Michael C Price (talk | contribs) |
Ignocrates (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 589: | Line 589: | ||
::You are mistaken if you think I have a bias against vegetarianism. Rather, I have equally strong feelings against lying and obfuscation. I produced a quotation of exactly what Pliny said about the Essenes, and pointed out to you that Pliny made no remarks about the Essene's vegetarianism. You made no attempt to correct this mistake in the article, even after several days, so I can only conclude that the statement you inserted into the article was knowingly false. [[User:Ovadyah|Ovadyah]] 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
::You are mistaken if you think I have a bias against vegetarianism. Rather, I have equally strong feelings against lying and obfuscation. I produced a quotation of exactly what Pliny said about the Essenes, and pointed out to you that Pliny made no remarks about the Essene's vegetarianism. You made no attempt to correct this mistake in the article, even after several days, so I can only conclude that the statement you inserted into the article was knowingly false. [[User:Ovadyah|Ovadyah]] 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::As always you are quick to attribute base motives to others. I would ask you to [[assume good faith]], although I am sure you would see this as another example of my base and mendacious nature. I left the quote in because, for the moment, I am undecided. Pliny says they lived alone with their palm trees -- which some (quite a few actually) authorities (not just Hirschfld, despite what Magness says) interpret as implying vegetarianism. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
:::As always you are quick to attribute base motives to others. I would ask you to [[assume good faith]], although I am sure you would see this as another example of my base and mendacious nature. I left the quote in because, for the moment, I am undecided. Pliny says they lived alone with their palm trees -- which some (quite a few actually) authorities (not just Hirschfld, despite what Magness says) interpret as implying vegetarianism. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
I point out the following example of the type of [[bad faith]] editing that you consistently engage in: |
|||
===Refusal to 'get the point'=== |
|||
{{shortcut|[[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]}} |
|||
In some cases, bad-faith editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement in order to make a point. |
|||
Wikipedia is based upon collaborative, good faith editing, and [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a wilful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point. |
|||
As for my assuming good faith regarding your editing, there is abundant evidence throughout the talk pages of this article that you are not deserving of that consideration. [[User:Ovadyah|Ovadyah]] 17:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== The Jesus Section == |
== The Jesus Section == |
Revision as of 17:28, 28 July 2007
Ebionites is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
- Please do not complain if this article contains material which you are convinced is unproven or not true (e.g. that Simeon of Jerusalem was Jesus' brother or that John the Baptist was a vegetarian). Everything about the Ebionites is disputed and conjectural. It is the aim of the article to report on all the divergent views about the Ebionites that exist in the modern literature, and hence to be in conformity with WP:NPOV.
- Please do not insert material into the article which you "know" is true based on primary sources (such as the Bible or the Church Fathers). No original research requires that we only report what the secondary sources says about the Ebionites. This is the critical paragraph from WP:NOR:
Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
You are allowed to merely "state" the content of primary sources. You cannot analyze/expound on/interpret them because that would be the equivalent of an editor acting as his/her own secondary source. This is a foundational Wiki policy. Even within this narrow scope, a primary source can only be used as support within the context of a verifiable secondary source, such as a reference provided by that source. It can never be used as a replacement for a secondary source.
This topic has been extensively discussed in the past and most of the contributors here are weary of re-explaining Wikipolicy. It went to Arbcom awhile ago, which clarified that, for Ebionite purposes, "secondary sources" means "modern sources" and "primary sources" refers to the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers about the Ebionites.
Passed Featured Article
The article passed Wikipedia GA. Merely 1 in 1300 articles are that sufficient. I told you guys this article was a superb expose on the Ebionites, which gives the author even more credit considering the near completely insufficiant sources and knowledge of the topic, the Ebionites. 66.161.185.110 12:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Joshua
- Thank you, Joshua. --Loremaster 00:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations Loremaster! The Ebionites article is now comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced, and NPOV. It is the best encyclopedic article on this subject that I have seen. You have another FA to add to your growing list of accomplishments on Wikipedia! Ovadyah 13:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations Ovadyah! If you hadn't convinced me to come back and contribute to the article, none of this good work would ever have happened. :) --Loremaster 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations to you folks. Well done. Metamagician3000 13:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
About See also
According to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Shalom Loremaster, Articals explaining offical Wikipedia policy have "see also" sections. NazireneMystic 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I know but official Wikipedia policy pages and encyclopedic articles are not held to the same standard. Futhermore, I have spoken to Wikipedia administrators about this issue and I've confirmed that this rule of thumb is an unofficial policy that is highly recommended. --Loremaster 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- "See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and "see also", which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. --Loremaster 19:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Reference audit
Connected Klijn and Reinink reference back to article using ref tags. Ovadyah 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The following are "dead references" that don't connect back to anything in the article:
- Akers, Keith. The Lost Religion of Jesus : Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity. New York: Lantern Books, 2000.
- Cameron, Ron. The Other Gospels. Philadephia: Westminster Press, 1982, pp 103-106.
- Danielou, Jean. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Chicago: The Henry Regnery Company, 1964.
- Lüdemann, Gerd. Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
- Skriver, Carl Anders. The Forgotten Beginnings of Creation and Christianity. Denver: Vegetarian Press, 1990.
- Vaclavik, Charles. The Origin of Christianity: The Pacifism, Communalism, and Vegeterianism of Primitive Christianity. Platteville, Wisconsin: Kaweah Publishing Company, 2004.
These were added to the reference list during the early stages of writing the article. I'm preserving them here on the Talk page but removing them from the article. Ovadyah 01:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good. --Loremaster 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Deleted references
I think we lost some references during the heated editing and vandalism that occured on the day the Ebionites article was featured. I will attempt to go back thru the history and bring them here, if anyone else wants to help. Ovadyah 14:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I have been concerned anout this possibility as well but I've never had time to look into it. --Loremaster 15:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- You can find the pre-feautured article version of the References section here.
Schoeps revisited
I've removed the following sentence from the Legacy section until someone who has read his works can confirm it:
- The legacy of the Ebionites is debated. Scholar Hans-Joachim Schoeps argued that the primary influence of the Ebionites was on the nontrinitarian origins of Islam due to their exchanges with the first Muslims.[1]
--Loremaster 06:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I copied the Schoeps content and reference here so it doesn't get buried in the archives. I will try again to find a copy. Ovadyah 17:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've restored the mention of the role of the Ebionites in the origin of Islam but a new citation is needed since no one has read Schoeps to confirm that he explored the issue. --Loremaster 21:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- The German text that Str translated below is based on Schoeps and a reference was included. Ovadyah 21:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I'll restore the original sentence and reference then. --Loremaster 14:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
NazireneMystic's criticisms
Loremaster, I think I know what your asking for so here one is and if you can show me an online reference that says other wise Schope's is being misrepresented. But then the entire artical misrepresents the Ebionites, this one topic is just part of it.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28195203%2971%3A1%3C58%3AAFZRU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N&size=LARGE
Then scholars like Keith Akers whom even have wikipedia artical about himself have been discredited for only not being of the same POV as Phillips.
If you realy stuck to verifialbe references that can be found on the web and not disregarded the likes of keith the "ebionite" artical would read totaly different and a question mark about the Essene section would not exist. The artical is surpressing evidence while it also capitalizes on this very surpression to question an Essene connection.
There are other problems with this FA but no sence in going after complex issues when the simple ones in the past were not adressed and quickly archived away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.128.182 (talk • contribs). (Claiming to be NazireneMystic)
- Since I can't access Hans Joachim Schoeps's article, can you please explain how he is being misreprented so when can correct any mistake?
- Keith Akers was never discredited. We simply chose to no longer cite him as a source because he himself said he was a commentator not a scholar. Although I have no problem mentioning him and citing his work (which I have now done), the article would not read any differently since the claim that the Ebionites were an Essene sect is NOT a fact - it is only an hypothesis - which is the reason why there is a question mark about the Essenism or Gnosticism section.
- The claim that evidence for the Ebionite-Essene connection is being suppressed is non-sense since the view of proponents of this connection is fairly and accurately presented.
- I encourage you to tell us the more complex issues you have with this article in order for us to resolve this dispute once and for all.
- --Loremaster 00:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Loremaster, I will respond but will be busy with work and other things the next few days. This artical is not going anywere so hopefuly your question will survive till wensday or thursday before being archived away. I would like to say we have been through this before and shortly afterwards the artical would be somewhat NPOV but in time without constant checking, through little tweaks in the name of improvment it starts becoming rather biased. Science has already proven the attitude of the experimentor does effect the results of an experiment thus left alone with Oyvdahy's dogmatic mindset along with your secular humanist mindset that would prefer to see the real Yeshua movement being nothing more then ignorant people, will cause the "Improvments" to lean in one direction . I'm tring not to be offenisve but as I said this has happened before. The problem is you cant excape the laws that science has started to get glimpes of, and ether can the Scientist.
- I wouldn't archive a question before you have answered it. Even if I did, that shouldn't prevent you from answering it.
- Although I've always freely admitted that I view the Ebionites through a secular humanist POV informed by the works of the Jesus Seminar, I haven't let this POV interfere with my duty to write an encyclopedic article that is the most neutral possible. I have never said that the Ebionites were nothing more then ignorant people. I have said that it is *possible* that some or even all "Ebionites" were not faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus. This is a possibility that cannot be denied by any reasonable person. However, the article has never claimed that this possibility was a fact nor have any of my edits implied that.
- Although you may think you are not trying to be offensive, you in fact are being extremely offensive due to your constant personal attacks against me and other editors of this article. So please focus on exposing the flaws of this article rather than contributing to more animosity between us.
- --Loremaster 17:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Until clearly seen problems are fixed there is no need to work on others. That being said the article by Hans Joachim Schoeps's that the link I posted is about is at least verifiable. Do you have an online verifible source for the summary of Schoep's view given in the FA? On the archive page 3 all I see is one editor point out what that link might imply as to why it should be disgarded. How could that be taken in good faith? I have written in his view of ebionites and were he believed they drew thier ideas from only to have them deleted but I am only reporting the facts. Since the FA relies on only a few opinions to debunk the camp that is rather pro Essene, could pulling Schoeps out of one camp and placing him were he belongs be problemitc to some editors? With Schoep in his proper group and the Essene debunkers losing an ally wouldnt the question mark on the Essene section becomes even more questionable?
Actualy the link I posted is a better reference then most of the references given in the artital. Most all the links are dead. Why is this FA dependant on so many dead links when at the same time online sources are not used? Are we going to be dependant on the private book collections of one or two editors on such a highly debated subject?
Unitll this in worked on why should we discuss more issues? NazireneMystic
- NazareneMystic, rather than talking about how other editors are trying to be misleading, why don't you lay out your case for what Schoeps is saying here on the talk page. That means actual content from Schoeps' publications, not your opinions of what you think he is saying. Ovadyah 00:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Ovadyah. The only thing I would like to to point out is that the question mark in the title of the Essenism section is perfectly justified since the suggestion that Ebionites were Essenes is not fact regardless of the number of fringe scholars promote it. --Loremaster 05:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a link to any verifible source supporting what the present article is claiming about his views?
- I expected that answer. A direct request for source information is met with accusations. As I said before, you have nothing rational to say to support your own views, so you accuse others of being purposely misleading. How can you expect anyone here to take you seriously? If you are going to challenge the accuracy of a featured article, you need to bring your evidence here, not your opinions and accusations. Ovadyah 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- That was a question, not an accusation, to which I gather the answer is no. --Michael C. Price talk 23:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I know that, but the implication of the question is that what is now in the article is unsupported. The answer is I'm not sure, since I didn't add that material to the article. However, I know we have been through this exact discussion already at least twice. My point is that you don't answer a direct question by questioning something else if you expect to have a rational discussion. But having a rational discussion is not NM's intent. It's a typical tactic in debates among religious sects called an honor/shame riposte. The idea is to never be pinned down by having to defend your position. You just keep escalating the argument by attacking your opponent. The objective is not to understand and seek to be understood but to dominate and humiliate your opponent. It can be quite amusing, but it doesn't accomplish anything of practical value here. Ovadyah 02:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. --Loremaster 17:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- I know that, but the implication of the question is that what is now in the article is unsupported. The answer is I'm not sure, since I didn't add that material to the article. However, I know we have been through this exact discussion already at least twice. My point is that you don't answer a direct question by questioning something else if you expect to have a rational discussion. But having a rational discussion is not NM's intent. It's a typical tactic in debates among religious sects called an honor/shame riposte. The idea is to never be pinned down by having to defend your position. You just keep escalating the argument by attacking your opponent. The objective is not to understand and seek to be understood but to dominate and humiliate your opponent. It can be quite amusing, but it doesn't accomplish anything of practical value here. Ovadyah 02:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- That was a question, not an accusation, to which I gather the answer is no. --Michael C. Price talk 23:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk page warning
Here's a suggested warning banner -- I've copied liberally from Overdayh's text :
- Please do not complain if this article contains material which you are convinced is not true or unproven (e.g. that Simeon of Jerusalem was Jesus' brother or that John the Baptist was a vegetarian). Everything about the Ebionites is disputed and conjectural. It is the aim of the article to report on all the divergent views about the Ebionites that exist in the modern literature, and hence to be in conformity with WP:NPOV.
- Please do not insert material into the article which you "know" are true based on primary sources (such as the Bible or the Church Fathers). WP:NOR requires that we only report what the secondary sources says about the Ebionites. This is the critical paragraph from WP:NOR:
Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
You are allowed to merely "state" the content of primary sources. You cannot analyze/expound on/interpret them because that would be the equivalent of an editor acting as his/her own secondary source. This is a foundational Wiki policy. Even within this narrow scope, a primary source can only be used as support within the context of a verifiable secondary source, such as a reference provided by that source. It can never be used as a replacement for a secondary source.
This topic has been extensively discussed in the past and most of the contributors here are sick to death of re-explaining Wikipolicy. It went to Arbcom awhile ago, which clarified that, for Ebionite purposes, "secondary sources" means "modern sources" and "primary sources" refers to the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers about the Ebionites. --Michael C. Price talk 18:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is very good, and will hopefully prevent future misundertandings. Good work! Ovadyah 19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hopefully :-) --Michael C. Price talk 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
And what do you want to do with this banner? Where shall it go? Do we need examples in this? I object to that as it highlights a certain POV and misrepresents the current conflict. Str1977 (smile back) 20:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- We need examples because otherwise people will misunderstand it. How would you explain WP:NOR ?? --Michael C. Price talk 21:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to have a go at any POV with the examples; one is a recent example, the other from further back. --Michael C. Price talk 05:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's great. We could have avoided reams of heated discussion and some hard feelings if we had this before as a guideline. Can we formalize it into more of a template format? A generalizable template with space for article-specific comments at the bottom would be ideal. Ovadyah 02:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Formalizing it into a generic template sounds a good idea. How do we do that? --Michael C. Price talk 05:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I still don't understand where you want to put this (at the top of the talk page?) and where it does begin and end.
- And no, I don't think it would have stopped our debate above as I don't think that was about OR but about how word passing references. Str1977 (smile back) 13:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Michael, a separate template page needs to be created which is then {/*{linked}*/} like this (remove /* */). You can get general info on templates at WP:Templates and specific instructions at MediaWiki Templates. Loremaster knows how to do it, and he can give you more specifics. Ovadyah 13:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Shouldn't such a note also include the opinions of "secondary sources" should not be portrayed as fact. I think turn around is fair play. Str1977 (smile back) 17:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- We have different views on this. Loremaster and I support reporting author's speculation as just that, speculation. I think Michael would say this is editors using selective judgement, and therefore POV. Thus we enter into the murky realm of "undue weight". We need an RFC on this so we can lay it to rest, as we did for primary sources. Ovadyah 17:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ovadyah, you have correctly represented my view. Whether a secondary source's POV is a fact or not is to judge content, which is not permitted. All these problems go away if we move the histories into separate POV sections: then it is clear that all views, no matter how plainly reported, are opinions. Of course that should be always be obvious about everything, but sometimes people need reminding... :-) --Michael C. Price talk 21:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- "to judge content" is not permitted. But neither is it permitted to portray one branch of POVs as fact while ignore the opposing views. Str1977 (smile back) 10:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- A complete strawman -- I've always said all views should be represented.--Michael C. Price talk 10:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- "to judge content" is not permitted. But neither is it permitted to portray one branch of POVs as fact while ignore the opposing views. Str1977 (smile back) 10:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ovadyah, you have correctly represented my view. Whether a secondary source's POV is a fact or not is to judge content, which is not permitted. All these problems go away if we move the histories into separate POV sections: then it is clear that all views, no matter how plainly reported, are opinions. Of course that should be always be obvious about everything, but sometimes people need reminding... :-) --Michael C. Price talk 21:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do the present group of editors want me to contact RFC and have someone advise us about how to apply undue weight and properly present the speculations of verifiable sources? I'm all for heading off heated arguments. Let me know. Ovadyah 22:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think an RfC is need for the "Simeon" issue. It is simply a matter of applying policy. NPOV, so "relative".
- If you however refer to another issue, then maybe. Str1977 (smile back) 10:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do the present group of editors want me to contact RFC and have someone advise us about how to apply undue weight and properly present the speculations of verifiable sources? I'm all for heading off heated arguments. Let me know. Ovadyah 22:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather we all just agreed to represent separate POVs in separate sections, as many other articles do, but failing that then I guess an RfC (Request For Comments?) may be required. What do you plan -- just ask Alec to have another look? That would be a good idea -- I found his guidance clear last time. --Michael C. Price talk 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fine with presenting separate POVs in /wip, but not in the main article, at least not yet, because it's so disruptive to the structure of the article. In the interests of transparency, I prefer to post a request to RfC (Request fo Comments). When we asked Alec for comments last time, some editors objected and accused him of being a "ringer". If we don't get a response from RfC after a week, then I think it's fair and reasonable to ask Alec. Is anyone not ok with this? Ovadyah 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm OK with working off-article (eg /wip) for the moment -- but longer term the situation is intolerable. Waiting a week for RfC feedback before going to Alec is OK with me. I understand your reservations about transparency, but Alec does have the advantage of having some background about Ebionites. But let's see how it pans out.--Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- As I said before, Ebionites is a featured article; it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Although we should update or improve it when necessary, there is no need for any radical restructuring of the article especially if it intentionally or unintentionally gives some POVs undue weight. That being said, the old Ebionites/wip page can be used for off-article work. --Loremaster 16:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The need to restructure comes from the evident impossibility of representing all relevant views (witness the fiasco over "relative" vs "brother") in the present format. A clear obfuscation of material. --Michael C. Price talk 17:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. The Essenism section was created to present most of the views you wanted to include and have included. Feel free to expand it. That being said, the so-called fisaco over "relative" vs "brother" was not only something not worth a dispute but it certainly isn't worth creating a new section about it in an article that isn't primarily about that subject. This article is about the Ebionites not the different points of views on the family of Jesus. That's what the Desposyni article is for. --Loremaster 17:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The irrelevance of the "relative" vs "brother" issue it merely your POV. As I have repeatedly stated, it is a POV that appears NOWHERE in the literature, yet you continue to defend the undefendable.--Michael C. Price talk 17:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- My point is that it simply does NOT matter whether or not we use "relative" rather than "brother" since a brother IS a relative. It is a completely appropriate *alternative* way of stating a fact. It's only when Str1977 and you made a dispute out of this trivial issue that POVs became an issue. Do you get it? --Loremaster 17:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The point you do not get is that your judgement that the distinction between "brother" and "relative" is irrelevant is not a judgment that exists in the literature. And I have explained its relevance to the Ebionites elsewhere on this talk page. We should stick with the sources, not twist facts to suit our own agenda. Yes, all brothers are relatives, but not all relatives are brothers. Do you get it? --Michael C. Price talk 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- My point is that it is irrelevant what the literature says since the sentence was NOT written to satisfy an agenda or some "Chalcedonian POV" or "Pauline POV". This accusation is utterly ridiculous! --Loremaster 20:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- So it was just a mistake, was it? And you have no objection to changing it back? -Michael C. Price talk 20:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- To end this needless "dispute", I willing to give in to your bullying. However, if Str1977 reverts your edit, which he would have a legitimate reason to do, you will have to resolve this nonsense with him. --Loremaster 20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wondered if you'd be able admit your error -- I see not. --Michael C. Price talk 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- My entire point is that the notion that that using the word "relative" is a part of agenda or POV pushing or mistake is non-sense! --Loremaster 15:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is ridiculous to say that "relative" nowhere appears in the sources, to equate this with a "Chalcedonian" or "Pauline" POV. "Relative" is more general than brother and hence encompasses many views. Also, the sources do not clearly call him brother (but looking back I have written this a hundred times so far). The fiasco consists in Michael's refusal to adhere to WP policy or to the concept of articles being focused on one subject and relegating other information to other articles. Str1977 (smile back) 10:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- It amazing how people will argue that black is white to push their POVs -- the secondary sources do call Simon a brother of Jesus. You're not still going on about primary sources are you? I think it is telling that I have repeatedly asked for a scholarly reference that represents Simon of Jerusalem as Jesus' relative but not his brother and not one has been forthcoming. Not one. --Michael C. Price talk 10:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed it is amazing how you turn black into white. I am a historian and when I say sources I mean the actual sources (=primary sources) not some books written about the subject. Anyway, I know this is not the place for Original research. But still, you cannot call him a brother in direct contravention of the source, you can only say that Tabor and Eisenman and Maccoby and Saint Jerome identify him with Simeon the brother, while others consider things differently. And in this context, given that the article is not about Simeon at all, nor about relatives of Jesus, we needn't cover it at all. And this is why I have not taken the trouble to come forth with anything because the issue is not the scope of this article and I have no intent to waste my limited time on non-issues that stem from your failure to adhere to WP policies and the basic concept of an encyclopedia (topicality). Str1977 (smile back) 13:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- when I say sources I mean the actual sources (=primary sources) not some books written about the subject. -- I see you are still going on about primary sources and are grimly determined to bring your own POV to article, in direct contravention to wikipolicy. This is not acceptable, but at least it will bring things to a head. Change the article all you like but you will find it is very easy for all your changes to be reverted back out.--Michael C. Price talk 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- You will also find that your POV pushing can be easily reverted before continuing to make actual improvements. I am not pushing my own POV at all. If I would, I would instantly removed Eisenman and Maccoby and relegate them to a "loony section" ... do I do it? No. Relative is a neutral term, brother doesn't appear in the source. There is no WP policy that requires us to ignore the sources. Str1977 (smile back) 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "the source". And, for the nth time, Wikipedia is only interested in what 2ndary sources have to say.--Michael C. Price talk 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- You will also find that your POV pushing can be easily reverted before continuing to make actual improvements. I am not pushing my own POV at all. If I would, I would instantly removed Eisenman and Maccoby and relegate them to a "loony section" ... do I do it? No. Relative is a neutral term, brother doesn't appear in the source. There is no WP policy that requires us to ignore the sources. Str1977 (smile back) 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- when I say sources I mean the actual sources (=primary sources) not some books written about the subject. -- I see you are still going on about primary sources and are grimly determined to bring your own POV to article, in direct contravention to wikipolicy. This is not acceptable, but at least it will bring things to a head. Change the article all you like but you will find it is very easy for all your changes to be reverted back out.--Michael C. Price talk 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed it is amazing how you turn black into white. I am a historian and when I say sources I mean the actual sources (=primary sources) not some books written about the subject. Anyway, I know this is not the place for Original research. But still, you cannot call him a brother in direct contravention of the source, you can only say that Tabor and Eisenman and Maccoby and Saint Jerome identify him with Simeon the brother, while others consider things differently. And in this context, given that the article is not about Simeon at all, nor about relatives of Jesus, we needn't cover it at all. And this is why I have not taken the trouble to come forth with anything because the issue is not the scope of this article and I have no intent to waste my limited time on non-issues that stem from your failure to adhere to WP policies and the basic concept of an encyclopedia (topicality). Str1977 (smile back) 13:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- It amazing how people will argue that black is white to push their POVs -- the secondary sources do call Simon a brother of Jesus. You're not still going on about primary sources are you? I think it is telling that I have repeatedly asked for a scholarly reference that represents Simon of Jerusalem as Jesus' relative but not his brother and not one has been forthcoming. Not one. --Michael C. Price talk 10:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wondered if you'd be able admit your error -- I see not. --Michael C. Price talk 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- To end this needless "dispute", I willing to give in to your bullying. However, if Str1977 reverts your edit, which he would have a legitimate reason to do, you will have to resolve this nonsense with him. --Loremaster 20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- So it was just a mistake, was it? And you have no objection to changing it back? -Michael C. Price talk 20:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- My point is that it is irrelevant what the literature says since the sentence was NOT written to satisfy an agenda or some "Chalcedonian POV" or "Pauline POV". This accusation is utterly ridiculous! --Loremaster 20:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The point you do not get is that your judgement that the distinction between "brother" and "relative" is irrelevant is not a judgment that exists in the literature. And I have explained its relevance to the Ebionites elsewhere on this talk page. We should stick with the sources, not twist facts to suit our own agenda. Yes, all brothers are relatives, but not all relatives are brothers. Do you get it? --Michael C. Price talk 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- My point is that it simply does NOT matter whether or not we use "relative" rather than "brother" since a brother IS a relative. It is a completely appropriate *alternative* way of stating a fact. It's only when Str1977 and you made a dispute out of this trivial issue that POVs became an issue. Do you get it? --Loremaster 17:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The irrelevance of the "relative" vs "brother" issue it merely your POV. As I have repeatedly stated, it is a POV that appears NOWHERE in the literature, yet you continue to defend the undefendable.--Michael C. Price talk 17:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. The Essenism section was created to present most of the views you wanted to include and have included. Feel free to expand it. That being said, the so-called fisaco over "relative" vs "brother" was not only something not worth a dispute but it certainly isn't worth creating a new section about it in an article that isn't primarily about that subject. This article is about the Ebionites not the different points of views on the family of Jesus. That's what the Desposyni article is for. --Loremaster 17:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The need to restructure comes from the evident impossibility of representing all relevant views (witness the fiasco over "relative" vs "brother") in the present format. A clear obfuscation of material. --Michael C. Price talk 17:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- As I said before, Ebionites is a featured article; it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Although we should update or improve it when necessary, there is no need for any radical restructuring of the article especially if it intentionally or unintentionally gives some POVs undue weight. That being said, the old Ebionites/wip page can be used for off-article work. --Loremaster 16:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm OK with working off-article (eg /wip) for the moment -- but longer term the situation is intolerable. Waiting a week for RfC feedback before going to Alec is OK with me. I understand your reservations about transparency, but Alec does have the advantage of having some background about Ebionites. But let's see how it pans out.--Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- At the risk of repeating myself on another thread, if "others" consider things differently, then you need to bring in those verifiable sources so that we can see what they say. Appeals to lack of time will not do. If you don't have time for due diligence, then you have little room to criticize others as POV pushers. Ovadyah 14:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Your demand above was fair enough and if you mean the same here, that opposing views must be sourced, I agree. The problem is that the exact relation of Jesus and Simeon is really a no-issue in this article. If it were, I would agree with Michael's preaching "let's put all views side by side" (though not with hitherto practice). But it is simply not feasible when the reference is just in passing. That's not dillegence, than circumstance:
- Currently we have: "Simeon, another relative" (my and Loremaster's favourite)
- Michael wants: "Simeon, another brother
- But the proper way to go according to Michael's demand would be "Simeon, who some scholars deem another brother of Jesus (source), while others deem him a cousin (source) or a relative of another king (source).
- At the risk of repeating myself, the first alternative seems to be the best way to go in this context (another context, another issue). Str1977 (smile back) 14:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Str1977. --Loremaster 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- At the risk of repeating myself on another thread, if "others" consider things differently, then you need to bring in those verifiable sources so that we can see what they say. Appeals to lack of time will not do. If you don't have time for due diligence, then you have little room to criticize others as POV pushers. Ovadyah 14:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- My two-cents, which I stated long ago in the archived NPOV talk section, is that "relative" may be more NPOV, but it is less accurate. If we are supposed to be reporting what the secondary sources are saying, we should use "brother" because the sources are saying brother. Arguing that the sources we have documented are "fringe" or "marginal" is not a rational argument based on evidence. If we can bring in additional verifiable sources that say "relative" then I may change my opinion. Right now, imho, it's a no-brainer that we should use "brother". Ovadyah 17:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Less accurate only if he was a brother. But that is contentious if one goes beyond the trinity of secondary sources very much cited here (Tabor, Maccoby, Eisenman) and even more so if one looks at the actual sources. I see no reason to change my mind on this: the statement of primary sources cannot be ignored simply pointing to NOR - even the advise above says that the statements of primary sources can be included. I am not talking about analysis (which the primary sources do not contain) but in this case about the mere statement of names.
- And yes, these writers are fringe and marginal. I will look into more sources soon. Regarding the Ebionites that is. As I repeatedly said, the article is not about Simeon and hence no in depth coverage of his exact relation to Jesus is called for unless any RS claims that the Ebionites placed a special importance on brothers as opposed to mere relatives (though I have never heard this and it seems incredible since at lest the third bishop of Jerusalem was not a brother of Jesus). Str1977 (smile back) 08:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Str1977. --Loremaster 09:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- My two-cents, which I stated long ago in the archived NPOV talk section, is that "relative" may be more NPOV, but it is less accurate. If we are supposed to be reporting what the secondary sources are saying, we should use "brother" because the sources are saying brother. Arguing that the sources we have documented are "fringe" or "marginal" is not a rational argument based on evidence. If we can bring in additional verifiable sources that say "relative" then I may change my opinion. Right now, imho, it's a no-brainer that we should use "brother". Ovadyah 17:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, and Loremaster I'm surprised you reversed your position on this, articulated here. If all the secondary sources we have available to us are saying the same thing, that is what matters. What you "know" to be true is OR and irrelevant. If you think the designation "brothers" is controversial and only pushed by marginal or fringe scholars, then prove it. But until you can bring evidence to the article beyond your own gnosis, that there is a different "mainstream" view, it should remain "brothers" in the article. Ovadyah 14:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are mistaken: If you read carefully the archived talk thread, I said: I favor the use of the term "brother" rather than "relative" when dealing with James. --Loremaster 05:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, but I'm talking specifically about Simeon. Ovadyah 14:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Loremaster: I too favour the term "brother" when talking about James and the other three brothers when they are clearly referred to (even though personally I do not believe them to be sons of Mary, for a variety of reasons, not just religious ones).
- And I favour "relative" when talking about those not clearly identified with brothers, as I have explained time and again.
- This is not about "what I or anyone knows to be true" or OR but about the designation given in the sources: the sources clearly call James a brother, they do not clearly call Simeon of Jerusalem a brother. Scholarly explanations of the details should be covered in the proper place but this article is not it. Str1977 (smile back) 18:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since the secondary sources do describe Simon and James as brothers of Jesus that is how we should report it, when describing the conclusions of those sources. --Michael C. Price talk 19:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- You still don't get it.
- a) even if all secondary "sources" would say it should still be attributed. (However, they don't.)
- b) the issue is totally off topic here. Str1977 (smile back) 12:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- a) Agree. Your point is?
- b) Rubbish. As I previously said: the brother issue is relevant since it indicates the Ebionites may have been following what they perceived as a royal bloodline succession. Plenty of sources for that as well. --Michael C. Price talk 13:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- a) the point is that you cannot state as fact something that is merely the deduction of (some) scholars (and non-scholars)
- b) You have not shown from any RS that the Ebionites placed importance on a succession among the brothers (as opposed to mere relatives). No sources for that. We have sources for an emphasis on succession among relatives (though your playing John the Baptist in this regard is seriously misguided, ignoring the special position of Jesus). If we had a passage about such brother-succession we could mention Simeon (or rather would, as it falls apart without a second brother), but for lack of sources we haven't got one. So, the issue is not relevant TO THIS ARTICLE.
- Str1977 (smile back) 13:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- a) Still in complete agreement. Your point is?
- b) False. Plenty of sources make the same blood line argument I have reported. Try reading Tabor or Eisenman instead of shouting your mouth off.--Michael C. Price talk 13:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- a) then why do you want to do just that all along?
- b) First of all, clean up your language. Secondly, you have not shown that anyone makes that argument. Again the argument need would be a SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON BROTHERS (AND NOT JUST RELATIVES) SUCEEDING JESUS. I hope you get it now and stop playing as if you didn't understand it. Str1977 (smile back) 14:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Tabor and other sources make EXACTLY THAT POINT. YES, THAT MEANS BROTHERS (AND NOT JUST RELATIVES) SUCEEDING (sic) JESUS..--Michael C. Price talk 14:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Stop throwing around personal attacks and for once contribute something to the discussion. WHERE does TABOR make that claim? QUOTE HIM! And after you have done this, suggest WHERE AND HOW YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THIS! Before that the Simeon was actually a brother is off-topic even if you stand on your head. 16:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have answered (well, refuted actually) your claim that no sources exist for the brother-bloodline claim. Now you demand page numbers -- well that's fine (and they will appear), but there's an awful lot of the article that doesn't meet that standard. So put you own house in order as well. And BTW there is no requirement to QUOTE Tabor, since he is not a primary source.
- Your claim that "Simon as brother" is off-topic is just your opinion; it's an opinion not shared by all the sources, and that's what's relevant. I have explained the relevance of the "brother" issue a number of times and not once have you made a substantive response -- which is quite funny from someone who claims I haven't contributed to the discussion. --Michael C. Price talk 17:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Funny how some people take personal attacks and endless repition for refuation. Thus far you have only stated that Tabor says that but not shown anything.
- I do not demand page numbers - I want to see what Tabor writes and since you are the chief Taborite it is easier that you just bring it on.
- I do not want it quoted because WP demands that and have no interest in your wiki-lawyering. I want to see what Tabor writes since by now I cannot take your word for it. And I did AGF.
- Do not point to other faults of the article (and they way exist) as an excuse for trying to include spurious things.
- You have not explained the relevance, you have only exclaimed that it must be included. You have not demonstrated anything. And no you haven't provided anything to the discussion yet aside from personal attacks, endless repititions of the same stuff. And yes, that is only my opinion.
- My opinion is my opinion BUT your opinion is your opinion. You are basically saying that your opinion should govern this article. It doesn't matter whether "my opinion" is not shared by ALL THE SOURCES (a funny way of trying to turn things around) as I do not want "my opinion" to be included - you want your opinion to be stated as fact, even though it is unfounded in primary sources and contradicted by some secondary sources. And I won't allow that. Str1977 (smile back) 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thus far you have only stated that Tabor says that but not shown anything. I agree -- you really don't get Wiki, do you? All we are here to do is to "report" what the sources say. We do not have to "show" anything -- in fact we are banned from that. You may call that "wiki-lawyering" -- I really don't care what you call it. They are the rules and that's that. --Michael C. Price talk 17:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Stop throwing around personal attacks and for once contribute something to the discussion. WHERE does TABOR make that claim? QUOTE HIM! And after you have done this, suggest WHERE AND HOW YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THIS! Before that the Simeon was actually a brother is off-topic even if you stand on your head. 16:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Tabor and other sources make EXACTLY THAT POINT. YES, THAT MEANS BROTHERS (AND NOT JUST RELATIVES) SUCEEDING (sic) JESUS..--Michael C. Price talk 14:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since the secondary sources do describe Simon and James as brothers of Jesus that is how we should report it, when describing the conclusions of those sources. --Michael C. Price talk 19:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, but I'm talking specifically about Simeon. Ovadyah 14:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
New Subsections
Unless someone intends to expand the new subsections and rather quickly, the article looks really crappy all broken up like this. I disagree with having Patristic Sources at the top and History near the bottom. I don't care what other articles do. It makes the article appear disjointed. Ovadyah 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, it looks pretty fucked up. I've thought so for awhile; now it looks even worse. --Michael C. Price talk 21:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Michael for your qualified and dignified judgment.
- Ovadyah, I broke up the sections because they covered different things. And I moved it to the bottom a) because other articles do it like this, b) this makes sense: a religion (or anything else) is first defined by what it is (or was, if it is something of the past) and only later by its development, c) the history section is necessarily the most contentious - once the secion is improved to a proper NPOV coverage this will be clearer (what we KNOW about the Ebionites is from observations from the mid-2nd to the 4-th century - anything earlier, i.e. how the Ebionites of the 2ns and the Jerusalem Christians of the first are linked, is reconstruction and to a large extent speculation)
- Whether the Patristic sources should be on top is of course debatable. But since it is what we know, it should come before the history section. On a second thought, it is maybe better to place the "beliefs and practices" first. OTOH, the sources are the basis of that information as well.Str1977 (smile back) 09:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll give other folks a day or so to add material or fix the order. Otherwise, it goes back to something more like the old structure. This is embarrassing! Ovadyah 22:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, let them knock themselves out, then we'll revert it all back to some semblance of sanity. --Michael C. Price talk 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- For once, we all agree. Although I appreciate the work Str has done to make the article more neutral, I don't like the new subsections. This is a major change which should have been discussed with other editors before being done. --Loremaster 17:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good. Please restore something close to the original structure, as I will be tied up for awhile today. Ovadyah 18:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- For once, we all agree. Although I appreciate the work Str has done to make the article more neutral, I don't like the new subsections. This is a major change which should have been discussed with other editors before being done. --Loremaster 17:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, let them knock themselves out, then we'll revert it all back to some semblance of sanity. --Michael C. Price talk 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll give other folks a day or so to add material or fix the order. Otherwise, it goes back to something more like the old structure. This is embarrassing! Ovadyah 22:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't stand it. I restored the original order of the history section, but I left the new subdivisions for now. I see no reason for these subdivisions unless someone intends to add more content to them quite soon. Othewise, try out your ideas on /wip. That's why it was created. Ovadyah 23:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, there will be additions. But even if not, the divisions are needed because "Legacy" is something else then history. Str1977 (smile back) 09:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't stand it. I restored the original order of the history section, but I left the new subdivisions for now. I see no reason for these subdivisions unless someone intends to add more content to them quite soon. Othewise, try out your ideas on /wip. That's why it was created. Ovadyah 23:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- I expanded the Legacy section slightly with some new content and references about neo-Ebionites (not the EJC). Ovadyah 02:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Great stuff! --Loremaster 03:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good additions. However the "A Messianic leader recently commented on the Torah-observance of neo-Ebionites and asked whether Christians should do likewise." should be expanded to say what the man said, not just that he said something. Str1977 (smile back) 09:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- The point is not what he is saying Christians should do. The author is reacting polemically to neo-Ebionites that are Torah-observant, and in so doing, acknowledging their influence is a concern to Messianic Judaism. Ovadyah 14:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- What Str1977 is saying is that you didn't make it clear that the author was reacting polemically. --Loremaster 05:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, now I understand. Ovadyah 14:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed that's what I meant. Sorry for not being clearer. Str1977 (smile back) 18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, now I understand. Ovadyah 14:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- What Str1977 is saying is that you didn't make it clear that the author was reacting polemically. --Loremaster 05:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- The point is not what he is saying Christians should do. The author is reacting polemically to neo-Ebionites that are Torah-observant, and in so doing, acknowledging their influence is a concern to Messianic Judaism. Ovadyah 14:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good additions. However the "A Messianic leader recently commented on the Torah-observance of neo-Ebionites and asked whether Christians should do likewise." should be expanded to say what the man said, not just that he said something. Str1977 (smile back) 09:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Great stuff! --Loremaster 03:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I expanded the Legacy section slightly with some new content and references about neo-Ebionites (not the EJC). Ovadyah 02:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you all approve of the current subsections or do you think some should be deleted? --Loremaster 15:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Str that Legacy is not History. Imho, the Legacy section should be kept separate and expanded by further research into the influence of Ebionitism on Islam. Patristic Sources is clearly a part of History and so should either be made into a subset or recombined with the History section. We also need to get rid of the stupid bullet points in Patristic Sources. Lists are to be avoided in favor of the Summary style. We fixed that problem during Peer review almost a year ago. Ovadyah 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Generally I think all the subsections devoted to individuals should be removed and replaced with POV sections. Any material on individuals can be absorbed into these and/or the history section(s).--Michael C. Price talk 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Historical revisionism: Essenes and Christians
According to various sources, including one of the works of the Jesus Seminar, theories trying to link the Essenes to Christianity (whether Jewish or Pauline) have been discredited by the biblical scholarship community. The implication is that only minority scholars (like Robert Eisenman), fringe researchers (like Michael Baigent), and fiction writers (like Dan Brown) continute to promote such theories. We should expand the Essenism section of the article to include this rebuttal. --Loremaster 03:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
From A Christian Thinktank: Good question... ...how well-respected are the theories of Eisenman, Allegro, Thiering, and Baigent & Leigh concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls? --Loremaster 05:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Ovadyah, Str 1977, do you know of strong academic sources we could cite? --Loremaster 04:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding the Essenes it would be easier (though the names that first come into my mind are naturally in the German language) - but the discredited part of Eisenman is primarily his "Qumranites are Christians are Zealots and James the Teacher of Righteousness" claim, not that there were contact/influence between Essenes and Christians (though they are indeed marginal and hard to catch)
- Regarding the Ebionites it is a bit harder, given the subject nature. Let's face it, sources are not very good for the Ebionites and literature is either covering the little knowledge there is (which doesn't make for a bestseller) or sensationalist-revisionist transforming them into a bigger movement than the sources tell us (they might have been one, but we cannot know)
- A good step should be looking into other encyclopediae. I have started this on my talk page by copying the entry on Ebionites in the German "Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart". I will translate it in time. Str1977 (smile back) 08:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Here is one you should read. A critical review of Eisenman & Wise's book, "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" by Geza Vermes. [1] He is highly critical of Eisenman's theories and methods. Geza Vermes is a specialist in the Dead Sea Scrolls (he published a complete translation in English) and a scholar of the first rank. His books "Jesus the Jew" and "The Religion of Jesus the Jew" are ground-breaking in their importance to New Testament studies, and he is one of the pillars of the Third Quest. Ovadyah 00:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- It may take some time before I get around re-reading Vermes' books. In the meantime, should we cite his critical review? --Loremaster 00:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, by all means. Ovadyah 01:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done. --Loremaster 06:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Had I thought harder, Mr Vermes would have come to mind. Str1977 (smile back) 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done. --Loremaster 06:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, by all means. Ovadyah 01:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, cite him, but remember that whether we accept Eisenman's theories in total is not point. Eisenman was not the first make the John the Baptist-Essene link, so independently of Eisenman we have strong link between the Ebionites and Essenes -- unless we deny the influence of John the Baptist on the Ebionites. There is also the Qumranite self-designation "The Poor" to consider. And the vegetarianism of the Qumranites and John the Baptist - as he appears in the Ebionite gospel. Epiphanius notes the similarities between the Samaritans and the Ebionites in their custom of ritual purification bathing -- a trait shared with the occupants of Qumran. All these points have been noted by a slew of authors, not just Eisenman. --Michael C. Price talk 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that whether we agree or disagree with Eisenman, we should truthfully and neutrally report his theses and the acceptance of it (or lack thereof). Str1977 (smile back) 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Refutations of Essenes-Christians theories often include the notion of John the Bapstist as Essene and go beyond simply refuting Eisenman's personal theories. As Vermes points out, although an identification of early Christians with the Essenes/Qumranites has been discredited. This does not, of course, mean that no correspondence between the two exists. It does. But it appears on a superficial level, in the employment of religious language, ideas and biblical proof-texts shared among them and all the other branches of first-century Judaism. The problem is that the slew of authors misinterepret similarity as evidence of shared identity... --Loremaster 01:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- and all the other branches of first-century Judaism Eh? So what, that in no way diminishes the Ebionite-Essene link. --Michael C. Price talk 08:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. But these similarities are no valid basis to claim any identity between Essenes, Christians, Zealotes etc. ... and Eisenman used them as such. Str1977 (smile back) 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- In your opinion, which is irrelevant since we should just be reporting published opinions. --Michael C. Price talk 19:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- In your opinion, which is irrelevant since we should just be reporting published opinions. Str1977 (smile back) 12:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pathetic. I was citing policy, you were spouting an opinion. Get it right. --Michael C. Price talk 13:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- So? Really? I was just explaining Loremaster's point to you to which you reacted by quoting policy? Laughable! Why did you quote policy? To tells us something we already know or to silence those disagreeing with us. Also, it is funny that only those that don't agree with you have opinions - while your utterances are either "policy", "the (one part of secondary) sources (you agree with)". Why not just state that you are the defender of truth we all are little ugly miserable heretics to your orthodoxy. Str1977 (smile back) 17:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I quote policy precisely because you don't know it. You are still claiming we should "show" things to be true instead of just reporting them. --Michael C. Price talk 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- So? Really? I was just explaining Loremaster's point to you to which you reacted by quoting policy? Laughable! Why did you quote policy? To tells us something we already know or to silence those disagreeing with us. Also, it is funny that only those that don't agree with you have opinions - while your utterances are either "policy", "the (one part of secondary) sources (you agree with)". Why not just state that you are the defender of truth we all are little ugly miserable heretics to your orthodoxy. Str1977 (smile back) 17:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pathetic. I was citing policy, you were spouting an opinion. Get it right. --Michael C. Price talk 13:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- In your opinion, which is irrelevant since we should just be reporting published opinions. Str1977 (smile back) 12:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- In your opinion, which is irrelevant since we should just be reporting published opinions. --Michael C. Price talk 19:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. But these similarities are no valid basis to claim any identity between Essenes, Christians, Zealotes etc. ... and Eisenman used them as such. Str1977 (smile back) 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- and all the other branches of first-century Judaism Eh? So what, that in no way diminishes the Ebionite-Essene link. --Michael C. Price talk 08:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, cite him, but remember that whether we accept Eisenman's theories in total is not point. Eisenman was not the first make the John the Baptist-Essene link, so independently of Eisenman we have strong link between the Ebionites and Essenes -- unless we deny the influence of John the Baptist on the Ebionites. There is also the Qumranite self-designation "The Poor" to consider. And the vegetarianism of the Qumranites and John the Baptist - as he appears in the Ebionite gospel. Epiphanius notes the similarities between the Samaritans and the Ebionites in their custom of ritual purification bathing -- a trait shared with the occupants of Qumran. All these points have been noted by a slew of authors, not just Eisenman. --Michael C. Price talk 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I found a great review of Eisenman's "James the Brother of Jesus" in John Painter's book, "Just James - The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition". Eisenman's book came out shortly before Painter's, and he felt obligated to include a review in an Excursus. This is an excerpt of the review: "Eisenman's book on James is both erudite and eccentric. Not only are the conclusions at variance with mainstream scholarship, but his methods of handling evidence and developing arguments are also different from those employed by mainstream scholars. Perhaps this is why there has been little dialogue between Eisenman and other critical treatments of the subject." A long and detailed point-by-point review follows. Ovadyah 02:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good. --Loremaster 07:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Michael raises a good point that should be considered when evaluating the merits of authors and sources. Even though most of Eisenman's theories have been rejected by the majority of scholars, that doesn't automatically mean that everything he says is junk. We should be careful to evaluate individual works on their merits through the reviews of other scholars. Ovadyah 02:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. However, my comments were not focusing on Eisenman's specific theories but on Essene-Christians theories in general regardless of the author or the number of authors. --Loremaster 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Loremaster. Str1977 (smile back) 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Vermes can not be cited against the Essene origin theories. He actually supports the idea; his criticism is much more specifically against claims that Jesus, James and Paul are portrayed in the scrolls. He says: More precisely, in some organizational, administrative and cultic respects it is probable that the nascent Jewish-Christian Church modelled itself on Essenism (or whatever name is to be used for the Dead Sea sect). Such views represent common knowledge among scholars investigating the relationship between the Qumran community and Christianity, --Michael C. Price talk 22:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please take care not to overinterpret Vermes comments. Saying that "in some ... respects it is probable that the nascent Jewish-Christian Church modelled itself on Essenism" is not saying Essenes = Ebionites. That they were influenced by them in some way does not prove a direct relationship, ie. despite Eisenman's claims, it is not a "fact" that the Ebionites are equivalent to or derive from the Essenes. Therefore, a question mark is justified. The Essenism section, as it reads presently, contains statements that are patently false. Ovadyah 12:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ovadyah, the Vermes cite did not imply that Essenes = Ebionites -- it was left to the other sources to highlight the specific influence of the Essenes on the Ebionites. What sentences did you regard as patently false? --Michael C. Price talk 13:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Michael, the first two sentences strongly imply a direct causal link. If you can reword them in line with Vermes, I'm fine with it. I would prefer that you handle it. Ovadyah 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can see that instead of "link" I should say something more like "influenced by". Is that what you have in mind? --Michael C. Price talk 17:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, "influenced by" would be much better. Ovadyah 19:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can see that instead of "link" I should say something more like "influenced by". Is that what you have in mind? --Michael C. Price talk 17:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- "the Vermes cite did not implies (sic) that Essenes = Ebionites -- it was left to the other sources to highlight the specific influence of the Essenes on the Ebionites."
- Then why did you cite it under that header? We quote scholars where they have something to say, not where they don't (or rather say the contrary). Str1977 (smile back) 14:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- As I have explained below, it was provide background about Essene influences in general. Why are you so obsessed with not providing context for the general reader? --Michael C. Price talk 15:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I could ask why are you so obsessed with providing off-topic stuff. And note: you do more as you try to use Vermes to support what he doesn't. Str1977 (smile back) 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I could ask why are you so obsessed with claiming stuff to be off-topic when the sources don't agree. --Michael C. Price talk 17:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I could ask why are you so obsessed with providing off-topic stuff. And note: you do more as you try to use Vermes to support what he doesn't. Str1977 (smile back) 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- As I have explained below, it was provide background about Essene influences in general. Why are you so obsessed with not providing context for the general reader? --Michael C. Price talk 15:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Michael, the first two sentences strongly imply a direct causal link. If you can reword them in line with Vermes, I'm fine with it. I would prefer that you handle it. Ovadyah 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ovadyah, the Vermes cite did not imply that Essenes = Ebionites -- it was left to the other sources to highlight the specific influence of the Essenes on the Ebionites. What sentences did you regard as patently false? --Michael C. Price talk 13:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Ovadyah. Michael you are overinterpreting him. He says the Christians modelled some elements after the Essene/Qumranite example. He doesn't say that they sprang from the Essenes/Qumranites.
- He is not saying Essenes are Christians, let alone Essenes are Ebionites.
- Also remember, we are not to restrospectively transport the name "Ebionite" or "Nazarene" into earlier times. They are attested in the 2nd century, not before.
- Also, I wondered what purpose the following passage served: "Theories linking the Essenes, Qumran and the Dead Sea scrolls to the early Christians are mainstream within the biblical scholarship community"
- - this is true but what has it got to do with the Ebionites/Nazarenes/Christians? It simply says that scholarly consensus identifies the sect present at Qumran and present in the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Essenes known from various ancient writers. There are some problems with that identification but it is the best option around, presenting much fewer problems than the alternatives. But again, what has this to do with Ebionites? Str1977 (smile back) 12:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- The sentence serves as an introduction for the general reader before getting into the details of what Ebionite scholars cited believe. --Michael C. Price talk 13:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Still not needed. At best a "Eisenman identifies the Essenes/Qumran sect (footnote: for the identifcition see ...) with early Christians is warranted. Str1977 (smile back) 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that the lead in is needed. Many readers will not be aware that Vermes' position is mainstream. --Michael C. Price talk 14:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't require a lead. If you think an addition that Vermes is mainstream, I do not object. I object to silly inclusions of off-topic issues that serve no reason in this article. Str1977 (smile back) 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is not silly and off-topic to mention the mainstream view of the Essene influences on early Christianity before moving on discuss the Ebionites specifically. --Michael C. Price talk 14:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- But you don't do that. Your version talked about the relation (i.e. identity) of Essenes and the Qumran sect, which is totally off-topic here. Str1977 (smile back) 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Off topic to your POV, not as far as the other sources cited are concerned. Ergo it gets reported. --Michael C. Price talk 17:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- But you don't do that. Your version talked about the relation (i.e. identity) of Essenes and the Qumran sect, which is totally off-topic here. Str1977 (smile back) 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is not silly and off-topic to mention the mainstream view of the Essene influences on early Christianity before moving on discuss the Ebionites specifically. --Michael C. Price talk 14:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- PS. "However, many theories linking the Essenes, Qumran and the Dead Sea scrolls to the early Christians have been discredited while others remain controversial within the biblical scholarship community." - this wording does not require an addition that Vermes is mainstream and in fact only makes sense since he is mainstream, as he is the reference for the mainstream view that the POVs you want to push are rubbish. You OTOH, I suspect, want to quote him in a way that wants hide this fact (since you also constantly remove it) or even wants Vermes to in a way endorse the rubbish claims to some extent. But this will not do. Str1977 (smile back) 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again: No, if you read Vermes you will see that the view that he is rubbishing the one that Paul, Jesus et al are represented in the DS scrolls. I have no interest in these views. Okay? --Michael C. Price talk 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I did not say that you were pushing the Eisenman POV. You however do apparently want to use Vermes to push something that he doesn't say either, namely the Christians are Essenes view (a phantasy from the dark 18th century). And no neither he does say that the Christians developed from the Essenes nor does he vouch for any mainstream view that espousest that. Str1977 (smile back) 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Of course he doesn't. And how does using him to provide context support that?? Show where the sentence it was embedded in supports anything that Vermes does not say. --Michael C. Price talk 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, did you not put Vermes to introduce a section about Essene-Christian link? Did you not make him state that some links are mainstream (an overstatement of what he is saying but basically not inaccurate) - and then proceeded to more extreme theories (without indicating that move) and without reporting Vermes judgement on these? As you put it, Vermes indirectly endorsed the these theories. Well, not any more. If that was all unintentional you will be accepting my rewording of it. If so, at least that issue is closed. Str1977 (smile back) 17:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- (without indicating that move) - I cited Vermes and then cited the others sources for the more specific views. --Michael C. Price talk 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, did you not put Vermes to introduce a section about Essene-Christian link? Did you not make him state that some links are mainstream (an overstatement of what he is saying but basically not inaccurate) - and then proceeded to more extreme theories (without indicating that move) and without reporting Vermes judgement on these? As you put it, Vermes indirectly endorsed the these theories. Well, not any more. If that was all unintentional you will be accepting my rewording of it. If so, at least that issue is closed. Str1977 (smile back) 17:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Of course he doesn't. And how does using him to provide context support that?? Show where the sentence it was embedded in supports anything that Vermes does not say. --Michael C. Price talk 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I did not say that you were pushing the Eisenman POV. You however do apparently want to use Vermes to push something that he doesn't say either, namely the Christians are Essenes view (a phantasy from the dark 18th century). And no neither he does say that the Christians developed from the Essenes nor does he vouch for any mainstream view that espousest that. Str1977 (smile back) 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again: No, if you read Vermes you will see that the view that he is rubbishing the one that Paul, Jesus et al are represented in the DS scrolls. I have no interest in these views. Okay? --Michael C. Price talk 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't require a lead. If you think an addition that Vermes is mainstream, I do not object. I object to silly inclusions of off-topic issues that serve no reason in this article. Str1977 (smile back) 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that the lead in is needed. Many readers will not be aware that Vermes' position is mainstream. --Michael C. Price talk 14:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Still not needed. At best a "Eisenman identifies the Essenes/Qumran sect (footnote: for the identifcition see ...) with early Christians is warranted. Str1977 (smile back) 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- The sentence serves as an introduction for the general reader before getting into the details of what Ebionite scholars cited believe. --Michael C. Price talk 13:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
More external sources
Ebionites
The first is in English and can be found here: http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/ebionites.php
- EBIONITES. This designation was at first, like "Nazarenes," a common name for all Christians, as Epiphanius (d. 403) testifies (Adv. Haer., xxix. 1). It is derived from the Hebrew [Hebrew text omitted] "poor," and was not given, as Origen supposes, in reference to their low views of Christ, but to their own poverty. This poverty, especially characteristic of the Christians of Jerusalem, evoked from the Pagan and Jewish world the contemptuous appellation of "the poor." Minutius Felix says, "That we are called the poor is not our disgrace, but our glory" (Octav., 36). Subsequently its application was limited to Jewish Christians. "The Jews who accept Christ are called Ebionites," writes Origen (c. Cels., II. 1). Then, when a portion of the Jewish Church became separate and heretical, the designation was used exclusively of it. Later in the fourth century Epiphanius, Jerome, and others use it of a separate party within the Jewish Church distinct from the Nazarenes. This outline of history proves that Tertullian was wrong when he derived the term from a pretended founder of the sect called Ebion.
- The notices in the early fathers are fragmentary, and at times seem to be contradictory on account of the double application of the term, now to Jewish Christianity as a whole, now only to a party within it. The New Testament knows of no sects in the Jewish Church, but indicates the existence of different tendencies. At the Council of Jerusalem a legalistic and Judaizing spirit manifested itself, which was in antagonism to the spirit of Paul, and was shown in the Judaiziug teachings which did so much mischief in the Galatian churches. But it was not until after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the founding of Aelia Capitolina by Hadrian, in 134, that Jewish Christianity became a distinct school, gradually becoming more and more heretical till it separated into the two sects of Ebionites proper and Nazarenes. The latter still held to Paul as an apostle, and, while they kept the law themselves, did not demand its observance of the Gentile Christians. The former held the observance of the law to be obligatory upon all Christians alike, and rejected Paul as an apostate. This was the state of affairs at the time of Justin Martyr (Dial. c. Tryph., 47). Irenaeus, who does not mention this party division, describes the Ebionites as stubbornly clinging to the law, as rejecting the apostle Paul as an apostate, and all the Gospels except Matthew. He further notices a christological heresy. Denying Christ's birth from the Virgin, they regarded him as a mere man. Origen (c. Cels., V. 61) distinguishes between two branches of Ebionites, - those who denied and those who accepted the miraculous birth. Here he distinction between Nazarenes and the Ebionites proper becomes apparent. In the later fathers, as Jerome, Epiphanius, etc., the notices are more frequent; but nothing is added to our knowledge except that the [p.685] Ebionites were chiliasts (Jerome ad. Esdr., 35, 1). In Epiphanius' day (d. 403) they dwelt principally in the regions along the Dead Sea, but also in Rome and Cyprus. The disintegration of Jewish Christianity was consummated by the introduction of Gnostic philosophy, of Greek culture, as also, perhaps, of Oriental theosophy. See the art. ELKESAITES.
- G. Uhlhorn, "EBIONITES," Philip Schaff, ed., A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 3rd edn., Vol. 2. Toronto, New York & London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1894. pp.684-685.
The second is in German and can unfortunately not be linked through the worldwideweb, but I have copied it unto my talk page and will give a (rough) translation here:
- Ebionites, a term used in Christian heresiologies since Irenause (adv. haer. 1, 26, 2) denoting the Jewish Christianity grown from the Jerusalem Urgemeinde, which after the exodus of 66/67 AD degenerated (the German term "Rückbildung" is less derogatory) into a sect. The derivation of the name from a heresiarch Ebion (Tertullian, Epiphanius) is based on fiction; it propably goes back to a honarary title of the Jerusalem congregation (the poor = ptôchoi, 'æbjônîm; see Rom 15, 26; Gal 2, 10), who then could draw links to the self-given term of pious Jewish circles (aside from Ps 25, 9; 68, 11 especially PsSal 10, 6; 15, 1; 1 QpHab XII, 3.6.10) and the Macarisms of Jesus (Mt 5, 3; Lk 6, 20) (see poverty: I,2).
- The actual scope of the term E. of course remains unclear, since the contradictory accounts of the Church Fathers (primarily Epihanius, Panarion 30) allow no clear distinction to other heresy-names (e.g. Nazorenas, Elchesaites). Also in other respects does the history of the E. remain obscure in many regards. Their theology had no more influence on the development of Christianity, but very well on Islam. Ebionitic literature encompasses apart from fragments of the Gospel of the Ebionits primarily certain passages of the Pseudo-Clementines (Kerygma of Peter), as well as the work of Symmachus (Schoeps). The Church Fathers accuse the E. of christological heresy (rejection of the virgin birht; Christology II, 1b) and heretical legalism. Other attributes are: rejection of the whole sacricifical and sacerdotial institutions, polemics against the Samaritans, against John the Baptist and especially against Paul, furthermore a tendentious textual criticism: the E. used a Pentateuch cleansed from "false pericopes" as well as a reworked Gospel of Matthew (Gospel of the Ebionites). They knoew ritual bathings (baptism: II), communual meals (with bread and salt - maybe a old custom of the Urgemeinde) and a strict arcane disciple. The process of degeneration (the German term "Rückbildung" is less derogatory) into a heretical sect is linked with the fact, that the transjordan Jewish Christianity opened itself to all kinds of gnostic-syncretist and Jewish influences. One will have to link the E. with widespread gnostic baptism movement in Syria and Palestine; the strong connections of their thoughts with those of the Essene sect of Qumran is obvious. Possibly remnants of the sect of Qumran have merged into ebionitic groups east of the Jordan after the desaster of 70 AD.
- H. J. SCHOEPS, Theol. u. Gesch. des Judenchristentums, 1949 (Lit.) – S. G. F. BRANDON, The [Ebioniten. Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, S. 7435 (vgl. RGG Bd. 2, S. 297-298) (c) J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de/band12.htm ]
- Thank you for the translation. The German encyclopedic source raises the issue of the role of the Ebionites in the origin of Islam. This should be expanded in the Legacy section. I think we had a brief sentence that was removed with the Schoeps reference. Ovadyah 02:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. --Michael C. Price talk 05:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the translation. The German encyclopedic source raises the issue of the role of the Ebionites in the origin of Islam. This should be expanded in the Legacy section. I think we had a brief sentence that was removed with the Schoeps reference. Ovadyah 02:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've restored the mention of the role of the Ebionites in the origin of Islam but a new citation is needed since no one has read Schoeps to confirm that he explored the issue. --Loremaster 21:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There is another article on the Gospel of the Ebionites but I think this is enough for now. Str1977 (smile back) 13:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The off-topic issue of Simeon of Jerusalem
For a secondary source on Simone, see http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/simeon_v_j.shtml (German)
Tagging the article
Perhaps my previous words of caution were too subtle. Featured articles do not need "cleanup" or any other disputed tags. If you disagree with the content or layout of the article, that's why we have a talk page and a /wip page to try things out. I will take anyone that tags this article to AN/I and have you blocked. Ovadyah 14:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot about the fact that it is a featured article (though how this came about is beyond me). The "history" section will nonetheless require a clean-up some time soon. Str1977 (smile back) 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem. Ovadyah 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly agree. The History section needs a clean-up to better differentiate facts from speculations. The introductory paragraph I added was the first step. --Loremaster 21:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Nitpicking
I am a bit concerned about some elements of the passage:
- "Their name, which had previously been used by the Essenes, is thought to derive from several religious texts, including a verse in the Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."(Matthew 5:3) based on related religious texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones."
- "which had previously been used by the Essenes"
- That's actually not true. The Ebionites are the Ebionites and the Essenes the Essenes and the latter didn't call itself "Ebionites". At best they used the Hebrew expression for "the poor" but that's not quite the same. Also the sentence reads as if that was the name of the Essenes, which it isn't.
- "based on related religious texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones."
- seems like it talks about the Sermon of the Mount. This is quite a bold statement, especially for an intro. It is unreferenced and with no balance. If it talks about the Sermon it is also off topic.
- If however it really wants to refer to the name then it is perfectly okay, but a bit too much for the intro. How about creating a "name" section which deals in depth with name issues while intro remains free of too much detail.
Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 16:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- "based on related religious texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones." was cut-and-pasted from the source provided, so stop claiming it is unreferenced. Okay???
- As for the Essene self-designation, "the Poor" was one of them. We had this conversation a long time when CS was around. --Michael C. Price talk 17:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've edited that bold statement (which I agree with Micheal is referenced) to make it clear that it is the opinion of one scholar (Tabor) rather than a fact (there is no consensus that Matthew 5:3 was based on Isaiah 66:2) and explain what the remant group is being faithful to. --Loremaster 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I read Tabor slightly differently. He's not claiming that Matthew 5:3 is based on Isaiah -- or at least it is not clear that he is. Personally I think we should remove all speculation about the Ebionite name sourcing from the lead.--Michael C. Price talk 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that we should remove the Tabor's speculation. However, the entry on Ebionites in the Jewish Encyclopedia reports the fact that it has always been assumed that their name came from Matthew 5:3., therefore it should stay. --Loremaster 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Such selective quoting does your cause no good. The Jewish Encyclopedia also cites "Luke iv. 18, vii. 22; Matt. xix. 21 et seq., xxvi. 9 et seq.; Luke xix. 8; John xii. 5; Rom. xv. 26; II Cor. vi. 10, viii. 9; Gal. ii. 10; James ii. 5 et seq.)" --Michael C. Price talk 23:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't deny this. This is why the article mentions "several religious texts" but focuses on Luke 6:20 like many secondary sources such the Jewish Encyclopedia does. --Loremaster 16:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Such selective quoting does your cause no good. The Jewish Encyclopedia also cites "Luke iv. 18, vii. 22; Matt. xix. 21 et seq., xxvi. 9 et seq.; Luke xix. 8; John xii. 5; Rom. xv. 26; II Cor. vi. 10, viii. 9; Gal. ii. 10; James ii. 5 et seq.)" --Michael C. Price talk 23:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that we should remove the Tabor's speculation. However, the entry on Ebionites in the Jewish Encyclopedia reports the fact that it has always been assumed that their name came from Matthew 5:3., therefore it should stay. --Loremaster 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I read Tabor slightly differently. He's not claiming that Matthew 5:3 is based on Isaiah -- or at least it is not clear that he is. Personally I think we should remove all speculation about the Ebionite name sourcing from the lead.--Michael C. Price talk 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- As usual I see Loremaster couldn't wait to have a discussion about the above but reverted non-consensually. Well, it will all be changing back, I assure you. --Michael C. Price talk 23:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- *sigh* --Loremaster 21:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- What are you exasperated about? That I should engage in edit-warring with non-consensual editors? Or perhaps you think that you are entitled to make whatever changes you like without discussion, whilst we just sit and watch?--Michael C. Price talk 22:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- What exasperates me (and others I assume) is your generally fanatical approach towards this entire article. In others words, relax. --Loremaster 23:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's right, it's always the other guy that's the fanatic, isn't it? I note you avoided answering the question. --Michael C. Price talk 00:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with so-called "non-consensual" edits when they are minor. --Loremaster 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's right, it's always the other guy that's the fanatic, isn't it? I note you avoided answering the question. --Michael C. Price talk 00:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- What exasperates me (and others I assume) is your generally fanatical approach towards this entire article. In others words, relax. --Loremaster 23:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- What are you exasperated about? That I should engage in edit-warring with non-consensual editors? Or perhaps you think that you are entitled to make whatever changes you like without discussion, whilst we just sit and watch?--Michael C. Price talk 22:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- *sigh* --Loremaster 21:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- All claims about the origin of the Ebionite name should be removed from the lead, since it is too tightly bound up with the disputed history of the Ebionites themselves. There is no unanimity about about the name, with origin theories ranging from Isaiah, various NT passages, the Essenes, as an eponym from their founder (which has been lost from the article), "the poor in spirit". An interesting subject for the article, but not for the lead. --Michael C. Price talk 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- For once, I agree with you. I've completely deleted such speculation and replaced with a different text focusing on the history of the term. --Loremaster 16:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- It looks much better, although I still don't like the "due to their poverty".--Michael C. Price talk 22:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Working on it. --Loremaster 23:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for neutralizing the Pauline POV in the earlier version of the paragraph since I was planning on doing just that today. --Loremaster 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- And thank you for making the point that all early Christians were originally called Ebionites -- I was going to raise that, but you beat me to it.--Michael C. Price talk 19:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for neutralizing the Pauline POV in the earlier version of the paragraph since I was planning on doing just that today. --Loremaster 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Working on it. --Loremaster 23:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- It looks much better, although I still don't like the "due to their poverty".--Michael C. Price talk 22:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- For once, I agree with you. I've completely deleted such speculation and replaced with a different text focusing on the history of the term. --Loremaster 16:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- As usual I see Loremaster couldn't wait to have a discussion about the above but reverted non-consensually. Well, it will all be changing back, I assure you. --Michael C. Price talk 23:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Praise for the Ebionites article
Mark Goodacre recently dropped me a note and said he liked the article. For those who don't know, Mark is a renowned scholar in NT studies at Duke U. He is perhaps best known for his work on Synoptic Problem (The Case Against Q). It's nice to know we have the attention of academics in the field. I invited Mark to work with us to further improve the article. Ovadyah 14:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good. If true, this can used as one of many arguments for why Ebionites was chosen to be a featured article. --Loremaster 16:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- If true? I sent you the email of our correspondence, so I guess you can decide for yourself if it's true. Ovadyah 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, I believe you. I was just being careful. --Loremaster 22:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Religious vegetarianism redux
Loremaster or Michael, what is the evidence that the Qumran community practiced strict vegetarianism? The Temple Scroll clearly anticipates a future temple with animal sacrifices. Are we confounding JTB with the Essenes? Ovadyah 14:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Archeology - the absence of animal bones from the Qumran site. --Michael C. Price talk 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Although there might be some, I am not aware of any evidence beyond the speculation found in some questionable secondary sources. --Loremaster 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of JTB, "locusts" are obviously not vegetables either. Although the Gospel of the Ebionites says JTB ate "cakes" with wild honey, Epiphanius denounces this small change in wording (akris to egkris) as a corruption of scripture.
It so happened that John was baptizing, and Pharisees
and all Jerusalem went out to him and got baptized. And John wore clothes made of camel hair and had a leather belt around his waist. His food, it says, consisted of raw honey that tasted like manna, like a pancake cooked with oil. Thus they change the word of truth into a lie and
instead of ‘locusts’ they put ‘pancake cooked with honey.’
Who is left then among the Essenes that is a strict vegetarian? Ovadyah 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- The point is that the Ebionites portrayed JTB as a vegie. That Epiphanius should denounce this is hardly surprising, but does nothing to tell us who was telling the truth, Ebionites or the others. Although the archeology supports the Ebionite gospel -- unless we doubt JTB's Essene origins. --Michael C. Price talk 18:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Putting aside the fact that John the Baptist's Essene origins are very much in doubt in mainstream biblical scholarship, what archaeologic evidence supports 1) the notion that Qumran Essenes were vegetarians; and 2) any claims made in the Gospel of the Ebionites? --Loremaster 21:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- 1) as I said - the absence of animal bones from the Qumran site, post BCE 31.
- 2) ?? do we need archeology to report text?
- --Michael C. Price talk 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- 1) Is there is a consensus that such an absence is sufficient to definitely declare that the Quramn community were vegetarians?
- 2) You said: Although the archeology supports the Ebionite gospel. What did you mean exactly?
- --Loremaster 22:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- 1) Not sure - I must check.
- 2) dependent on 1) --Michael C. Price talk 22:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- 1) OK.
- 2) Non-sequitur.
- --Loremaster 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Archaeological evidence of animal bones at Qumaran (with pictures to prove it). [2] [3] Darn those pesky animal bones. Ovadyah 22:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the files -- pre BCE 31, I note.--Michael C. Price talk 00:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. This supports my point that we have to be careful not to report some claims as facts when they may not be. --Loremaster 22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Putting aside the fact that John the Baptist's Essene origins are very much in doubt in mainstream biblical scholarship, what archaeologic evidence supports 1) the notion that Qumran Essenes were vegetarians; and 2) any claims made in the Gospel of the Ebionites? --Loremaster 21:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- While the artifacts may be dated to pre-31 BCE, it is also certain that the Qumran community was there prior to 31 BCE. However, what you may not know is that the Qumran settlement was abandoned during the reign of Herod the Great, from about 37 BCE to 4 BCE when, according to Josephus, the Essenes were in favor with Herod. After Herod's death in 4 BCE, the Essenes were crushed by Varus during the civil war that followed and retreated back to Qumran (or someone else did) and reoccupied the settlement. So #1, the bones are there when we can be most certain that the Essenes were there from the paleographic and C14 dating of the sectarian scrolls and #2, there is a lack of evidence for animal bones after 31 BCE because there is no settlement activity at Qumran either. You seem to be clinging to a hypothesis based entirely on an absence of evidence, while at the same time ignoring the evidence in front of you. Ovadyah 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, I am trying to dig up the source I recall where an archeologist at Qumran made the statement about no bones implying that the occupants were veggies. Unfortunately I didn't make a note of it at the time, since it seemed so definitive. One possibly is that the later occupants differed in practice from the earlier occupants (was it the same sect that moved back to Qumran?) -- beliefs and practices do evolve. The other possibility is that the report I'm trying to recall was actually about the Essenes who lived in the cliffs above En Gedi (who are a better geographical match for Pliny the Elder's vegetarian Essenes). See, for instance, Ten years ago, I believed that the Essenes had lived at Qumran; but so did all the other scholars of the era, being dependent on what little info we could get from the Vatican team that held the scrolls. In fact, as Hirshfeld has demonstrated, Qumran was a Rabinical school associated with mainstream Judaism, not with the Essenes. He also points out that the Essenes who lived in the cliffs above En Gedi were historically described as being vegetarians, and that his excavations of that location confirm that the residents were, indeed, vegetarian, as not a single bone was found. In contrast, Qumran excavations turned up tens of thousands of animal bones, and evidence of animal sacrifice, which the Essenes were known to abhor. --Michael C. Price talk 08:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- While the artifacts may be dated to pre-31 BCE, it is also certain that the Qumran community was there prior to 31 BCE. However, what you may not know is that the Qumran settlement was abandoned during the reign of Herod the Great, from about 37 BCE to 4 BCE when, according to Josephus, the Essenes were in favor with Herod. After Herod's death in 4 BCE, the Essenes were crushed by Varus during the civil war that followed and retreated back to Qumran (or someone else did) and reoccupied the settlement. So #1, the bones are there when we can be most certain that the Essenes were there from the paleographic and C14 dating of the sectarian scrolls and #2, there is a lack of evidence for animal bones after 31 BCE because there is no settlement activity at Qumran either. You seem to be clinging to a hypothesis based entirely on an absence of evidence, while at the same time ignoring the evidence in front of you. Ovadyah 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Very interesting. We need to get a copy of Hirshfeld. Ovadyah 11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for being open-minded about it. --Michael C. Price talk 12:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Very interesting. We need to get a copy of Hirshfeld. Ovadyah 11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This is what I have been able to find so far:
"Dr. Hirschfeld, of the Hebrew University, recently invited reporters to see 25 spartan stone cubicles above Ein Gedi [35 kilometers south of Qumran], which he suggested had been the Essene settlement rather than the Qumran location hitherto regarded as such....What Hirshfeld found in the past month's dig was a cluster of 22 detached cells measuring 2 x 3 meters. Each cell, he believes, constituted a habitat for one person. The cells were built of rough assemblages of stones, including large boulders. Roofless now, they would have been covered in antiquity with palm fronds. Beaten earth served as flooring. In addition, there were three cells, twice the size of the others, which Hirschfeld suggests served communal purposes such as cooking." - Abraham Rabinovich, "A new 'address' for the Essenes ", Jerusalem Post, February 4, 1998
Dr. Hirschfeld bases his opinion that Ein Gedi was the original site of the Essenes on a passage from Pliny.
"On the west side of the Dead Sea, but out of range of the noxious exhalations of the coast, is the solitary tribe of the Essenes , which is remarkable beyond all the other tribes in the whole word, as it has no women and has renounced all sexual desire, has no money , and has only palm-trees for company."
- Pliny the Elder (23 C.E?-79 C.E.)
"Tiny cells only large enough to house one man each point to an abstinent and austere existence. What seems to be a mikveh, or Jewish ritual bath, lends credence to his theory as well, according to Hirschfeld...Moreover, the excavation turned up no evidence of animal bones -- suggesting vegetarianism, which would have been highly unusual at the time." - Ilene Prusher, "Archaeologist says new site casts doubt on Essenes' role", newsday.com
I find two small problems with this information. #1, Ein Gedi is 35 km from Qumaran, ie. not in proximity to the caves. #2, not finding animal bones in the cluster of cells does not "prove" the occupants were vegetarian. That is an argument from silence. However, Hirschfeld did make that suggestion. Ovadyah 13:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- The distance would weaken the Qumran-Essene link (which is disputed), but not the Essene-Ebionite link.
- The archaeological argument for vegetarianism is always going to be an argument from absence. Also I think we can assume that Hirschfeld is not an idiot and has examined midden piles in addition to their cells.
- I am more disturbed by the absence of explicit vegetarianism in the Pliny quote -- was it perhaps Philo who says the Essenes are veggies? --Michael C. Price talk 14:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's more info on what Hirshfeld did find:
"The spartan cluster evokes comparison to the lauras, or clusters of Christian hermits, that dotted other parts of the Judean Desert in the Byzantine period a few centuries later. The month-long excavation produced no finds, except for a few pottery shards and part of a tiny glass bottle..."
"Hirschfeld says that the spartan facilities contrast starkly with the settlement at Qumran. The more luxurious living there does not square with the austere existence of the Essenes. 'Qumran doesn't fit the character of the Essenes -- it seems like a fortified manor house,' says Hirschfeld, who readily concedes that his theory runs counter to most scholars' positions on the issue."
- Abraham Rabinovich, "A new 'address' for the Essenes ", Jerusalem Post, February 4, 1998
"Pottery found in the cells is of a type that existed in the A.D. 70-100 period, a period when Roman historians such as Josephus Flavius and Pliny the Elder wrote about the Essenes. A glass perfume bottle found in one of the cells supports the idea that the Essenes made perfume. So do the remnants of a perfume factory in the valley below." - Associated Press, January 26, 1998
Note that Hirschfeld found only pottery shards and part of a tiny perfume bottle at the site, and that the pottery dates to 70 - 100 CE. That's hardly convincing archaeological evidence of Essene habitation in the first century BCE or concurrent with JTB. Ovadyah 14:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- What else would you expect to find from an ascetic community?
- Not sure what you mean by JTB. According to Josephus there were Essene communities scattered up and down Palestine/Judea -- finding archaeological evidence that places JTB at one and not the others is not very likely. --Michael C. Price talk 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- So, after everything I have shown you about what Hirschfeld said, your'e down to the argument of finding nothing as a proof of an ascetic community of vegetarian Essenes. By my reference to JTB, I mean there has to be some kind of concurrence of time and place between JTB and the Essenes that matter for our purposes. People living in a settlement in 70 - 100 CE can't have an influence on pre-70 CE Nazarenes/Ebionites living in Jerusalem. In summary, the archaeological evidence supporting your claims is non-existent, and Hirshfeld's speculation about vegetarianism was a passing remark. Feel free to cite that he mentioned it, but beyond that, you need to provide convincing evidence, aside from nothingness, that is proof of existence. Ovadyah 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- You may deride my position as arguing from absence, I don't care -- just look at what Hirschfeld said -- although quite what positive archaeological evidence vegetarianism would leave behind, and that you're demanding, is not clear to me. Think about it terms of Popperian falsifiability-- the vegetarian hypothesis is falsifiable (by the discovery of bones) whilst the meat-eating hypothesis is not falsifiable (without relying on the absence of evidence argument that you denigrate) -- therefore it is your position that is unscientific, not mine.
- As for the concurrence issue, I thought I had already made it clear that the JTB-as-Essene is not contingent on JTB actually being at or influenced by Ein Gedi specifically. Palestine was littered with Essene communities, according to Josephus. The point about Ein Gedi being a vegetarian community is that it suggests that other Essene communities were as well; hence JTB's reported vegetarianism may have an Essene origin. --Michael C. Price talk 19:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- PS as for the "passing remark", Hirschfeld was making it back in 1998 [4] and repeats it here. --Michael C. Price talk 19:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- So, after everything I have shown you about what Hirschfeld said, your'e down to the argument of finding nothing as a proof of an ascetic community of vegetarian Essenes. By my reference to JTB, I mean there has to be some kind of concurrence of time and place between JTB and the Essenes that matter for our purposes. People living in a settlement in 70 - 100 CE can't have an influence on pre-70 CE Nazarenes/Ebionites living in Jerusalem. In summary, the archaeological evidence supporting your claims is non-existent, and Hirshfeld's speculation about vegetarianism was a passing remark. Feel free to cite that he mentioned it, but beyond that, you need to provide convincing evidence, aside from nothingness, that is proof of existence. Ovadyah 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's obvious to me you don't care. Evidence (or a lack of it) and rational arguments have no impact whatever. I feel like I'm arguing with NazareneMystic. There should be evidence of "middens" as you call them whether they were vegetarians or not. Every settlement leaves it's garbage somewhere. So, the meat eating hypothesis is falsifiable. Hirschfeld didn't report finding any. That means there is no data one way or the other, ie. nothing on which to draw a conclusion about the diet of the people at the settlement. You are interpreting an absence of evidence as evidence of absence, which is about as unscientific as it gets. By your reasoning, Essene communities must have existed, not only all over Palestine, but all over the earth. We could travel almost anywhere, dig down to the appropriate strata, and find - nothing, thus proving their existence. Ovadyah 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Here are Hirschfeld's remarks from 1999:
While the site yielded a fairly rich collection of pottery vessels, glass sherds, and seven coins from the early Roman and Byzantine eras, it is most remarkable for its lack of animal bones. "Although we worked carefully, sifting everything, we didn't find any," says Hirschfeld, adding that the settlers might have been vegetarian. Although Josephus noted that the dietary restrictions of the Essenes were stringent, the nearby village appears not to have been bound by vegetarianism. "We've found 4,000 animal bones in the village of Ein Gedi," he notes. Judaism has historically advocated vegetarianism only occasionally for ascetic reasons or during periods of mourning. Excavations will continue in the winter of 2000.
As I said before, feel free to report Hirschfeld's remarks, without overstating their implications, which you have a chronic habit of doing. Ovadyah 20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wading through all your bluster: So, the meat eating hypothesis is falsifiable. So what evidence in a midden falsifies meat eating?--Michael C. Price talk 21:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- 4,000 bones in the village, none at the presumed Essene site. So who's over-interpreting the evidence and who's rationalising? --Michael C. Price talk 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Seeds and seed pods, Michael. The presence of seeds and pods along with the absence of bones makes for a compelling argument. Seeds were discovered at Masada this year which were radiocarbon dated to the mid-first century. They were able to get one to germinate, and they are growing the plant. I recently saw evidence of carbonized seeds from cooking fires in the area of Sodom that date to pre-1000 BCE. I respect arguments based on evidence. Ovadyah 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know whether to laugh or cry. As I suspected you have completely failed to grasp the entire argument.
- Seeds and seed pods do not falsify the meat eating hypothesis. Meat eaters usually eat vegetables as well.
- the absence of bones --- exactly what I was saying...... so your point is?
- --Michael C. Price talk 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know whether to laugh or cry. As I suspected you have completely failed to grasp the entire argument.
- Seeds and seed pods, Michael. The presence of seeds and pods along with the absence of bones makes for a compelling argument. Seeds were discovered at Masada this year which were radiocarbon dated to the mid-first century. They were able to get one to germinate, and they are growing the plant. I recently saw evidence of carbonized seeds from cooking fires in the area of Sodom that date to pre-1000 BCE. I respect arguments based on evidence. Ovadyah 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- My point is that the combination of the presence of seeds and pods along with the absence of bones in cooking fires or middens is much more convincing than finding nothing. Obviously, the joint presence of seeds and bones just proves they had a varied diet. I think you're just baiting me now. Ovadyah 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, I am not trying to bait you. Your argument, as expressed, has changed a lot and is now more comprehensible, although of course everybody always thinks they were perfectly clear all along. I suspect that the combination of evidence you seek is exactly what Hirschfeld has found -- after all he didn't say that he found no evidence of excreta or food waste at all -- just no animal bones; had he found no food waste/midden piles etc then I think that is how he would have reported it, since that would surely have been more remarkable, but we will need to see a more complete report to ascertain that for sure.--Michael C. Price talk 23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- My point is that the combination of the presence of seeds and pods along with the absence of bones in cooking fires or middens is much more convincing than finding nothing. Obviously, the joint presence of seeds and bones just proves they had a varied diet. I think you're just baiting me now. Ovadyah 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I'm looking forward to reading it. Ovadyah 00:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's another little datum on the Essene / vegetarian issue to further cloud the issue. According to Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at Qumran, whilst reviewing Yizhar Hirschfeld's book "Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological evidence"[5], states that Qumran is unique in that it is the only Dead Sea site to have animal bone deposits. The bone-free Dead Sea sites she lists as Masada, Herodium Jericho, Ein Gedi, Ein Boqeq, Ein Feshkha, Kallirrhoe, Machaerus. She denies that the ancient writers describe the Essenes as vegetarians, saying that this is based on an over-literal description of the Essenes, by Josephus, as leading a "Pythagorean way of life" -- thus, she claims, Qumran was Essene precisely because its inhabitants were not vegetarians, whilst Hirschfeld claims the cave dwelling En Gedians were Essenes precisely because they were vegetarians.--Michael C. Price talk 00:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's the critical passage from Magness' review:
To interpret Qumran as anything but a sectarian settlement, Hirschfeld, Zangenberg, and
others must explain away each one of the anomalous features, often with interpretations that are far-fetched and unsubstantiated. For example, according to Hirschfeld, the animal-bone deposits prove that the inhabitants could not have been Essenes because the Essenes were vegetarians. Hirschfeld bases this on Josephus's statement that the Essenes lived a 'Pythagorean way of life'; since the Pythagoreans were vegetarians, the Essenes must also have been vegetarians! Hirschfeld is undeterred by the fact that none of our ancient sources describe the Essenes as vegetarians, although they go to great lengths to point out the peculiarities of the Essenes' lifestyle (including their toilet habits!). Hirschfeld's curiously literal and unsupported interpretation of this passage reflects a basic misunderstanding and misuse of Josephus. Josephus (and Philo) described Jewish sects in Greek philosophical terms to make them understandable to Roman readers and to demonstrate the superiority of Judaism over Greco-Roman religions (similar agendas and
biases account for the emphasis these authors place on male celibacy among the Essenes).
She essentially portrays Hirschfeld as a revisionist crank. Ovadyah 14:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- So do the question becomes whether or not we should give his views undue weight? --Loremaster 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- The more research I do into this, the more tenuous I find Hirschfeld's remarks. I regard his views as a fringe position, unless there is better evidence forthcoming. We need to stop throwing assertions into the article as "facts" without doing any investigation first. Ovadyah 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. --Loremaster 16:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever we think of Hirschfeld, I note that Magness seems to agree that all but Qumran were vegetarian -- it's the interpretation of that result that they disagree over. --Michael C. Price talk 18:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I read through Magness' review, and I can't find any statements where she explicitly concludes that the inhabitants of all these other settlements were vegetarian Essenes. Please reproduce those statements as direct quotations here. Ovadyah 18:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Michael, I can't help but notice you're constantly shifting positions like a chameleon. First, you made the absolute statement that archaeology supports a settlement of vegetarian Essenes at Qumran. Then you changed your story to Qumran after 31 BCE, then it was not Qumran but Ein Gedi. Now you're saying a whole group of settlements but not Qumran (Masada, Herodium Jericho, Ein Gedi, Ein Boqeq, Ein Feshkha, Kallirrhoe, Machaerus). I think you have no idea, and you are just grasping at any headlines you happen find on the web. From now on, please bring your evidence here in the form of direct quotations that we can read for ourselves. Ovadyah 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have no problem with changing my mind about things. Glad you noticed.
- I explained that I might be confusing Qumran with Ein Gedi.
- Now you're saying a whole group of settlements but not Qumran (Masada, Herodium Jericho, Ein Gedi, Ein Boqeq, Ein Feshkha, Kallirrhoe, Machaerus) This in no way contradicts my statement about Ein Gedi. And I'm just reporting what Magness said - no animals bones from any Dead Sea site except Qumran.
- No, I will not always provide quotes -- I gave you the PDF link.--Michael C. Price talk 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. But as I said, I read through the PDF file and didn't see what you claim is there. Please provide more clarifcation. Ovadyah 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since you have declared the conversation over I guess there's no point providing any more evidence. Although how anyone can read Magness' review and not come to the same conclusions about their respective positions is beyond me.--Michael C. Price talk 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. But as I said, I read through the PDF file and didn't see what you claim is there. Please provide more clarifcation. Ovadyah 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I don't know that Hirschfeld even discussed the other sites you mentioned, let alone both Hirschfeld and Magness agreeing on them. If you have evidence of this mutual agreement, I would like to read it. BTW, I thought that bones were found in the village of Ein Gedi, just not in proximity to Hirschfeld's excavation of the group of small cells. Ovadyah 21:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I never said Hirschfeld discussed the other sites I mentioned.
- I said seems to agree.
- I said Hirschfeld claims the cave dwelling En Gedians were Essenes precisely because they were vegetarians. Not the villagers - the cave dwellers. When reporting what Magness I said just "Ein Gedi" (as she said), but I assumed (as perhaps Magness did) that this would be understood as a reference to the cave dwellers, not the villagers.--Michael C. Price talk 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ein Gedi is an oasis. There are no caves, certainly none with evidence of sectarian habitation. Ovadyah 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- True, "cells" would have been better than "caves". Thanks for the clarification. --Michael C. Price talk 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ein Gedi is an oasis. There are no caves, certainly none with evidence of sectarian habitation. Ovadyah 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm done with this discussion. It's pointless to attempt to reason with someone with this much attitude and bias. Your entire argument is based on the logical fallacy that nothingness is positive proof of existence. You are determined to push a fringe POV position at all costs, against all evidence to the contrary, without even acknowledging the mainstream scholarly position on the Essenes. Feel free to edit as you like, and I will feel equally free to remove your unsupportable crap from the article. Ovadyah 15:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Fine, go off in a self-righteous huff, despite the fact that I've answered every one of your points. The last time you behaved like this was over the dual role of James the Just as leader of both the Jerusalem church and the Ebionites and their identification by most authorities. Then you promised to go away and come back with evidence that definitively refuted this "rubbish". Still waiting. Evidently you have equally strong and dogmatic feelings about Essene vegetarianism -- whether these views of your are as equally baseless we shall see. --Michael C. Price talk 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are mistaken if you think I have a bias against vegetarianism. Rather, I have equally strong feelings against lying and obfuscation. I produced a quotation of exactly what Pliny said about the Essenes, and pointed out to you that Pliny made no remarks about the Essene's vegetarianism. You made no attempt to correct this mistake in the article, even after several days, so I can only conclude that the statement you inserted into the article was knowingly false. Ovadyah 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- As always you are quick to attribute base motives to others. I would ask you to assume good faith, although I am sure you would see this as another example of my base and mendacious nature. I left the quote in because, for the moment, I am undecided. Pliny says they lived alone with their palm trees -- which some (quite a few actually) authorities (not just Hirschfld, despite what Magness says) interpret as implying vegetarianism. --Michael C. Price talk 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are mistaken if you think I have a bias against vegetarianism. Rather, I have equally strong feelings against lying and obfuscation. I produced a quotation of exactly what Pliny said about the Essenes, and pointed out to you that Pliny made no remarks about the Essene's vegetarianism. You made no attempt to correct this mistake in the article, even after several days, so I can only conclude that the statement you inserted into the article was knowingly false. Ovadyah 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I point out the following example of the type of bad faith editing that you consistently engage in:
Refusal to 'get the point'
In some cases, bad-faith editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement in order to make a point.
Wikipedia is based upon collaborative, good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a wilful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point.
As for my assuming good faith regarding your editing, there is abundant evidence throughout the talk pages of this article that you are not deserving of that consideration. Ovadyah 17:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The Jesus Section
I've been trying to edit the Jesus section in order to restore or edit some content but there seems to be a technical problem preventing me. Is anyone else facing this problem? --Loremaster 15:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not me, although it looks as if it should have some paragraph breaks which don't appear, so perhaps there is something awry.--Michael C. Price talk 19:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- It was a wiki code typo which I fixed. --Loremaster 14:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ovadyah's criticisms
Ovadyah,
If you have any, could you make a list of issues you have with the article beyond the ones regarding the Essenism section. If you don't have any, I will be taking a break from editing the article for next few weeks. --Loremaster 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I will take a thorough look at it this weekend. I want to compare the current article to the article as it was just before the day it was featured. I still have this nagging feeling some things were removed by all the drive-by editors. Rather than insert them, I will bring whatever I find here. Ovadyah 17:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK. --Loremaster 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)