Ignocrates (talk | contribs) |
Ignocrates (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 218: | Line 218: | ||
I believe that the "James Vs. Paul" section including the Eisenman/Tabor material is a clear, explicit, and blatant violation of our policy [[WP:VALID]]. There is comparatively little material discussing what seems to me to be the majority views that these conjectures have apparently no outside standing in the academic community. Unless both this section is substantiated by any sources independent of Tabor and Eisenman within seven days, and sufficient material regarding the opposing viewpoints is added, I believe I will be completely justified by the policy indicated above to reduce the content, possibly even outright removal. Particularly considering these work's relevance has been under serious discussion for three years now, and the individuals who added the content still haven't apparently found independent acadmic sources who give the proposal much credit as per the above referenced policy, given that they haven't indicated any during the time these sources have most recently been in discussion, I have every reason to believe that there is a very serious possibility that these works have received no particular support in the academic community. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 21:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
I believe that the "James Vs. Paul" section including the Eisenman/Tabor material is a clear, explicit, and blatant violation of our policy [[WP:VALID]]. There is comparatively little material discussing what seems to me to be the majority views that these conjectures have apparently no outside standing in the academic community. Unless both this section is substantiated by any sources independent of Tabor and Eisenman within seven days, and sufficient material regarding the opposing viewpoints is added, I believe I will be completely justified by the policy indicated above to reduce the content, possibly even outright removal. Particularly considering these work's relevance has been under serious discussion for three years now, and the individuals who added the content still haven't apparently found independent acadmic sources who give the proposal much credit as per the above referenced policy, given that they haven't indicated any during the time these sources have most recently been in discussion, I have every reason to believe that there is a very serious possibility that these works have received no particular support in the academic community. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 21:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:A new source has been added to the disputed section, John Painter (1999) "Just James - The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition", therefore, this section is substantiated by a source independent of Tabor and Eisenman. In fact, Painter is critical of Eisenman's methods and gives a detailed rebuttal of his work. This scholarly publication was well received in the academic community. [[User:Ovadyah|Ovadyah]] ([[User talk:Ovadyah|talk]]) 22:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
:A new source has been added to the disputed section, John Painter (1999) "Just James - The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition", therefore, this section is substantiated by a source independent of Tabor and Eisenman. In fact, Painter is critical of Eisenman's methods and gives a detailed rebuttal of his work. This scholarly publication was well received in the academic community. [[User:Ovadyah|Ovadyah]] ([[User talk:Ovadyah|talk]]) 22:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Since you only seem capable of providing reviews written by religious dogmatists, here's an academic review to get you started [http://www.markgoodacre.org/painter.htm]. This review appeared in Heythrop Journal 40, (1999), pp.481-482. [[User:Ovadyah|Ovadyah]] ([[User talk:Ovadyah|talk]]) 22:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:58, 28 May 2010
Ebionites is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 9, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Main archive links are in talkheader above, a series of numbers |
Eusebius and the Gospel of Matthew
On the article, it makes reference to how Eusebius spoke of the Gospel of the Hebrews. I was reading Ecclesiastical History, and came across this reference: As to these translators it should be stated that symmachus was an Ebionite... Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he appears to support this heresy by attacking the Gospel of Matthew. (Ecc. Hist. Book VI. Ch. XVII.) Use this reference you see best.24.125.102.206 (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
RelHistBuff's comments / criticisms
- Comment: After reading the current version, I am afraid that I must reaffirm my vote to Remove. The Ebionites of which we have so little in terms of extant writings are used by modern scholars to push interesting, if not controversial views. For this reason, I believe the article really needs more depth in the History, Views and practices, and Writings sections. I write below some criticisms which I hope will help in improving the article.
- In the lead, mention is made of two opposing views, the traditional view that the Ebionites were offshoots of mainstream Christianity and a modern view that the Ebionites were “more faithful to the authentic teachings of Jesus” and that they were “marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus”. The latter modern view which is presumably more controversial is not explained at all in the article. Why were Ebionites considered more faithful to the teachings of Jesus? What is considered the “authentic” teachings? What group were the “followers of Paul”?
- The lead mentions that they regarded James as the head of the church, while the article only says some scholars claim this. The rejection of Paul comes from Patristic sources. Putting the two together appears like a synthesis which is WP:OR. The text in the lead needs to be rephrased and cited.
- The assertion that the earliest reference of the group uses a cite to Justin Martyr’s writing, a primary source. But surely it wasn’t Martyr who said that this is the earliest reference! Some scholar must have said that. Who? Please cite the secondary source.
- Similarly, Irenaeus supposedly was the first to used the term “Ebionites”. But the cite is again to the primary source of Irenaeus. Who made the assertion that Irenaeus was the first to use the term? The secondary source cite is missing.
- In a previous version of this article, there were more explanations on why Epiphanius’ account was questionable. I would suggest putting this back in or expanding the current text (and again giving the cite to the secondary source).
- Related to all this is that there is a heavy use of primary source citations and use of tertiary sources such as Schaff and other encyclopaedias and websites. Secondary sources should be mainly used especially for featured articles. And for articles on the history of religion, preferably printed books or journals.
- The line "Many scholars link the origin…" should be cited.
- One paragraphs starts with “According to these scholars…”. It is not clear which scholars. Is it the “Many scholars…” from the previous paragraph?
- Under the writings section, the definition of the grouping of writings is from the Catholic Encyclopedia which is again only a tertiary source and one that has a certain POV on the Ebionites. Probably a better source should be used. Again, the cites tend to use primary sources that does not really cite the assertions made in the text. There is a mention of Ebed Jesu. Who is he? Without the explanation, that line adds little value.
- If the Ebionites reject the gnostic doctrines within the Book of Elchesai, then why is the book considered part of Ebionite writings?
- With some work, I am sure this can be brought back to FAC. --RelHistBuff 14:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I copied RelHistBuff's comments from FARC to the talkpage to preserve them for future editors. Whoever takes over editing the article would do well to take them seriously, or they will be back in future reviews. Particularly relevant to any cleanup are the misuse of primary and tertiary sources and his comments relating to WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Ovadyah 13:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I reapplied the expert-verify tag that I had placed in August. That is certainly appropriate for an article that has been demoted from FA to B status. I'll leave it to others to decide about cleanup. That's it. Good luck. Ovadyah 13:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Question. I believe the one encyclopedia entry I used cited primarily non-English sources. Would it be preferable to try to find the non-English sources, even if they would be less easily understood by the average reader? John Carter 17:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee found that MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring and is subject to an editing restriction for one year, he is limited to one revert per page per week and must discuss any content changes on the article's talk page. Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 04:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
traditional portrayal
If we have to go back 50 0r 100 years to find a scholar that supports the traditional view, can we just cut it as not contemporary?
Some scholars agree with the substance of the traditional portrayal as an offshoot of mainstream Christianity attempting to reestablish [[Halakha|Jewish Law]],<ref name="Uhlhorn">G. Uhlhorn, "Ebionites", in: Philip Schaff (ed.), ''A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology'', 3rd ed. (1894), p. 684–685 (vol. 2).</ref><ref name="RGG">O. Cullmann, "Ebioniten", in: ''Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart'', 1958. p. 7435 (vol. 2).</ref>
Leadwind (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
A White European Jesus?
The Ebionites REJECTED the works of Paul surely this image is the ulitmate in mockey...
Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
- "Wace 1911" :
- {{cite book | author = Henry Wace & William Piercy | title = A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography | year = 1911 | url = http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Ebionism%20and%20Ebionites| accessdate = 2007-08-01}}
- {{cite book | author = Wace, Henry & Piercy, William | title = A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography | year = 1911 | url = http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Ebionism%20and%20Ebionites| accessdate = 2007-08-01}}
- "Maccoby 1987" :
- {{cite book| author = [[Hyam Maccoby]]| title = The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity| pages = p. 172-183.| publisher = HarperCollins | year = 1987 | id = ISBN 0062505858}}
- {{cite book| author = [[Hyam Maccoby]]| title = The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity| publisher = HarperCollins | year = 1987 | id = ISBN 0062505858}}
- "RGG" :
- [[Oscar Cullmann]], "Ebioniten", in: ''Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart'', 1958. p. 7435 (vol. 2).
- O. Cullmann, "Ebioniten", in: ''Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart'', p. 7435 (vol. 2).
- "Arendzen 1909" :
- [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm "Ebionites"], ''[[Catholic Encyclopedia]]'', vol. V (1909).
- {{cite book| author = Arendzen, J.P. | title = Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V.: Ebionites | publisher = Robert Appleton Company | year = 1904}}
- "Uhlhorn" :
- G. Uhlhorn, "Ebionites", in: [[Philip Schaff]] (ed.), ''A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology'', 3rd ed. (1894), p. 684–685 (vol. 2).
- G. Uhlhorn, "Ebionites", in: ''A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology'', 3rd ed. (edited by Philip Schaff), p. 684–685 (vol. 2).
DumZiBoT (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Revision Needed
This article needs a lot of work! - Ret.Prof (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC).
- Yes, and it needs even more work now that the lead section has been demolished! --Ovadyah (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Ebionites and Jewish Christians and early Christians
How do Ebionites compare to Jewish Christians in general and (prior to Paul) to Christians in general? Were all Christians prior to Paul also Jewish? Were all Jewish Christians Ebionites? If not, how did Ebionites compare to other Jewish Christians? Leadwind (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- This issue has been discussed ad nauseum on this talk page. Check the archives for well-documented primary and secondary sources, now blown away by clumsy editing. --Ovadyah (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Reminder to Neo-Ebionite groups
Look, I have no problem with neo-ebionite groups. The problem is a lack of notability and verifiability. The editors that put much time and effort into this article have been through this many times before. If you add content to the article or an external link that advertises your group then the burden is on you to prove it should remain. --Ovadyah (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Removed Neo-Ebionite bit
There was no attempt to show significance. Look, on the internet it is simple to find a group of people that profess to believe just about anything you can think of, and they often like to use ancient names. So, I've got to say "so what?" You need to show why a group rises to the level of significance to be worthy of note. If we let every half-baked internet religious group have space, we may as well let every garage band have a page.Ekwos (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ebionite Jewish Community
When I click on the ebionite jewish community mentioned in the article it redirects me to the Ebionite page. Why is it even mentioned if it does not have a page itself? Maybe this EJC mention and redrect should be removed like the other neo-ebionite advertisments have been?
- The debate on the nomination for deletion of the EJC article resulted in a consensus to merge. The EJC article was merged with a redirect to the Ebionites article (see top of talk page). The merged section was subsequently deleted anyway. --Ovadyah (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Which is blantantly unfair. The consensus was merge, not delete, yet now they have been deleted.--Michael C. Price talk 08:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA
Basically, it seems to me that maybe the best way to go to bring the article up to FA again might be to at least consult the sources cited in the more recent reference works regarding the topic, maybe add citations from them if desirable, and then maybe citations or content from any demonstrably relevant works which have appeared since those articles were written. More or less, I think most of us would agree that content in other current encyclopedia articles probably should be here as well, and, although I am in no way saying we should specifically adjust the content to reflect those other sources, checking to see what they have gotten from their own sources would clearly make sense. And if, of course, the other encyclopedia article contains some information which can't be found in their own cited English sources, then I think it would be considered acceptable to cite an encyclopedia as a source, as the possibly only really useful English language source for that information. Would that make sense to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- You might start by contacting the two reviewers that picked the article to pieces during FAR. Maybe they are also capable of doing something constructive. I doubt that the original contributors would be willing to waste more time on it. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I consulted the Encyclopedia of Religion (2005), The Early Church by Thomas Robbins (1993), Encyclopedia of Early Christianity edited by Everett Ferguson, 2nd ed., (1997), The Early Christian World by Philip Esler (2000), Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana, and Man, Myth, and Magic (1995), all of which are in the reference section of the local Catholic university. With the exception of World Book Encyclopedia, which had no article on the Ebionites, they were all the sources which it seemed likely to me might have separate articles on that group. I found a total of eleven English language sources referenced in all of them. MMM has a rather complicated topical bibliography at the beginning of the first volume, whose "Religion" section does not include Eisenman. He is included in none of the other bibliographies either. The MMM article, which reads more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia in general, refers extensively to a theory involving James, Saint Stephen, and Paul, but seems to have a definite axe to grind. I am asking Dab, who had been previously involved, for any input he might have, including specifically information on the reception of the Tabor book. However, based on what I have seen, any reference to Eisenman is based solely on the Tabor source. There are some other matters raised by the sources in the bibliography, regarding the objectivity of the church fathers, the possibility of the Nazorene/Ebionites possibly being interchangable names among the church fathers, and possibly even the adherents, etc., but I intend to consult the cited sources before going to greater depth regarding those matters. Otherwise, the sources consulted above tend to say, like in the Encyclopedia of Religion article referenced some time ago by me, that the various references to "Ebionites" are likely/probably to groups unrelated except for the name, and that on that basis there is at best a weak claim to use them collectively to assert any alleged commonalities. I find 6 reviews of The Jesus Dynasty, and am in the process of consulting them to see how the work was received. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of the six reviews of Tabor's book, I have not yet gotten to those in the Literary Review of Canada, the Biblical Archaeology Review, or Library Journal. However, based on the three I have seen, there is very serious question whether this book itself might not itself qualify as putting forward, as it were, "Fringe theories."
- The review in "Choice", pp. 662-663 of December 2006, indicates the book "recalls" The DaVinci Code. The book "hypotheses deserves scholarly debate, yet it sidesteps scholar and appeals directly to the nonspeciailist public with a style often recalling Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code and that it's strategy "guarantees this volume both general interest and scholarly frustration, being simultaneously the cause and symptom of the book's inconsistencies." "Tabor practices the uncritical act of assuming the complementary intertextuality of gospel birth narratives", while, without explanation, assumes the critical consensus in grounding his characterization of Jesus in the Q sources. Scholars will likely conclude that ... convenience alone motivates the book's acceptance of the traditional attribution of the former and rejection of authority of the latter."
- Booklist on page 4 of the 4/15/06 edition remarks on the book's "startling claims", comments that it's "structure ... seems scattered," and that "Tabor begins with several exciting archaeological finds [including a cave which may have been used by John the Baptist and some ossuaries which might be related to Jesus' family] but remarks on its having problems, one of which is "his emphasis on the genealogies of Jesus presented in Matthew and Luke, which are discounted by many scholars.
- Publishers Weekly, March 13 2006, p. 63, indicates "Tabor not only challenges Christian dogma, he also makes some assumptions with which not all scholars will agree: he places a great deal of emphasis on the hypothetical text Q, calling it "our most authentic early Christian document." It goes on to say that the book is "accessible and sure to be highly controversial."
- In light of the above, a cynic might see that the book might be an attempt by an academic to cash in on a popular phenomenon. The claim that the Q source, whose very existence is a matter of deep conjecture, is "our most authentic early Christian document" can hardly be said to indicate that this source reflects anything like current scholarly consensus. I have not been able to consult the book itself, because the library here at Saint Louis University, which Gordon Melton counted on of the best religion archives in the United States, does not have a copy, indicating that they never bought it in the first place, which itself can be seen as being another strike against its reflecting anything like consensus.
- On the basis of all the above, I have to say that, at least in my opinion, that even a brief mention of this book in this article might be too much of a promotion of a fringe theory, certainly in light of the statements in other, more highly regarded sources, which seemingly ignore the claims of Eisenman and Tabor and advocate options which seem contrary to them. This includes, by the way, Brill's Religion Past and Present, 2007, Volume 4 p. 252, which makes no mention in either text or bibliography of either book, and concludes with "So "Ebionites" cannot be further historically specified than being one name, among others, for ancient Jewish Christians."
- I very definitely believe that the present academic view of the archaeological sites Tabor was involved in, which seem to be involved in the formulation of his theories, is relevant to this article. I would check myself, but this library, evidently, didn't think the book worth purchasing. I have also contacted the Fringe Theories Noticeboard for any input the editors who frequent it might be interested in making. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of the six reviews of Tabor's book, I have not yet gotten to those in the Literary Review of Canada, the Biblical Archaeology Review, or Library Journal. However, based on the three I have seen, there is very serious question whether this book itself might not itself qualify as putting forward, as it were, "Fringe theories."
- I'll offer my two cents then stay out of it. Play it safe and leave Tabor out. Achieving NPOV is not possible on a topic like this. However, please don't use the tired argument that these are "fringe theories" being peddled by a "fringe scholar". Tabor is the department chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC-Charlotte. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, no one is saying Tabor is a fringe scholar. There is a difference, however, between a "fringe scholar" (which he definitely is not) and a fringe theory as per WP:FRINGE, specifically including this direct quote from the "identifying fringe theories" section: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." The reviews I have seen indicate that this book could be reasonably described as a collection of at times contradictory opinions, based on at times beliefs which are definitely not part of mainstream thinking, like the belief that a theoretical document no one has ever seen, and whose very existence has been seriously disputed, is somehow the most reliable source on early Christianity. Also, I have to belief that theories which are not even mentioned in the standard reference works on a topic, and which seem to, at times, be based on ideas which are directly contradictory to those supported in such reference works, pretty much by definition qualify as at least contrary to the mainstream, and very likely as "fringe" as per wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Your "standard texts" are all from "the reference section of the local Catholic university", right? That's called confirmation bias.--Michael C. Price talk 18:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Such off-topic responses are of no use whatsoever. And if the above editor believes there are any similarly reliable sources independent of Eisenman and Tabor themselves which support their beliefs, I believe we would all welcome seeing them. And if the above editor considers any of the sources cited above inherently biased, including the three independent reviews which have indicated that the book is very likely "fringe" as per wikipedia guidelines, I would once again request he produce such information, which is much more useful than simply refering to pages unrelated to any wikipedia policies or guidelines. Frankly, I have seen no "independent confirmation" of those theories being mainstream at all, "biased" or not. Discussion which would be useful would be discussion which indicates that the theories fall within the accepted mainstream. I have seen absolutely no evidence to indicate that these theories do, and a good deal of evidence in reference works like Encyclopedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia of Religion, etc., which indicates that the theories do not. I sincerely hope that in the future responses deal with the substantive questions asked, regarding the mainstream acceptance of the theories in these books or lack of same, rather than in off-topic commentary. Independent sources indicating the opinions are within the academic mainstream, as per wikipedia guidelines, is what is sought, not arguing over semantics. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- If my response is so "
blatantlyoff-topic" then why not just ignore it and let it speak for itself? I don't believe it was off-topic but highlights the problem here; everyone, it seems, has an axe to grind on this subject - there is no single mainstream. I wonder if a unitarian library would yield a different assortment of reviews? --Michael C. Price talk 19:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)- In answer to your first question, please read WP:FRINGE, which is a content guideline. It is a standard for all content. It seems I must once again ask the above editor to actually address any of the reasonable concerns raised above, rather than indulge in rhetoric. Several encyclopedic sources have been referenced, and as I have indicated none of them refer directly to Tabor or Eisenman. Instead of indulging in rhetoric, maybe the above editor could actually try to find some sources such as those he hypothesizes? John Carter (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Raising the possibility of confirmation bias is not rhetoric. Interesting that you should characterise it as such, though. --Michael C. Price talk 19:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Even more interesting is your refusal to provide the requested sourcing, and apparently trying to deflect attention from this failure on your part. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- In answer to your first question, please read WP:FRINGE, which is a content guideline. It is a standard for all content. It seems I must once again ask the above editor to actually address any of the reasonable concerns raised above, rather than indulge in rhetoric. Several encyclopedic sources have been referenced, and as I have indicated none of them refer directly to Tabor or Eisenman. Instead of indulging in rhetoric, maybe the above editor could actually try to find some sources such as those he hypothesizes? John Carter (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- If my response is so "
- Such off-topic responses are of no use whatsoever. And if the above editor believes there are any similarly reliable sources independent of Eisenman and Tabor themselves which support their beliefs, I believe we would all welcome seeing them. And if the above editor considers any of the sources cited above inherently biased, including the three independent reviews which have indicated that the book is very likely "fringe" as per wikipedia guidelines, I would once again request he produce such information, which is much more useful than simply refering to pages unrelated to any wikipedia policies or guidelines. Frankly, I have seen no "independent confirmation" of those theories being mainstream at all, "biased" or not. Discussion which would be useful would be discussion which indicates that the theories fall within the accepted mainstream. I have seen absolutely no evidence to indicate that these theories do, and a good deal of evidence in reference works like Encyclopedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia of Religion, etc., which indicates that the theories do not. I sincerely hope that in the future responses deal with the substantive questions asked, regarding the mainstream acceptance of the theories in these books or lack of same, rather than in off-topic commentary. Independent sources indicating the opinions are within the academic mainstream, as per wikipedia guidelines, is what is sought, not arguing over semantics. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also for what it's worth, the editor's task is not to decide on what is "mainstream" but to ensure that articles are balanced and maintain NPOV. Achieving NPOV is a difficult task on controversial topics and content disputes should be resolved by community consensus. The main problem with Tabor's book is that many of his conclusions are speculative. Is an author entitled to speculate beyond what can be learned from his primary sources? I would say that is what constitutes scholarship, beyond merely citing primary sources or reporting what others have said. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed - sourced speculation is not a problem. We just report it here. I also agree we shouldn't be wasting time on trying to decide on all the wrinkles of what is mainstream (which doesn't exist here anyway).--Michael C. Price talk 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. The main problem with Tabor's book, as indicated in the reviews, includes the fact that his conclusions are speculative, but is not limited to that. It also includes that his sourcing for such speculation, as indicated in at least one of the reviews, seems to be based on how convenient those sources are to him in substantiating his theories.
- I also think that there is a mainstream opinion regarding this subject, if only one of a negative kind. Specifically, several of the encyclopedias consulted have indicated that any attempt to draw clear distinctions between the Ebionites, Nazoreans, Elkeasites, and Symmachians (I hope I spelled them all correctly) will be challenged, and that based on the likely bias of the historical sources, the comparatively few references to any of them in literature, and the often large physical and cultural distances between them.
- In any event, I stand by my previous statements. It is, as I'm sure Michael will remember, the task of the person who seeks to include or keep in material to provide sources which indicate that the material falls within the mainstream of academic opinion. I have seen no such sources identified yet. As per wikipedia policies and guidelines including WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, content which has not yet indicated it either falls within the mainstream or deserves the weight it receives can be challenged, and that challenge is now here explicitly made. I repeat my request that the sources required to indicate that this source falls within the mainstream be produced, as I explicitly have the right to do. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- the task of the person who seeks to include or keep in material to provide sources which indicate that the material falls within the mainstream of academic opinion. No, since there is no mainstream consensus about Ebionites. I agree with Ovadyah's statement on his talk page that "The article as it stands is very biased toward a conservative Catholic point of view.". That is something you can't or won't see. --Michael C. Price talk 23:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Your statement takes as an implicit fact that there is no of general mainstream consensus about the Ebionites, which, of course, has itself not yet been demonstrated by any citations. I note you have still completely failed to cite any sources other than Tabor to support the inclusion of Eisenman. In fact, your own comments over all the time you have been pushing that opinion have rarely if ever displayed any real knowledge of the subject beyond that book, and, later Tabor. And, as demonstrated, there is apparent academic consensus, based on the silence of encyclopediac references on Eisenman and the commentary yet found on Tabor's book that, at least, there is some consensus that certainly Eisenman, and possibly Tabor book, fall outside the area of consensus as well. You have demonstrated a great fondest for engaging in all sorts of commentary which completely and utterly fail to address the matter of finding additional sources to support the inclusion of Eisenman. As per that guideline you yourself cited, I think it can, demonstrably, be stated that Eisenman has not been demonstrated to be in the acadmic mainstream. I am bringing questions regarding The Jesus Dynasty on the RSN as well. In any event, the challenge remains in place, and the continuing refusal to find any other sources is itself a serious question. Regarding the allegations of Catholic bias, I have to question why Ovadyah, who has historically been one of the greatest contributors to this article, apparently never raised the issue of Catholic bias before, and that I, as an individual with an alleged Catholic bias, have rarely if ever edited the article at all. In any event, still waiting for other sources regarding either Eisenman and Tabor to confirm that they do not fall outside the mainstream.
- the task of the person who seeks to include or keep in material to provide sources which indicate that the material falls within the mainstream of academic opinion. No, since there is no mainstream consensus about Ebionites. I agree with Ovadyah's statement on his talk page that "The article as it stands is very biased toward a conservative Catholic point of view.". That is something you can't or won't see. --Michael C. Price talk 23:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed - sourced speculation is not a problem. We just report it here. I also agree we shouldn't be wasting time on trying to decide on all the wrinkles of what is mainstream (which doesn't exist here anyway).--Michael C. Price talk 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Your "standard texts" are all from "the reference section of the local Catholic university", right? That's called confirmation bias.--Michael C. Price talk 18:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, no one is saying Tabor is a fringe scholar. There is a difference, however, between a "fringe scholar" (which he definitely is not) and a fringe theory as per WP:FRINGE, specifically including this direct quote from the "identifying fringe theories" section: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." The reviews I have seen indicate that this book could be reasonably described as a collection of at times contradictory opinions, based on at times beliefs which are definitely not part of mainstream thinking, like the belief that a theoretical document no one has ever seen, and whose very existence has been seriously disputed, is somehow the most reliable source on early Christianity. Also, I have to belief that theories which are not even mentioned in the standard reference works on a topic, and which seem to, at times, be based on ideas which are directly contradictory to those supported in such reference works, pretty much by definition qualify as at least contrary to the mainstream, and very likely as "fringe" as per wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'll offer my two cents then stay out of it. Play it safe and leave Tabor out. Achieving NPOV is not possible on a topic like this. However, please don't use the tired argument that these are "fringe theories" being peddled by a "fringe scholar". Tabor is the department chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC-Charlotte. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth, these are the sources indicated in the encyclopedias found to date, followed by the name of the source citing them:
- Bethune-Baker, J. F. - An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine to the Time of the Council of Chalcedon (The Early Church)
- Beveridge, H. - Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. Hastings, 5:139-45 (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
- Crehan, J. H. - "Ebionites," Catholic Dictionary of Theology (Encyclopedia of Christianity)
- Elliott, James Keith - The Apocryphal New Testament (The Early Christian World; Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls)
- Fitzmyer, J. A. - "The Qumran Scrolls, the Ebionites and Their Literature,' Theological Studies 16 (1955)
- Gorenson, S. - "Ebionites", Anchor Bible Dictionary (Encyclopedia of Christianity)
- Goulder, Michael - "A Poor Man's Christology," New Testament Studies 1999 (Encyclopedia of Religion)
- Hort, F. J. A. - Judaistic Christianity (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
- Howard, George - "The Gospel of the Ebionites" in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen welt (The Early Christian World; Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
- Keck, L. E. - "The Poor Among the Saints in the New Testament," Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 56 (1965)
- Keck. L. E. - "The Poor Among the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran," Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 57 (1968)
- Klijn, A. F. J. - Jewish-Chrsitian Gospel Tradition (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
- Klijn, A. F. J. & G. J. Reinink - Patristic Evidence for Jesish Christian Sects (Encyclopedia of Christianity; Encyclopedia of Early Christianity; Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
- Neander, A. - Christian Church (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
- Neve, J. L. - History of Christian Thought (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
- Pritz, Ray A. - Nazarene Jewish Christianity (The Early Church; The Early Christian World)
- Schaff, P. - Christian CHurch (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
- Schoeps, H. J. - Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church (Encyclopedia of Christianity; Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
- Schoeps, H. J. - "Ebionite Christianity", Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 4 (1953) (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
- Streckerg - "On the Problem of Jewish Christianity," in Walter Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (The Early Church; Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
- Teicher, J. L. - "The Dead Sea Scrolls - Documents of the Jewish Christian Sect of Ebionites," Journal of Jewish Studies 2 (1951)
- Teicher, J. L. - "The Teaching of the Pre-Pauline CHurch in the Dead Sea Scrolls," Journal of Jewish Studies 3 (1952) & 4 (1953) (Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls)
- Vielhauer, P. - "The Gospel of the Ebionites", New Testament Apocrypha by Hennecke
- Wilson, Stephen G. - Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 CE (The Early Christian World) John Carter (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm only going to say this once. Stop linking to or lifting comments from my talk page and pasting them on article talk pages. My comments there were copied selectively and then taken completely out of context. If you read the full text of my remarks, you will see that I said the article is not deliberately biased. However, there is a bias that results from incorporating the material of certain editors (completely appropriate) while removing the contributions of others (a matter yet to be resolved). The version of the article that was promoted to FA, and featured one day on the Wiki homepage, was more NPOV than the current version. The problem with that version was factual accuracy - incorrectly reporting or conflating material from secondary sources. --Ovadyah (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I shall copy what I like, when I like, where I like.
- I did not take your comments out of context - not did I imply that the bias was deliberate, as you seem to be implying with your response here. Most biases are unconscious. --Michael C. Price talk 20:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Undue weight to Fringe theories
According to the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Jesus Dynasty, it seems fairly obvious that the consensus of uninvolved editors consider this work to be a work putting forward a fringe theory. On that basis, given wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, without additional substantial support from other academics, there is insufficient cause for Tabor's book, which is apparently regarded as "fringey", to receive substantive discussion in this or any article. Eisenman's book, which had previously been determined to be "fringey", seems to be only supported by Tabor's fringey source, and two fringe sources do not make something non-fringe. I am therefore being bold and removing text and citations relative to these books in articles where it seems to be the above policies and guidelines apply. I believe any attempt to restore more content to those articles, without explicit consensus from editors, would likely qualify as edit warring, and will be responded to as such. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- A minority view doesn't make it inadmissable. I'm reverting. --Michael C. Price talk 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is a difference between a "minority" view and a fringe view, as the above editor well knows. These sources have both been indicated to be "fringey" as per WP:FRINGE. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. An editor cannot unilaterally decide what is "mainstream" and then use this self-designated authority to delete whole paragraphs of sourced content while suppressing any disagreement by flogging it as edit warring.
This is POV-pushing at its worst.The paragraph in question is supported by multiple sources. I have requested informal mediation to get some oversight for this process and try to calm things down (see below). If that fails or is rejected, I think a trip to AN/I is warranted. Ovadyah (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)- I call to the attention of any outside intereted parties that there has been a request for input at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories noticeboard, that both of the above parties had indicated that their own biases toward including this information earlier, without providing any valid reasons to support its inclusion, and that at no point did either party do anything to assert or even indicate that there was any evidence to indicate that the Tabor/Eisenman theory is not fringe, and that previous discussion indicated the Eisenman theory, on its own, counted as fringe. I would welcome a review of the entire history of this matter, including possible indications of conflict of interest on the part of one or both of the above parties regarding this subject. I also call to the attention of any interested outsider that both of the above seem to be well aware of the requirement that they produce substantial evidence that the material does in fact fall within the mainstream for it to be included, and that despite being aware of that obligation, no such evidence has been forthcoming from either party. The above declaration that the material is supported by multiple sources seems to be specifically ignoring the fact that both of the current sources have been apparently determined to be fringe. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Request for informal mediation
I contacted Jayjg to request informal mediation for restoring this article to FA quality. I considered an RfC, but this effort may require more intervention than just commentary. Jayjg is one of the most experienced admins on Wikipedia, and I will leave it to his judgment to find neutral mediators with enough background in this subject to be constructive. Ovadyah (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposed merger
The majority of the available evidence calls into question the existence of Ebion, and he seems to be exclusively mentioned in some of the early patristics. I cannot see any reason the information in the Ebion article should not be merged into this one. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
restoration of Content
I believe that the "James Vs. Paul" section including the Eisenman/Tabor material is a clear, explicit, and blatant violation of our policy WP:VALID. There is comparatively little material discussing what seems to me to be the majority views that these conjectures have apparently no outside standing in the academic community. Unless both this section is substantiated by any sources independent of Tabor and Eisenman within seven days, and sufficient material regarding the opposing viewpoints is added, I believe I will be completely justified by the policy indicated above to reduce the content, possibly even outright removal. Particularly considering these work's relevance has been under serious discussion for three years now, and the individuals who added the content still haven't apparently found independent acadmic sources who give the proposal much credit as per the above referenced policy, given that they haven't indicated any during the time these sources have most recently been in discussion, I have every reason to believe that there is a very serious possibility that these works have received no particular support in the academic community. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- A new source has been added to the disputed section, John Painter (1999) "Just James - The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition", therefore, this section is substantiated by a source independent of Tabor and Eisenman. In fact, Painter is critical of Eisenman's methods and gives a detailed rebuttal of his work. This scholarly publication was well received in the academic community. Ovadyah (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Since you only seem capable of providing reviews written by religious dogmatists, here's an academic review to get you started [1]. This review appeared in Heythrop Journal 40, (1999), pp.481-482. Ovadyah (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)