User talk:Ignocrates/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Ebionites

I think part of the problem regarding the article is the rather insistent editing of a particular individual regarding some likely fringe speculation. In gathering a bibliography from these encyclopedias and similar works, I haven't seen either Eisenman or Tabor mentioned in these sources. If and when I finish the bibliography, which I could either add to the existing article or create as a separate one, would you believe that there might be some interest in filing an RfC regarding these speculations? Personally, I can think of several other obscure groups which might be subject to the same sort of possibly good-faith additions of fringey sources, and it might be a good idea to maybe establish how much weight to give such speculation, and, also, how much weight, if any, to give to beliefs or revelations regarding this earlier group which other currently active religious groups might have. I note there are a few "Ebionite" named groups in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, which more or less establishes their notability, and it might be that they have some sort of tenet of their faiths regarding the earlier group which might or might not be significant enough to mention in the main article on the older group. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think an RfC is justified, however, I requested RfCs on this article several times in the past without success. There are few people on Wiki with enough expert knowledge to be helpful. Eisenman has kind of faded away as a serious scholar. Tabor, on the other hand, is a major contributor to the field of biblical studies. He presents several papers every year at major meetings like SBL. I'm more inclined to include his material, with proper weighting, than sources from 100 years ago. Unfortunately, it's hard to find people willing to contribute to the article that don't either have a POV to push or an axe to grind. Good luck. --Ovadyah (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Including yourself, sadly. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to make this personal. Both of us bear responsibility for the final outcome. --Ovadyah (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was mistaken. There are groups about Essenes and Elohim, but not Ebionites. Sorry. And I will contact Dab and others for their input first.96.35.141.2 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, no attempt to impugn Tabor per se was intended in the request for information regarding his previous work. However, it is fairly often the case that individuals who were directly involved in research will have opinions regarding that work which fall outside the mainstream, and are thus fringe. A conclusion based on fringe assumptions is logically likely to fall within the "fringe" range as well. And, as I seem to remember during the Erich von Daniken craze of the 70s, it is not unheard of for respected scholars to write material which is not itself so respected, possibly for the intention of getting some name recognition or money, which they, as researchers, probably deserve more than the von Danikens or Dan Browns of the world. Robert Graves was a very well respected individual regarding his field, but his book The White Goddess is as I recall considered very "fringey". Simply having and stating a few fringe theories does not, in and of itself, mean that his other work is necessarily impugned by those theories. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, my own idea as to what might be the best way to go would be to say something in the article about early Jewish Christians to the effect that the original sourcing wasn't neutral, frequent, or local enough for anyone to be sure that these groups were, necessarily, all different. Given the amount of material about them from earlier times, however, and even some more current articles on them, the groups would probably still have more than enough cause to have separate articles.

Also, at least one of the sources I consulted mentioned a likely connection to the "evyonites" who are evidently mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I don't see anything in the current article relating to the Dead Sea Scrolls, but thought it might be of interest to you.

In any event, given the likely relationship between the early Jewish Christian groups and some of the statements or beleifs of modern Messianic Judaism, it seems to me to make at least a degree of sense that the existing WikiProject Messianic Judaism might expand to include Jewish or Torah-observant Christians in general. Having some sort of more focused group would probably be useful in any event. A group relating to Early Christianity in general would also be good, but I tend to think, myself, that the more or less strictly historical interest of much of the topics related to such a group would probably produce fewer real contributions than some of the more denominational groups. Anyway, if you wish to make any comments on the proposed expansion of the MJ Project please feel free to do so on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Messianic Judaism page. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said on the article talk page, I would proceed without Tabor. If a legitimate expert can be found, this issue can always be revisited. I previously invited JT (twice) to contribute to the article to clear up of some of the controversy. The article as it stands is very biased toward a conservative Catholic point of view. This is not deliberate but simply the result of incorporating Str's edits (which I assisted on) while removing the Tabor material because it was hopelessly conflated with Eisenman and some vanity publications. My primary objection was not to including Tabor per se but this conflation of sources. At any rate, I think your plan is a good one overall (except for the MJ part - MJ's are an anathema to modern Ebionites). All the best. --Ovadyah (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am rather stunned how you, who have historically been on the greatest contributors to this article, seemingly only now raise that question, and wonder why you apparently never raised it before, if you in fact had not. And, just out of curiosity, I do wonder whether you are yourself a "modern Ebionite", which, if true, is a very potentially serious conflict of interests as per WP:COI which you should declare somewhere. If you are an Ebionite, however, good to have you here. We should have as many different perspectives supported by knowledgable editors as possible, and I note that you have tended to in the past oppose references to non-notable Ebionite groups, so, if you do have a conflict, you've kept it fairly hard to see. Also, if there were a notable neo-Ebionite (or whatever the term is) group, or even a notable advocate or book by such a party, which takes a position similar to Eisenman, or significantly refers to him, that would, I think, be sufficient grounds for a statement about the subject based on the religious support, even if the academic support is weak.

Regarding the MJ project, so far as I can tell, that was only proposed because of the similarity of the various Jewish Christian groups. Renaming it "Jewish Christianity" or whatever might easily be possible. So far as I can tell, the group is pretty much dormant anyway, and anything which might help kick-start it would probably be welcome.

And, if you yourself have any questions regarding my own biases, I have I think historically edited more non-Catholic than Catholic articles. I want to see all the notable religious groups covered in as neutral and great of depth as possible, and, given my own preferences and availability of sources, tend to concentrate on Christian. If I had more sources about other groups available, I would probably do more work on them as well. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I never thought I would be asked this question. Please don't take offense, but whether I am an Ebionite, or a Christian, or an Orthodox Jew, is no one's business but my own. Perhaps I stated it too forcefully, but the reason I know that MJ's are an anathema to modern Ebionites is because I have been told so by members of the evyonim.org group. You can easily confirm this for yourself by looking at their website. As far as being biased, I have been accused of being biased by various parties no matter what I do. Everyone has their own personal biases, which they should strive to keep to themselves if they are any good as editors. Even if I disagree with someone's personal views, I will cooperate with that person to help them do the best editing job possible. As far as your own personal biases go, I don't care what they are because that shouldn't matter. I hope this helps. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your own comments, particularly including your false repeated statements about "final comments", refusal to substantively engage the real subject under discussion, which you have done repeatedly by raising any number of non-issues and ignoring the comments fairly clearly made, more or less in violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and refusal to even answer a directly posted question regarding a possible conflict of interests on your part, have frankly demonstrated to me that the article very likely would be better off without you, and, personally, I regret saying that. As I have indicated to you before, if the neo-Ebionites or whatever they are called ever get notable, either on their own or indirectly through reference to their beliefs in reliable sources, there would be no reason not to have them mentioned. But fringe theories are fringe theories, regardlessly of how vehemently people adhere to them. Personally, considering that, so far as I can tell, I have probably read more about the subject than just about anyone else now, I am thinking that I might try a total rewrite, which, honestly, I think it deserves. And I am unfortunately forced to say that your refusal to even acknowledge the true issue under discussion, which is not, as you repeatedly indicate, WP:RS but WP:FRINGE, is possibly even more disgusting to me than your own ill-tempered comments elsewhere. If you are, as your comments here and elsewhere indicate might be true, particularly interested in the Ebionites because of an interest in non-notable active groups claiming to be them, then there is a very real chance that you may have, knowingly or not, allowed your judgement to be impacted by your own beliefs. If that is the case, then I wish you well elsewhere. Oh, and I removed your personal attacks on the Talk:Ebionites page which were clearly violations of WP:NPA. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I've opened a mediation page here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you plan to take part? Or would you prefer to have the mediation happen without you, and abide by whatever is agreed to there? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm recusing myself from futher involvement in the article. Thanks for asking. Ovadyah (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ovadyah, it really would be easier for all concerned (yourself included) if we got your input earlier, rather than later, in the DR process. I know we've had our content differences, surely now is the best time to sort them out? BTW thanks for the John Painter review, it was well received at James the Just. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael, I appreciate the gesture, but I don't want to have anything more to do with the article. You pointed out yourself that this goes a lot deeper than a content dispute. It's more like a jihad. I don't want to be drawn into some kind of religious war with John Carter. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Good to see your contributions. Those are some excellent sources. Thanks. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. If I find other relevant quotations I will add them as time permits. Ovadyah (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion of moving forward with JTB in the mediation. I've never been clear exactly how/why we differ on this issue. Do you think it would be useful to lay out our respective positions here (or at mediation)? Or just see how it goes? I think there is adequate sourcing for the view that the Ebionites had some commonality of practise and doctrine with the Essenes and were originally followers of JTB before following Jesus and later James. And that's leaving aside the Dead Sea Scrolls (and the Leader of Righteous, which I have no opinion on). --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should create a new JTB section on Talk:Ebionites, copy over the disputed material, and take it from there. I can't remember just what the dispute was anymore, but I think it involves laying out the individual sources, and quotes from them, to make sure we are not conflating sources that say different things. There may be a secondary issue of reliable sources. We are fortunate to have Jayjg as a mediator, so I would like to keep the mediation open if he is willing to do so. Ovadyah (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to your own old tricks, heh?

At this point, I should know that you are at best dubiously capabale of honesty. However, the material which was deleted is clearly indicated on the talk page as violation WP:V Your going back to your own old tricks of dishonesty and deceit is no surprise either. However, as per the talk page, until and unless the material deleted meets policy guidelines, it will remain deleted. Any attempt to restore material which fails policy can and will be reported to other administrators for their direct action. And, yes, your attempts to delete information from your page which casts you in a negative, but accurate, light, does not remove them from the record, in the event action needs to be taken regarding your lack of regard for policy and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page. Last warning. Ovadyah (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And, by the way, your restoring information which fails policy is itself very clearly vandalism. Consider this a warning to cease and desist such unacceptable restoration of content which fails policy guidelines unless you want this matter to be reviewed by administrators and potentially face the very real possibility of further disciplinary measures to be taken against you. And, in light of your own failure to abide by policy on a page about which you clearly have a conflit of interests, consider this your own last warning. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

John, using James Tabor as a source is clearly not "vandalism", according to Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. In fact, given the fact that Tabor is the chair of the religious studies department at a respected university, and the work in question, The Jesus Dynasty, was published by a respected publishing house, it's not even clear that the material fails WP:V. Now, you might argue that it fails WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG, but these are hardly obvious matters, and your "last warning" here is inappropriate. So too are your statements that Ovadyah is "dubiously capabale of honesty" and "going back to your own old tricks of dishonesty and deceit"; these are serious violations of WP:CIVIL. Please work out what are clearly rather subtle issues of WP:V in good faith on the article's Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ovadyah, for heads up about John Carter's behaviour. I see he is following his usual practice of recycling previous unsupportable positions, under the impression if he waits longs enough, and tries often enough, that he will get the article to reflect his Catholic POV. Although I can't devote as much time as I should, to this article at the moment, I will endeavour to support your efforts against this POV. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'm quite busy off-Wiki myself these days. I think there can be a real benefit to participation in an RfC, if all editors act in good faith and independently. I'm seeing evidence of ongoing exchanges of double-secret emails that suggest otherwise. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I: False accusations of vandalism

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Request for formal mediation

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebiontes and indicate your willingness or unwillingness to take part in the formal mediation process. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

I realize you probably don't want to here this, but it is information which you may find useful and potentially anyway important. There is a very good chance you will consider this an attempt to avoid or delay an issue, and I have to say that it could be seen as such. But I think that my involvement in the mediation, if it does take place, may be either delayed or greatly reduced in the near future. If you look at the talk pages of any of the WikiProjects, you will see that they have recently gotten a notice about the 0.8 release selection articles. As an example, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Christianity articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release. I am unfortunately one of the few editors who has much any involvement in content related to several parts of the Pacific Islands, the Caribbean, Africa, Southeast Asia, and various other locations which are important, but don't get a lot of attention. A number of religion projects are basically inactive at present as well, and I may be tied up there for a while too. As soon as I finish adding the full texts of the encyclopedic articles I copied out yesterday, there is a very good chance I will have to spend a lot of time on the selected articles for the 1.0 team, given the deadline involved. I wish I had known about it in advance, but I didn't. Anyway, FYI. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This notice should have been left on the mediation talk page or the article talk page. I personally could care less how you choose to spend your time. I'm confident the remaining editors will carry on just fine without you. Ovadyah (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Ebionites 2, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

The Jesus Dynasty

Please do not remove quality templates placed as per explicitly stated reasons, as you did to the above article. The reasons for the placing of the article are discussed on the article talk page, and to date there has been no attempt to address them. I think any further attempts to remove the template without providing the required data will be taken as edit warring as per WP:EW, and possibly, if required, reported as such. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The burden is on you to fix the JD article rather than complaining to everyone else. I wouldn't be so quick with the accusations of WP:EW as you have already been engaged in edit-warring on that article as well as attempting to game the mediation process on the Ebionites article. You are not fooling anyone with your behavior. Ovadyah (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites 2 Mediation

Greetings!

I have agreed to mediate the Ebionites 2 case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK

Hi. I noticed your allegations at AN/I about me. I assure you that as an admin with 90k+ edits and 5 years experience editing here, I am not a sock of John Carter. Could you possibly not repeat this allegation unless there is some evidence to support it, beyond the similarity in user names and the fact that we both think it is sloppy to say "some scholars" without specifying who? (This is sloppy btw). Thanks. --John (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

But the "who" is specified in the in-line refs. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? In that case it should be easy enough to move it into the main article text and avoid the need for the tag then. --John (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed the problem by explicitly naming the five sources that represent this view. Ovadyah (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Really?" - John, you mean you didn't bother to check before reverting..... *sigh* BTW I think the current construction looks really crass and sloppy.... but obviously tastes differ. Thanks Ovadyah for doing the necessary dirty work to stop the silly squabbles. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The main point was to stop the madness. Feel free to improve it as you see fit. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re note

Very sorry to hear that. I hope all goes well, and let me know when you are better. My best wishes Just a thought. I keep imagining that the article would be far more exciting if it were less certain. All the essential information and ideas you yourself would have there would be there, but with none of the certainty, producing a tantalizing effect. I really think this is what we should aim for. These marginal bridging/liminal areas between huge and often antipathetic religious traditions require an ingredient of less self-certainty to establish dialogue. Best Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that too. Hope it's just 'flu, which I've just had. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking in. Thanks for the warm wishes. I'm hoping to return to editing soon. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. While you were away I put in a big disclaimer in the lead, explaining in painful detail about how we don't know anything - although that should have been obvious to all but the most dumbest reader anyway. I think it's time to remove the weasel wording template, since the only remaining issue is about their name, which has its own section. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ovadyah/Archive 2

Hi Ovadyah,

Rather than being an actual archive of your talk page, User talk:Ovadyah/Archive 2 appears to be a long-term, on-going user conduct page. These kinds of pages should not be kept for long periods of time, and certainly not the over 3 years this has been around. Please either use this material to file a complaint at the appropriate board, or blank it if you do not intend to do so. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the diffs from the 2007 Ebionites ArbCom. These are ancient history as far as I'm concerned, and there was no particular reason to keep them around. The recent diffs for John Carter's User Conduct RFC are another matter entirely. I will add the most recent diffs from his attack page against me to this archive. Unlike John Carter, I am simply organizing the record of what he has said and done rather than engaging in speculation, character smears, and innuendo. I see John Carter intends to file a COI against me. The record of John Carter's abuses of other editors and Wiki policy will aid in my defense, and it will allow me to present a vigorous counter-argument to the fullest extent allowed by Wikipedia. I am now convinced this can only end one way. Ovadyah (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

A discussion regarding your recent editing activity has been started at WP:COIN#Ebionites. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

See his comment here as well. He seems to want you to read it, but can't bring himself to post it here.  :-) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. You may want to consider a user conduct warning on John Carter's talk page. He continues to propagate the false accusation of tag teaming, as he recently did against you publicly in the COIN filing against me, even though you indicated in COIN that is not the case. Just a suggestion. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly

I do hope you are fully recovered from your medical interlude, and that you are now fully back in form. I apologizse for not replying. I have been on vacation, without access to computers with any degree of regularity, and my own computer memory lies at home. Secondly, I can't help out, though both John and yourself have kindly asked me to give my views. Even at a low rate of intervention, wikipedia seems to eat up too much time. I thrive if I can edit to articles, in the company of knowledgeable and helpful editors. It is a torment to go to fascinating articles, and find oneself, and others, fettered by all sorts of issues, unresolved problems and sharp disagreements. I am deeply caught up in one arbitration process which has spoilt a full week of my leisure as I am compelled to review thousands of edits and justify myself. I simply cannot afford personally that usurious purchase on my time for a second extrenuating mediation process. Thirdly, I think by mutual agreement (this is a very minor factor) Jayjg and myself agreed last time round that my non-participation would relieve the mediation of, not complicating factors, but the air of suspicion that my presence there might inadvertently give. What I have to say I said on the talk page. This article is troubled by the fact that there were 3 main editors, with, over time, the appearance of shifting alliances, on each occasion cornering the third party. I think Michael Price has not the faintest respect for history or his interlocutors, and shows almost no understanding of how historical evidence must be evaluated, in academic works, or in wikipedia. I have had no problems discussing matters with either you or John, and I think in each case we have a history of amenable exchanges conducive to good editing. But as the 'power relations' work out, the triangular situation means an impasse is inevitable, and cannot be brokered because the issue concerns method, over which you disagree. I apologize to both of you for the fact that time and personal circumstances do not allow me to help out. Perhaps way down the line, if I see myself clear of a lot of obligations to my own work, and some residual wiki articles. Best wishes however for the page. Nishidani (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time out from your vacation to reply so promptly. I regret that you will not be joining us in mediation and editing the article. You have much to contribute, and in particular, a deep knowledge of Eisenman's work that few others can fully appreciate. It's a pity we ended up on opposite sides of this issue. Meanwhile, I will press on and attempt to read through his second volume, "The New Testament Code". I hope we can come back to this again in the future when you have more time. Best regards. Ovadyah (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ovadyah,

I don't think the article should be definitive about the Ebionites being multiple sects - it should acknowledge the singular possibility as well (which is reflected in many sources). If the Ebionites followed James the Just c40-60 (as the article says), does it not follow that they were all in one group, or part of the same movement, rather than disparate? Also I'm not convinced that we can describe "Ebionite" so unambiguously as a "patristic" term, since it, or something like it, was also the self-designation of the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Patriarchs obviously got the term from somewhere. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael, feel free to tweak the wording. I thought I was covering off on the Hebrew meaning by saying "derived from". The real issue is that the Greek Ebiwnaioi (w=omega) is a transliteration of the Hebrew rather than a translation. It literally means "followers of Ebion". The word for "the poor ones" in Greek is ptwxoi (p=pi). So, it is unambiguously a patristic term in that limited sense. The main point of my changes was to thaw the cold war on the talk page over one vs. many possible sects. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I like your solution. It's much better than a page of edit-warring. ;0) Ovadyah (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Your requested citation expansion at Gospel of the Ebionites

Hi Ovadyah -- thankyou for your work, still a lot of OR left, but I look forward to you moving on to Gospel of the Hebrews and removing the OR there.

Reason for this talk - You added a CN "The standard critical edition is found in Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha where the 7 citations by Epiphanius are numbered GE-1 to GE-7.citation needed|date=February 2011 ref pp.160-174

There is a citation, since the pp for the numbering 1-7 is already there pp160-174, change to pp169-170 to be specific. The use of the abbreviation "GE" can be cited as P.135 < New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and related writings - Page 135 Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Robert McLachlan Wilson - 1991 - "Abbreviations: JG = Jewish-Christian gospels; GE = Gospel of the Ebionites; GH = Gospel of the Hebrews; GN = Gospel of the Nazaraeans." Introduction: The Testimonies of the Early Church regarding Jewish-Christian Gospels p135 etc. " However.... "GE" is nowhere near as common an abbreviation as GHeb (the real GHeb numbering, not the one invented on Wikipedia) since Epiph.Haer. takes one direct to the source, it would be better to say "7 citations by Epiphanius are abbreviated by Schneemelcher's standard edition "GE" and numbered 1 to 7, but "Epiph.Haer." is the more common citation convention". OWTTE Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind providing the complete citation? We need author, title, pages, publisher, date of publication, and isbn number. Please look at the book citation format I used on the Ebionites and Gospel of the Hebrews sections. If you don't mind using that format, it would help to keep things consistent. I realize there is much more to clean up, and I will get to the rest of it as I have time. We should discuss the best way to organize the main body on the talk page of the article. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there really a rule that says ISBN must be included?

But it is Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Robert McLachlan Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and related writings, Westminster John Knox Press, 2003, ISBN 066422721X, In ictu oculi (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot discuss the main body remember. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have taken care of it. Thanks for the info. Ovadyah (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for Nishidani

Nishidani, I read through all of your comments about method regarding Eisenman. I think we can bring our disagreement over Eisenman to an amicable resolution. Let me know if you are willing to discuss it one-on-one, either on my talk page or offline. I know you are currently busy with an ArbCom, so there is no rush. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty much exhausted from the year of work on the SAQ page, so am not in the mood to repeat the self-punishment. I have however, at a glance, seen some major improvements, some of them along the lines I have long suggested, on the page. Sure, if you have things you'd like to raise with me here, I'd be happy to respond briefly. Two points.

The divergent application of "Ebionite" persists today, as some authors choose to label all Jewish Christians, even before the Pauline schism, as Ebionites

Apart from Tabor, this is sourced to Eisenmann p.4, p.45, but it looks to me like an WP:OR infraction to infer from those two pages that this is what Eisenmann argues.

I think one major contribution one could make would be to consistently quote primary sources through secondary sources.

Oh, and, just as a piece of trivia, which floated back to mind as I watched on TV while viewing recent events, did you know that 'Ebion' is an old Egyptian loanword into Hebrew?

Hope you've come through that recent private matter with flying colours. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm working through the one vs. many groups of Ebionites problem now on the GoE article. I will come back to this article and fix it here as I can find the time. Based on Luomanen, "Jewish Chrisianity Reconsidered" and Skarsaune, "Jewish Believers in Jesus", here is what I have found:

1. Justin describes a Jewish sect with a low Christology that required circumcision and strictly adhered to Jewish Law. He doesn't name the sect but confutes them through the mouth of Trypho the Jew in Dialogue with Trypho (c.160). He says in his First Apology (c.150) that these Christians will not be saved (again without explicitly naming them).
2. Irenaeus describes a sect with the same characteristics, and he names them by the transliteration Ebionites (c.185). Up to this point, there is only one group described that regarded Jesus as a mere man, obeyed the Law, and rejected Paul.
3. Origen identifies two sects of Ebionites that differ on the virgin birth, but both are anti-Pauline (and therefore not Nazoraeans). He speaks in general terms about other Christian Jews but doesn't name them.
4. After Origen, Ebionites becomes a class definition for any Christians that are ethnically Jewish with a low Christology. It appears to have been used in much the same way the modern term Jewish-Christians is used today. Eusebius, who was a protege of Origen, uses the term Ebionites in just this way.
5. Epiphanius is a special case. He identifies beliefs and practices from various incompatible sources with a lower-than-Nicene orthodox Christology and identifies all of them as Ebionite. Skarsaune thinks Epiphanius made all this up by combining disparate written sources. By contrast, Luomanen opines that Epiphanius may have some personal knowledge of a Judaic group with characteristics that he describes as more Hellenistic-Samaritan than Jewish.

With respect to Eisenman, I will go back and check the pages you mentioned. As I said previously on the article talk page and Jayjg's talk page, we can probably agree to leave out "James the Brother of Jesus", with one important exception: the relationship between the Ebionites and previous Jewish groups. All of that content was moved to the talk page in Oct. 2007 due to concerns over synthesis. It is still sitting there waiting to be resolved. That is where I need your help most of all.

With respect to the article, I understand completely about self-punishment. :0) I'm not expecting miracles, but incremental progress would be nice. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't wholly exclude Eisenmann.

Before writing I went through every mention of Ebionites in the text. It's worth noting that he uses both 'Ebionites' and 'Ebionitism' (the latter, I think, with a more generic sense, (=Jewish Christianity (p.137) which however embraces a very large number of potentially distinct, if marginally differentiated, sects - Elchasites, Sabaeans, Hemerobaptists, Sampsaeans, Galileans, Masbuthaeans, Nazirites, Naassenes, Nazrenes, etc. ) detached from the peculiar difficulties of defining as a single sect the former). I took particular exception to attempts to equate Ebionism with John the Baptist's movement, or Christ's 'real' Christianity (whatever that was). The ebionim as a social unit, and object of pious regard and concern in Jewish religious tradition precede Christianity, influenced it, and in turn, some significant groups within it clearly were won over to strong cultic identification with varieties of Jewish Christianity. But the key words from Eisenmann are 'variegated tapesty' and 'vriegated landscape' for this early period, and as he says, Judaism under Rabbinical reform expunged much of the internal diversity of belief within earlier Judaism, just as Christianity crushed its 'heretical' variations. To elicit a single 'Ebionite' faith from such scattered, distorted traces is virtually impossible. To describe the complex assessments of the evidence is hard, but far more rewarding. (My father taught me at a very early age, knowing the vice of reading I was seduced by, to conduct eye-exercises every half-hour of a reading day. It worked for me. I still don't need glasses. We tend to forget that like every other organ, eyes need exercise. It's well worth looking into the literature on this, and I hope you can profit it by finding some adequate regimen of exercise. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing in what you just said that I disagree with - nothing at all. If you can find the time to help me improve the article by addressing your specific concerns, that would be much appreciated. I accept that progress may be difficult in the current editing environment, but we might start by laying out specific proposals for changes to the article content (and perhaps structure) on my talk page. Ovadyah (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The only concern I had was for a workable editing environment, in which certain fundamental principles of collegiality and respect for scholarship are guaranteed. If this is possible, the details are just a matter of time.

Well, it's best to start with simple things.

• (a) What level of quality are we looking to achieve? Unless one keeps that in one's sights, the tendency is to just dither endlessly over POV, rather than list problems and tackle them methodically.
• (b)what do you think is the best template for referencing the text, if it is to aspire to the highest quality sought by wikipedia? I'm thinking of uniformity also.
• (c) Could we get some agreement on Primary vs Secondary Sources, so that the former are invariably cited via the latter. (a) and (b) are connected, of course.
• (d)What if we were to, for the moment, suspend a synthetic approach, and simply develop the text in terms of a roughly chronological order of patristic texts, (much as you have done with your illustration above, from Justin to Epiphanius) summarizing what each successive historical source says, together with what the best modern commentators say of these positions.

I imagine a to c isn't difficult, but (d) is a big order change, and not something one would willingly tackle. Perhaps a sandbox page for it, to be worked alongside the text we have, where editors can marshall (John Carter?) the sources, hierarchically, from the earliest to the latest, might prove helpful.

I hesitate to offer even these scant suggestions, because many obligations make dedicating much time to actualizing these proposals rather difficult. So take the above cum grano salis. But they reflect my fundamental concerns in terms of structure and procedure, as opposed to content issues. You can ignore them, and we can discuss just Eisenmann, as the occasion requires, if that is less of a strain. Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You should take fundamental principles of collegiality and respect for scholarship as a given on my talk page. My responses to your four points follow in order:

• (a) The highest quality of scholarship possible and the attention to detail required to restore the article to FA.
• (b) I'm open to suggestions regarding a template for references. Whatever looks the most professional. Uniformity of style for references is a given for FA quality.
• (c) Agree completely. Primary sources should always be cited by secondary sources, never standing alone. I'm open to suggestions about style. We can include them inline in the text for emphasis or relegate them to the reference section within the references to secondary sources.
• (d) Agreed in the sense that all the Church Fathers rely in part on the testimony of the previous Fathers. However, this is a big change in structure and a good reason to bring back the Ebionites/wip page. I propose working out ideas for structure there as a kind of sandbox, as we attempted to do during the last edit war.

If we can find enough time and energy to accomplish all that, we will have a featured article again. Ovadyah (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That said, realistically, nothing meaningful will happen until we overcome the problems with Eisenman and Tabor. John Carter has stated he doesn't see this as a content dispute (see Jayjg's talk page), and he has expressed no interest in returning to formal mediation, despite my request that he do so. Therefore, I suggest we focus in the short-term on what is do-able. Let's work on Eisenman together and correct any obvious problems in the article. Ovadyah (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that both Eisenman and Tabor are highly minoritarian views within academia. Like the SAQ, we are dealing with theories that exceed the restraints on traditional hermeneutic techniques of historical analysis, and indeed, as with Eisenman's querulous dismissal of radiocarbon dating results, challenges conrtemporary notions of the 'factual'. Like SAQ, also, however impressive the counter-theories, they remain embedded in a cryptographic thesis that feeds on itself, and explains everything, while explaining, for the empirically minded, nothing. 'Facts' or 'data' are very labile entities in this kind of discourse, because the premise is they are invariably residues of a profound process of tampering. (That the problem of censorious rewriting deeply inflects these, and many other ancient sources, is, of course, beyond doubt).

Unlike the SAQ problem, however, where a fringe view was being pushed from sources written by people without any in-field academic credentials, here the two sources are written by tenured scholars. So it is not 'fringe' but minoritarian, and indeed the sources are to be identified predominantly, unless I am mistaken, with the individual scholars, since they do not appear to have constituted a notable community of minority dissent within the discipline. I.e. they are individual mavericks in a cast of tens of thousands.

I think, and this is underwritten by your own recent, and admirably sedulous, turn to Skarsaune et al., that the patristic evidence is best outlined through such comprehensive modern sources, and, once that is done, attention can be given to these dissident interpretations as a minority perspective, where necessary. But they cannot in any way be exploited to frame the argument, if I have understood wiki policy correctly. The note or brief passage on their opinions can be linked for the reader's curiosity to James the Brother of Jesus, and The Jesus Dynasty, for example.

As noted, I'm personally fascinated by Eisenman's theory (I note he gets a (perhaps too) brief mention on the Paul the Apostle page), far less so with what little I have understood (from secondary sources) of Tabor's book, which reminds me of the quickly forgotten fantasies. of Barbara Thiering. Policy is the the issue in any case. (You needn't waste too much time catering to my perceptions here. I am not engaged in any meaningful way with the page, since I will only have time this year to follow it from afar, and therefore you should not feel bound to respond to my occasional comments as if they were part of a consensus-building process.)Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just focusing on Eisenman for the moment, is there any content in the article which is dependent on his work that you find particularly problematic? That is what I want to identify first and fix if possible. See my comment below. Ovadyah (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Eisenman on the Ebionites

I looked at pages 4 and 45 in "James the Brother of Jesus" relative to the statement you mentioned in the article:

The divergent application of "Ebionite" persists today, as some authors choose to label all Jewish Christians, even before the Pauline schism, as Ebionites

I don't remember who wrote this, but the exact statement as it stands is unsupported by the references.

Eisenman discusses "Ebionites" in a very general sense on p.4, in the context of the Letter of James and the esteem James was held by various groups in the East, vs. his example of Augustine and Jerome (presumably meaning Rome) and how the Church diminished the role of James. On p.45, he refers to the rebellion against Rome and argues that the Movement headed by James was revolutionary and Messianic, and the purpose of the uprising was (quoting Josephus) 'to turn the Poor against the Rich'. He goes on to point out a continuity between the Movement led by James and the later Ebionites. Here (p.45) Eisenman is clearly arguing for a continuity, in values at least, between the Jerusalem Church headed by James and the later Ebionites.

Nothing in these pages indicates that Eisenman is referring to Jewish Christians specifically as the Ebionite sect, but he is stating that the "Ebionites", (both in a specific and a general sense) reflected the Messianic zeal and attitudes toward the "Poor" of the Movement under James more faithfully than the Great Church of Rome.

Maybe we can find a way to reword this to better reflect what Eisenman really said rather than eliminate the content. I'll give it a try. Ovadyah (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording a bit to more accurately reflect the sources. This is no different than what scholars John Painter, Gerd Luedeman, or Michael Goulder have been advocating. Ovadyah (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been working my way through "The New Testament Code". In his second volume, Eisenman comes much closer to equating the Jerusalem Church under James the Just to the Ebionites. Here are three quotations that illustrate what Eisenman sees as a direct connection:

These "Ebionites" are also the followers of James par excellence, himself considered (even in early Christian accounts) to be the leader of "the Poor" or these selfsame "Ebionites".

— The New Testament Code p.34

For James 2:5, of course, it is "the Poor of this world ("the Ebionim" or "Ebionites") whom God chose as Heirs to the Kingdom He promised to those that love Him".

— The New Testament Code p.145

..."the Righteous Teacher" and those of his followers (called "the Poor" or "Ebionim" - in our view, James and his Community, pointedly referred to in the early Church literature, as will by now have become crystal clear, as "the Ebionites" or "the Poor").

— The New Testament Code p.273

I will incorporate this source as a reference in addition to the first volume, "James the Brother of Jesus". Ovadyah (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you see any other Eisenman references that you find particularly vexing? We should discuss the whole JTB section as a separate case. I'm still not convinced that the Ebionites article is the best place for this content, but that matter aside, we should at least make sure it is factually accurate and properly sourced. Ovadyah (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ebionites2 arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, John Carter (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I was curious to see who added Eisenman and Tabor to the article's bibliography section, thereby "proving" some sort of nefarious intent, at least according to John Carter. The evil-doer turns out to be none other than - wait for it - Dbachmann. Ovadyah (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration Ebionites 2

The request for arbitration is accepted (titled Ebionites 2). However, the case will be held in abeyance for four weeks to allow mediation to proceed. After four weeks, or earlier if the mediation is closed as unsuccessful, the Committee will reexamine the situation to determine whether the case will proceed or be dismissed.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk 12:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

G12

Please take a look at my suggestions for cleanup on the Gospel of the Twelve talk page. I'm trying to get a consensus on whether it is better to create a separate stub for the Gospel of the Apostles, mentioned by Jerome and associated with the GH, or keep everything in a combined article. My concern is that we are mixing information about three texts which have similar names in English (Gospel of the Apostles, Gospel of the Twelve, Memoirs of the Apostles), but don't have similar names in Greek, and are likely to be independent texts. Please add your comments or any discussion to that talk page so we can keep everything in one place. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination)

As I told John Carter on his talk page yesterday, I'm no longer interested in Ebionites as a topic nor as a Wikipedia article. I don't care either way if the Ebionite Jewish Community article is kept or deleted. Please tell everyone whom it may concern that I do not want to be contacted regarding any issue related to Ebionites ever again. --Loremaster (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Will do, Loremaster. I'm sorry it turned out to be such a bitter experience. Ovadyah (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not POV pushing

I think it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR because it strings together quotes that have no real bearing on the Ebionim to make a point about John the Baptist, who then is linked to Jesus, whom the Ebionim centuries later follow, who therefore are connected to John the Baptist. This stands out like dog's balls to most independent observers, all because of the fringe argument that Jesus, despite, the witness of the overwhelming bulk of primary sources, was a vegetarian like JtB - a point needed, apparently, in order to retrojustify 'Ebionism', which is said to be 'vegetarian' as a heir to Jesus's original views. This is unbelievable sloppy. I don't doubt at all your bona fides or belief you are cleaving to WP:NPOV. You strike me as just far too prepossessed by the nightmarish details and history of the article to stand back and occasionally listen to what others say.

• 'The Gospel of the Ebionites might have been named after the followers of John the Baptist,'
  • Source. Jeff Poplin, 'Post-Biblical Traditions on John the Baptizer and Essays on John the Baptizer,' that is posted on Tabor's site and is a graduate essay by a student of his. This in no way comes any where near the criteria for WP:RS. Everyone knows that, but it stands presumably because it suits the point some wish, fideistically, to be made.

What's stopping you from just removing that Baptist section, and placing it elsewhere? Not in ictu oculi, myself, or John Carter surely?Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are once again starting from the assumption that the Ebionites are an exclusively post-Pellan creation. We been over this enough times that you should know that some sources disagree and place their conception much earlier, some with James, some with Jesus, some with John and some link back to the Essenes or the Qumran community. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't stop you from posting on Ovadyah's page,but we have nothing to say to each other, and I'd appreciate it if, when someone writes on my page, or I direct a comment to Ovadyah, who, unlike yourself, is deeply familiar with the literature, you kindly oblige me by not intruding. What you write here and on pages related to this topic, only documents your stubborn insouciance to whatever is being discussed, and is noise intrusion.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Just pointing out the POV inherent in "whom the Ebionim centuries later follow". No need to get so hissy. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You would miss the nuances again. Most of the details ascribed to the Ebionim comes from reports written centuries later. There is no reference to Ebionites or their connection to the Jerusalem Church in the literature from the Ist and 2nd centuries C.E. Epiphanius said he had interviewed Ebionites 3 centuries after the date he defines for their creation as a sect (post 70CE). Of the Ebionim of the Ist cent CE we have virtually nothing, it is all guesswork from bits of pieces of scattered references dribbling from patristic polemics in the succeeding centuries, and your persistent attempt to thrust this back to pre-Christian times defies all scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Nish, it is not my attempt, it is the attempt of scholars, which is why we can, indeed must, report it here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nishidani, this is what I am doing and why I am doing it. Maybe my efforts are misguided, but I am trying my best to do the right thing. There were three contentious sections in the article in Sept. 2007: 1. Essenes, 2. John the Baptist, and 3. James vs. Paul. We decided by consensus to move 1. and 2. to the talk page and work on those sections later. Str1977 and I decided to try to fix up 3. in place. If you recall, the article was in FAR at the time, and we had a limited amount of time to overcome the reviewers objections and bring it back up to FA quality. That effort failed, and I walked away from this article permanently in Oct. 2007 (or so I thought), with a parting statement that I would leave the cleanup to others.

Two and a half years later, John Carter comes to me as asks me, would I consider returning to the article to help bring it back up to FA quality. That was May 4, 2010. We have spent the last year edit-warring almost constantly over a single sentence in the article that is now in mediation. That sentence is in the James vs. Paul section, which I thought was already cleaned up. (Str1977 and I reached a consensus that it was fixed, and I don't recall anyone else at the time saying it wasn't.) The James vs. Paul section should be easy to fix up, yet look at what has happened.

The John the Baptist section is harder, and the Essenes section is even harder. When I moved those two sections to the talk page, I never intended for that to be a back-handed way to delete them. Someone was supposed to return to deal with this later as part of the effort to clean up the article. Since no one else was willing to do the hard work, I stepped up to address the problem. Michael asked for a chance to further develop this section in the Ebionites article, and I agreed to give him that chance. My feeling all along was that the material probably didn't belong there, but no matter where it ended up, the content should at least be accurate and reliably sourced.

So, where does this leave us? 1. I am optimistic we will make enough progress in mediation to address any remaining WP:SYNTH issues in the James vs. Paul section. However, John Carter will refuse to accept any solution other than total deletion. 2. Michael still needs to make his case on the JTB section. That process is underway, and it will probably go to mediation. 3. What to do with the Essene material remains unresolved. Frankly, I don't care because I don't intend to be around that long.

I am going to put all my efforts on this article going forward into seeing the current mediation through to a conclusion. Afterward, I am going to put all of my efforts into arbitration. I have been a gentle lamb up to this point. That will change when the pages of arbitration open. Arbitration will end up wherever it ends up. After that, I am done.

Does this help to explain my reasoning and my actions? Best. Ovadyah (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for that long and thoughtful reply, which however is a Newmanesque apologia pro labore tuo you hardly need write, since I simply asked a straightforward question about something everyone but one seems to think problematical, and wished you to reply to that. As I think I've said before, I think a lot of things can be fixed quickly, and shouldn't be contentious, such as the fact that the John the Baptist section is totally out of place and a WP:SYNTH operation.

There is . . no unambiguous evidence for the use of such a term as a self-designation for Judean Christians, or for a group of them, either in the pre-70 or the post-70 period (aside from heresiological writings on the Ebonites.' James Carleton Paget , The Ebionites in recent research: Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity, Mohr Siebeck, 2010 p.368.

There is, however, no unambiguous evidence for the use of such a term as a self-designation for Judean Christians, or for a group of them, either in the pre-70 or the post-70 period (aside from heresiological writings on the Ebonites’ James Carleton Paget , The Ebionites in recent research: Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity, ch.11 pp.325 Mohr Siebeck, 2010 p.368 At least three people have remarked on this. It's as far as I can see a political problem. Michael wants it, with the absurd insistence on John the Baptist who died before Ebionism was even registered, except as a generic title in the OT, yet Michael knows virtually nothing of the technical literature, or of what methods are required to ensure that WP:SYNTH violations do not occur. But putting that aside, the long-lamented situation of using primary sources when they must be cited through RS secondary sources just keeps sticking round. As you will appreciate the full details ascribed to Ebionites come from an array of late sources some 340 years after the traditional date of Christ's death, in writers like Epiphanius whose work is regarded as a 'ham-fisted cobbling together' (James C. Paget). Everything ascribed to the Ebionim is controversial, because all of the scattered material in primary sources generates a large number of different interpretations in the scholarly community, and to cite primary sources means to ignore the controversies over their interpretation. This is elementary. It is part and parcel of training in a normal University degree.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, everything about them is controversial - and the article says this quite plainly in the lead. And we don't cite primary sources without secondary ones, so that takes care of that. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(With Ovadyah's permission), since this remark is proof you do not read the page you are editing. Primary sources used without secondary sources are as follows: n12,16,17,19,20,21,22,42,43,44,45,46,49,54,75,101,102,108,109,114. 'so that takes care of that. Cheers.'Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Take the first one as an example. Hardly controversial, is it? And easy enough to fix. Might even do it myself when I have the time. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

we don't cite primary sources without secondary ones, so that takes care of that'.

Might even do it myself when I have the time.

Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems that my "long and thoughtful reply" missed the mark. No matter. I am no longer interested in looking up quotations for article content or participating in talk page discussions on the Ebionites article. I am only interested in a successful outcome to the current mediation, as far as article content. If I have any time and energy left over to spend on this article, it will be to build a case for arbitration. Other than those two activities, I am taking the same position as Loremaster toward this article - don't contact me. Ovadyah (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster's position is mine. As I document above, and consistently over the years, one person here is totally irresponsible, and it is not you. Remember I did not contact you. You intervened, with others, on my page. Good luck.Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Bruce Chilton's review of Eisenman: The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission Ovadyah (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

James A. Kelhoffer (2005). Diet of John the Baptist "Locusts and Wild Honey" in Synoptic & Patristic Interpretation. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 9783161484605.

Page 20 of the above is fairly clear - there is a contemporary debate! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 04:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Add another source to check out. Ovadyah (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You may find these quotes useful:

Jeffrey Butz, The Secret Legacy of Jesus, ISBN 978-159477307-5, "What is most revealing here is that Peter bowed to James's wishes, another piece of evidence that James, rather than Peter, was the highest authority in the Jerusalem Chuch", pg 100; "... after Jesus's crucifixion, with James succeeding to the leadership of the community...", pg 101; "...it is beyond question that the succession of the leadership of the Nazarene community stayed with Jesus's family, perhaps even into the mid-second century...", pg 120; "In fact, the Ebionites and the Nazarenes are one and the same." pg 124; "Following the devastation of the Jewish War, the Nazarenes took refuge in Pella, a community in exile, where they lay in anxious wait with their fellow Jews. From this point on it is preferable to call them the Ebionites. There was no clear demarcation or formal transition from Nazarene to Ebionite; there was no sudden change of theology or Christology.", pg 120; "While the writings of later church fathers speak of Nazarenes and Ebionites as if they were different Jewish Christian groups, they are mistaken in that assessment. The Nazarenes and the Ebionites were one and the same group, but for clarity we will refer to the pre-70 group in Jerusalem as Nazarenes, and the post-70 group in Pella and elsewhere as Ebionite.", pg 120;

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging my modest contributions. Ovadyah (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ebionites mediation

The Ebionites mediation has begun. Please make your opening statement at Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, in your latest statement, did you mean to say "40 years"? Or "4 years"? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster and I searched the literature back to the 70's (40 years), and I did it again after Str1977 added that sentence into the article. I didn't find anything, and neither could Str, until he started to bring in sources that were 70 to 100 years old, such as the religious dictionary by Henry Wace from 1911, which is intensely POV. Ovadyah (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, in your latest statement, did you mean to say "counter-factual"? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I did, but I meant it in the sense of a "contrarian" hypothesis, not that the hypothesis is false. Eisenman's hypothesis assumes a cover-up by the Roman Church, and therefore, that the primary sources are a tendentious re-writing of history. Ovadyah (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation has ended unsuccessfully (again) because John Carter has unilaterally withdrawn from the mediation (again). Ovadyah (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No longer editing on Ebionites

I am voluntarily withdrawing from editing on the Ebionites article until further notice. That means no editing the article itself, no participating in discussions on the article talk page, or participating in discussions about the article on editor's talk pages including this one. The only exception is my participation in the current mediation of article content for the James vs. Paul section. I will engage in those discussions, and implement any changes to the James vs. Paul section of the article resulting from them, until the mediation of that section is completed. At that point, I am withdrawing completely from further editing on the article. This does not affect my participation in arbitration.

Please understand that I will not respond if you leave a message on my talk page or the article talk page about content related to the Ebionites article, other than the James vs. Paul section, and even then, I will only respond to comments or questions related to the ongoing mediation. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation has ended, and so has my involvement with the Ebionites article, other than my participation in arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gospel of the Ebionites

The article Gospel of the Ebionites you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites for comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Memoirs of the Apostles

I'm looking for feedback on whether the Memoirs of the Apostles should be split into a separate article. Please reply there (not here) if you would care to comment. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is clear that the content on the Memoirs of the Apostles doesn't belong in the Gospel of the Twelve article. Therefore, the material has been removed from that article and moved to a draft article for now. Ovadyah (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeshu

I think you are probably right but I am in no position to initiate an RfC - i hardly have time to edit the two or three articles I watch closely. User:In ictu oculi initated an RFC at Yeshu which did not yield much of a result, but the few people who replied were not supportive of the change he wished to make to the introduction (which I guess from his perspecive is the heart of the matter and you should look at the differences between the two leads, if you care).

I think that recent attention at the Yeshu article has almost resolved the issue - if you wished to acquaint yourself just with the last few days talk you would have a full sense of the matter.

Now I think the real issue is Jesus in the Talmud which I believe to be a POV-fork. But before attending to that, I think the priority is to improve the Yeshu article.

But I hesitate to start an RfC for the simple reason that I think that there are just too few people at Wikipedia who are knowledgeable (from either an Orthodox perspective, or a critical/wissenschaft perspective) about Judaism and Jewish history, let alone the Talmud. I would welcome the views of editors who have expertise in academic (as opposed to amatur) history (because such editors understand the importance of expertise in the source language) but Wikipedia does not even have a lot of editors who are expert in any historical topic from an academic perspective. Most people who will respond will either have a general anti-religious bias (as In ictu occuli has expressed) or a Christian bias, even if unconscious. People are entitled to their biases, if only they also have the knowledge that is required for a good article - I just haven't seen a lot of evidence of this. But if you think I am wrong and if you start an RfC let me know and I will take the time to make an informed comment.

How many editors at WikiProject Judaism are active? How many are well-educated? (I have encountered some editors who have normally expressed Orthodox beliefs - yet clearly are not learned in the Talmud; I am no expert yet know more than they do about really basic stuff) I would have thought that there would be some group of active editors with real expertise who could take some leadership on this matter. The handful of editors I know who are openly Jewish usually are just uninterested in article of interest to Christians - even when these articles are in the first instance about Jewish texts. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I mostly wanted you to aware that this behavior is nothing unique to this article or you as an editor. I agree that everyone has their own biases. The person you are contending with has a conservative Catholic POV. Secular scholars are often seen as "fringe" by this person on Christian articles. The situation is different on the Yeshu article because the topic is Jewish. However, what counts on Wikipedia is behavior, and this particular editor has a long track record of tendentious behavior, summarized here by a nice guy who had enough of all the nonsense and left Wikipedia. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. That the guy is an idiot and a jerk is pretty obvious. I'm actually trying to find ways to minimize my time with him at this point ..... Anyway, thanks,Slrubenstein | Talk 20:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

In ictu oculi (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. You will probably be happier and more productive if you apply your energy and skills toward topics that are less contentious. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Extended break

I'm taking an extended break from Wikipedia and I will not be checking my talk page for messages. Ovadyah (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hope you enjoy your break and come back refreshed. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be editing very infrequently for the next several weeks, as I am super-busy with projects off-Wiki. I'm going to hold off on any decisions about retirement until arbitration closes. Ovadyah (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hope you are enjoying your break

I've been reading a fascinating new book, and thought it might indeed interest you. It's on 4Q543-547. See Robert R. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram (4Q543-547),Peter Lang 2010. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Thanks for letting me know. Ovadyah (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)