their Jewish practices at this time and joined to the proto-orthodox Church in Jerusalem. Those who remained at Pella and continued in obedience to the Law were called heretics and mocked as “Ebionites (poor in doctrine)” Epiphanius personally knew of a settlement of Ebionites on Cyprus c375, but by the mid-fifth century, Theodorus of Cyprus reported that they no longer existed in the region as autonomous groups.

Persecution and decline?

Ovadyah, you didn't need to use the Ebionites/wip page to work on such minor edits of the History section of the Ebionites article. You could simply have edited the article itself without needing our consensual approval. Although the History section does not work, I was far more interested in seeing you use the wip page to work on the controversial Essenism section unless you feel the current version is adequate. --Loremaster 16:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am adding more content to this section as I can find the time. Ovadyah 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster 01:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am staying away from the work on the Essense section for now. Although the current version is far from adequate, I see the present editorial behavior and discussion as being unproductive to the point of being destructive. Imho, the dispute over the Essenes section needs mediation, unless you are willing to take Michael to RFC. Ovadyah 17:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid having to deal with Michael as much as possible so I think you should request the input of scholars. --Loremaster 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be too much trouble to wait until I'm finished with my changes? I'm planning to add more content soon. Ovadyah 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Pella account

The accounts of Epiphanius agree on the main facts and add a note that some of the disciples subsequently returned to Jerusalem (Epiphanius, De Mens. et Pond., xv.). Some historians such as S. G. F. Brandon doubt that the Jerusalem Church fled to Pella because of geographic and political reasons, and also because Epiphanius’ account of their returning to a Gentile city which excluded Jews is not possible (S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem, London, 1951, p. 169).

In spite of the few historians who hold this opinion, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statements of Eusebius and Epiphanius. That geographic and political reasons would have prevented this, is easily disproved by research into these factors by many historians, including Barbara C. Gray. Her article, “Movement of the Jewish Church during the First Jewish War,” is most cogent in regard to the Jewish migration to Pella (Barbara C. Gray, “Movement of the Jewish Church during First Jewish War,” Jewish Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 24:1-7, Jan. 1973). As for the Gentile city of Aelia admitting Jews, Gibbon states:

“At his (Marcus) persuasion the most considerable part of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian, and more firmly cemented their union with the Catholic Church” (Edward Gibbon, ch. 15, p. 390). Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Random House, N.Y.

---

Pella thus became a chief center of Jewish Christianity which had hitherto been Palestinian, and it probably remained an important location in the following centuries. The Jewish Christians apparently expanded from Pella into the rest of Peraea — the whole territory east of the upper Jordan. Johannes Weiss asserts:

“That the church here subsisted not merely as an intimidated flock in hiding, but continued its communal living and its propaganda, is undoubtedly probable” (J. Weiss, Earliest Christianity, N.Y., Harper and Row, 1959, Vol. 2, p. 716).

---

Some Jewish Christians Join with the Great Church

According to Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. V. xii), up to the year 135 A.D. there were fifteen bishops of the circumcision who succeeded one another and who possessed all the marks of a kind of monarchical episcopate over the congregations of the Jewish Christian Church. Schoeps feels that this number can hardly be correct and thinks that perhaps bishops of other congregations beside the one designated as Jerusalem’s are included in this list (H. Schoeps, Theology, pp. 266 f). With the fall of Bether, the last Jewish stronghold, in 135 A.D., the revolt led by the Jewish partisan Bar Cocheba which had lasted for three and one-half years came to its end. This year marks the end of the Jewish Christian congregation of Jerusalem (at Pella). According to the list of bishops provided by Eusebius, their last bishop, Judas, resided there until the eighteenth year of Hadrian’s reign (134-135 A.D.). Tradition ascribed to this last bishop the surname Kyriakos, which appears to bring him into relationship with Jesus’ family (H. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity, p. 34). The next bishop in the episcopal seat of James, Marcus (Mark) by name, was not of Jewish origin. Marcus was a Gentile, probably a native either of Italy or of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion, the most considerable part of the congregation at Pella renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and culture, they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian, into Jerusalem, and firmly cemented their union with the Catholic Church (Eusebius, IV. vi.; Sulpicius Severus, ii. 31). By comparing their unsatisfactory accounts, Mosheim de Rebus (Christians before Constantine the Great, p. 327, etc.) has drawn out a very distinct representation of the circumstances and motives of this revolution. Here again, it is interesting to notice that while the pagans did not have to give up their culture or rites, the Jewish Christians were required to forsake their observance of the Mosaic law. Those Nazarenes who remained at Pella and continued in obedience to the Law were called heretics and mocked as “Ebionites (poor in doctrine)” by the Catholic Church (E. Gibbon, p. 391).

---

Later History

The Jewish Christians in Palestine did not participate in the Bar Cocheba war. The reason is not hard to guess: it was because of Bar Cocheba’s messianic claim which was accepted by the majority of the people and by its rabbinic leadership headed by Rabbi Akiba. In the persecution of 135 A.D., conducted by the Jews, the last Jewish Christian martyrs of whom we have knowledge perished. It was probably another headlong flight for the Jewish Christians, for they had to leave behind their greatest relic, the bishop’s chair upon which James had sat and which was exhibited in Jerusalem as a precious relic even in the time of the emperor Constantine. The persecutions during and after the year 135 constituted the end of both the Jewish state and Palestinian Jewish Christianity. Hugh Schonfield writes:

“Jewish Christianity never regained its position of authority in the affairs of the Church. The Hadrianic war, which had wrung the death knell of Jewish hopes of political independence, had also relegated the Church of the apostles to the rank of a heretical sect. Henceforth the Jewish Christians, while they observed their ancestral customs, were practically excluded from the Catholic Church and might only associate with one another in their own congregations” (Hugh Schonfield, History of Jewish Christianity, London, 1936, p. 62).

Since Epiphanius gives us information concerning the existence of Ebionite settlements on Cyprus about the year 375, we may suppose that the Ebionites fled from their hostile environment to this island. In the west around 360 A.D., Ambrosiater and Marius Victorinus knew Symmachians and Nazoreans. Augustine identifies these groups with each other and explicitly states that remnants of them persisted to his own time — presumably he means in North Africa. In Syria, however, according to a statement by Theodoret of Cyprus who was certainly well enough informed about this region, the Ebionites were no longer in existence as autonomous groups about the year 450. It was at this time that Pella became an episcopal seat of the Catholic Church.

Adding potential source info. Ovadyah 17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Beliefs in conflict

After the Bar Cochba revolt of 132-135 A.D., the Nazarenes would not go back to Aelia and become part of a Gentile Church. It was at this time that the Catholic Church began to call them heretics, primarily due to their continued observance of the Sabbath, the Passover on the fourteenth of Nisan, and the annual Sabbaths, as well as dietary laws. Epiphanius suggests that, until 135 A.D., Christians everywhere observed Passover irrespective of the day of the week (Epiphanius, Against Heresies, 70, 10). W.D. Davies states that the Jewish Christians still observed the Feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles — understanding that the New Covenant through Jesus did not negate these aspects of the Old — and that, the Jewish Christians were the dominant element in Christianity until 70 A.D. (W.D. Davies, “Paul and Jewish Christianity,” Jewish Christians, 1972, p. 72).

The years 70 and 135 A.D., were times of crisis for the Nazarenes. The next time of crisis came at the time the Roman emperor Constantine was baptized into the Catholic Church. An era of pagan persecution was passing away only to be replaced by the more terrible and prolonged persecutions by Christian Romans of any who would keep the Law of Moses (H. Schonfield, History, p. 97).

In the fourth-fifth century source attributed to the Nazarenes (or the remains of them) by Shlomo Pines, the Nazarenes attack the Romans (Catholic Christians) for abandoning the Mosaic law and for replacing it with different laws and customs. They also attack the Christology of the Catholic Church because of the emphasis on the person of Christ as opposed to their emphasis on Christ as prophet, proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom of God. Another charge against the “Great Church” is that they have replaced the Fast (Day of Atonement) with other fasts such as Lent. The descendants of the Nazarenes in this text further take to task the “Church Fathers” for their idea about Christ doing away with the Sabbath and instituting Sunday observance. They explain that Christ came to magnify the law (here in regard to how to observe the Sabbath) not to change or to do away with it. The Council of Nicea was viewed as a death warrant for Jewish Christians. Any who would observe the Sabbath rather than Sunday were to be executed. Under the sway of force — according to the text:

“. . . people who professed the religion of Christ came to do all that is reprehensible: they worshipped the cross, observed the Roman religious rites, and ate pork. Those who did not eat it were killed” (S. Pines, Jewish Christians, pp. 3-5, 31, 32, 34. For an analysis of the “salvation understanding” of the Nazarenes from this source see: D. Flugger, “Salvation Past and Future,” Numan. 16:139-55, sp. 1969. 40. Ibid. p. 65).

Another condemnation of the Roman Church was that they had taken the Roman and Greek feast, called the “Nativity of Time,” which celebrated the return of the sun in January, and had introduced various modifica­tions into it and called it the “Nativity of Christ” (later observed in the West on December 25 — “Christmas”). The text de­nounces many additional customs in the Christian churches as pagan (S. Pines, etc. ibid.).

Material on Nazaraean / Ebionite beliefs contrasted with orthodox Christianity. Ovadyah 23:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

---

More from 'Decline and Fall'

The unfortunate Ebionites, rejected from one religion as apostates, and from the other as heretics, found themselves compelled to assume a more decided character; and although some traces of that obsolete sect may be discovered as late as the fourth century, they insensibly melted away, either into the church or the synagogue. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chp.15, p.?

Also, during the Smyrna Era, the Nazarenes of Judea seemed to disappear and the “Ebionites” began to appear in their place. As Edward Gibbon explains, these were the same people: “The name of Nazarenes was deemed too honorable for those Christian Jews, and they soon received, from the supposed poverty of their understanding, as well as their condition, the contemptuous epithet of Ebionites” (Decline and Fall, ch. 15, p. 149). Also note that: “…the Nazarenes of the 4th century are…to be identified with the Ebionites” (Encyc. Brit., 11th ed., vol. 19, p. 319).

Another phenomenon that occurred in the wake of the apostasy and persecution of the first centuries was the fragmentation of the Church, which led to isolated groups drifting into heretical teachings in varying degrees. As a case-in-point, there were three main bodies of Ebionites. The first splinter group accepted the teaching of the apostles strictly to the letter. These were the former Nazarenes of the Pella area, later labeled Ebionites. The second splinter was rigid and Pharisaical, rejecting the letters and writings of Paul. The third splinter went to the opposite extreme in adopting Gnostic doctrines. This was the “liberal branch.” As the originators of the Gnostics had done, they were skilled at twisting the meaning of Scripture to justify their action or inaction, by using the tool of allegory. The two latter groups had certain few beliefs in common with the true Church, from which they had strayed. Although once considered remnants of the apostolic Church, as time progressed, so did their tendency to collect new heresies (ACBCC, les. 49, p. 16). (Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course)

This brings us to the end of the Smyrna Era. One may wonder what happened to the remnant of this Era, during those years of persecution—especially the faithful Ebionites north of Pella in Syria and the Quartodecimani of Greek Asia Minor. “As decades rolled by, as persecutions raged, they gradually melted away. Some apostatized, some were martyred. But most migrated—going north and east into Armenia and Cappadocia, the farthest bounds of the Roman Empire. Other Christians found places to hide from Rome far to the west…” (ACBCC, les. 50, p. 6). (Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course)

Ebionites: were a group of Jewish Christians located in different regions of the Mediterranean from at least the second to the fourth centuries. The distinguishing characteristics of this group, at least in the eyes of their Christian oppo-nents, was their attempt to combine Jewish views and lifestyles with the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. In particular, they were said to have emphasized their monotheistic belief in only one God to such an extreme that they denied, as a consequence, Jesus' own divinity. At the same time, the Ebionites differed from non-Christian Jews in asserting that Jesus was the sacrifice for the sins of the world and that all other sacrifices had therefore become meaningless. Among other things, this belief led them to embrace a vegetarian diet (since most meat was procured, in the ancient world, through the religious act of sacrificing an animal). [Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p.136.]

That's all for now. Ovadyah 03:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Names

The Ebionites were known by other names, such as "Homuncionites" (Gk. "Anthropians" or "Anthropolatrians") from their Christological views, " Peratici" from their settlement at Peraea, and "Symmachians" from the one able literary man among them whose name has reached us, Symmachus. [1] A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature, edited Henry Wace and William Piercy. London: John Murray, 1911.

While these groups share some similar beliefs to the Ebionites, none of them can be confidently identified as synonyms for Ebionites, other than the Symmachians. The Homuncionites were followers of Photin. They all have in common that they regarded Jesus to be a mere man, but there is no evidence of Jewish religious practices.

A great review. Ovadyah 23:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

History section - Pella and after

The last section "In 375, Epiphanius ...." to the end is ok for content, except this sentence is left dangling as it's own paragraph. Ovadyah 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wished there was more information avaiable about the history of the Ebionites past 135 (when the Taborite claims they vanish), except for the descriptions by the Church Fathers. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Our first disagreement. The long run-on sentence

"Many scholars consider the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, which brought about the elimination of the Jerusalem Church, still headed by Jesus' relatives, and the refounding of Jerusalem as a Roman colony off limits to Jews, a major step in the detachment of the increasingly dispersed Jewish Christianity and the spreading Gentile Christianity."

is not an improvement over the previous version. I will retrieve the older text momentarily. Ovadyah 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"After the end of the First Jewish-Roman War, the importance of the Jerusalem church began to fade. Jewish Christianity became dispersed throughout the Jewish diaspora in Southwest Asia, where it was slowly eclipsed by Pauline Christianity. The orthodox Christian church, which had previously been struggling to survive against the disapproval of Jerusalem, now spread throughout the Roman Empire without impediment.Once the Jewish leadership of the movement was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost the struggle for their claim to being the true followers of Jesus. This decline was due to marginalization and persecution by both Jews and Christians. Following the defeat of the rebellion and the expulsion of all Jews from Judea, Jerusalem became the gentile city of Aelia Capitolina. Many of the Jewish Christians residing at Pella renounced their Jewish practices at this time and joined to the orthodox Christian church. Those who remained at Pella and continued in obedience to the Law were deemed heretics and their name was used mockingly to suggest that were "poor in doctrine"."

Maybe we can meet in the middle. Ovadyah 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I favour the older text. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me, Michael.

Ovadyah,

as far as the older text is concerned I have a few quibbles with it:

• "After the end of the First Jewish-Roman War, the importance of the Jerusalem church began to fade. Jewish Christianity became dispersed throughout the Jewish diaspora in Southwest Asia, where it was slowly eclipsed by Pauline Christianity."
  is more or less fine, except for the terrible word "Southwest Asia".
• "The orthodox Christian church, which had previously been struggling to survive against the disapproval of Jerusalem, now spread throughout the Roman Empire without impediment.[2]"
  more serious: this is opinion, not fact, as it assumes a disapproval by Jerusalem. Also, it contains the false statement that Christianity spread "without impediment" - remember the persecutions.
• "Once the Jewish leadership of the movement was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost the struggle for their claim to being the true followers of Jesus."
  Again this is somewhat opinion-laden. But I am sure that it can be fixed. As far as the "Jewish leadership" is concerned I must however disagree: it was the entire Jerusalem Church that was removed.
• "This decline was due to marginalization and persecution by both Jews and Christians.[1]
  I am still waiting for actual evidence for the persecution by Christians (and shouldn't it be "other Christians"?) This is also unclear in connection to the preceding and following sentence? It seems placed in the year 135. Please clarify.
• "Following the defeat of the rebellion and the expulsion of all Jews from Judea, Jerusalem became the gentile city of Aelia Capitolina."
  no prob.
• "Many of the Jewish Christians residing at Pella renounced their Jewish practices at this time and joined to the orthodox Christian church."
  that might be so but the source "Gibbon" is not reliable on this, as he suggests that Jewish Christians could drop their Jewishness and then return to Jerusalem, which is definitely not the case.
• "Those who remained at Pella and continued in obedience to the Law were deemed heretics"
  fine, except for the term "obedience to the Law" should be worded more neutral.
• "and their name was used mockingly to suggest that were "poor in doctrine".[3]"
  doesn't belong here. That explanation (by Origen) is already covered in the name section. In Gibbon's book it is a typical unqualified 18th century jibe - in his version it contradicts the actual origins of the name.

If we restore the edited old text, we must also reflect where to place it. The new text was placed in a "neutral sphere", apart from the mainstream, the fringe, and the fringy fringe.

But I think we can work something out. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with str's comments. Southwest Asia is awful. I suggest

• "Once the Jewish leadership of the movement was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost the struggle for their claim to being the true followers of Jesus."

be replaced by

• "Once the Jewish leadership of the movement was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost influence and followers."

"true claim" and all that has no place here. I mean it is pretty implicit that all religious groups regard themselves as the "true" way.--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"the Jewish leadership of the movement" makes things worse as it openly takes the view that those eliminated by Bar Kochba were the leaders of the Ebionites. But that is POV. Others would say that they were the leaders of (largely Jewish Christian) Catholic Church of Jerusalem. (Personally, I'd say that the break had not been finalised as those beyond the Jordan looked towards Jesus' family for leadership - once these were gone, the would be Ebionites could freely float.) It is save to say that they were the leaders of the Christians (actually not just the leaders were eliminated in Jerusalem. "influence and followers" is a bit problematic too, as we don't know who influence whom. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My responses to your quibbles:

Bullet #1: I agree it's more or less fine, except get rid of "Southwest Asia". Possibly replace it with "the Levant", which is what the region was known as in Roman times, or "Asia, Syria and the Levant". "After the end of the First Jewish-Roman War, the importance of the Jerusalem church began to fade. Jewish Christianity became dispersed throughout the Jewish diaspora in the Levant, where it was slowly eclipsed by Pauline Christianity."

Bullet #2: The main point is "The orthodox Christian church now spread throughout the Roman Empire without competition from 'Judaizing' Christian groups". Is that better?

Bullet #3: I agree. How about this? "Once the Jerusalem Church was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost influence and followers."

Bullet #4: "This decline was due to marginalization and persecution by both Jews and Christians." I have to disagree with your comments. Persecution can be verbal too. The statement does mean post-135. Gibbon states that they were persecuted by Jews as apostates and by Christians as heretics. There was no reason to delete the reference. While Gibbon may not have been the best scholar, his statements about the Ebionites were based on Eusebius and were not inaccurate (except for Jews going back to Jerusalem). We have no way of knowing if the historical Ebionites self-identified as Christians.

Bullet #5: "Following the defeat of the rebellion and the expulsion of all Jews from Judea, Jerusalem became the gentile city of Aelia Capitolina." I agree, no problem.

Bullet #6: "Many of the Jewish Christians residing at Pella renounced their Jewish practices at this time and joined to the orthodox Christian church." Nothing wrong with this. It comes right from Eusebius. Just drop the part about some Jewish-Christians returning to Jerusalem.

Bullet #7: "Those who remained at Pella and continued in obedience to the Law were deemed heretics". I think it's fine, but I'm open to other wording. A strict "obedience to the Law" was one of Irenaeus' principle complaints.

Bullet #8: "and their name was used mockingly to suggest that were "poor in doctrine". Moved to the name section. I'm fine with that. I don't think removing Gibbon as a source was justified. "The Decline and Fall..." is a classic historical work. There are certainly plenty of off-the-cuff comments in Eisenman, Tabor et al.

Placement should be the same as it was, with "By 375, Epiphanius ...." as the last sentence of the paragraph. It summarizes the whole period between Pella and the ~450 CE end in the Roman Empire. Virtually everything here is just restating the Fathers, mostly Eusebius' history based on Hegesippus and Aristo. There's nothing "fringie" in here at all. Just keep the style reasonably neutral. Ovadyah 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take a crack at putting this back together before I take on anymore material. I'll copy this to the /wip page and do it there, so I don't my screen get caught in an edit conflict. Ovadyah 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)