Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2/Archive 1

Opening statements

What changes would you like to see to the content of the Ebionites article?

User:John Carter

• The article should be, as much as possible, based on sources which clearly meet WP:RS standards while not qualifying as "fringe theories" as per WP:FRINGE. I can think of no reasons why any of the existing wikipedia policies and guidelines should not be adhered to in the content of this article.
• An effort should be made, as much as possible, to follow the format of articles on similar groups of perhaps better quality than this one. This would include both main articles on other religious groups in wikipedia as well as encyclopedic articles on the subject in other encyclopediae or reference works. There may not be any particularly similar articles in wikipedia of higher quality (we have only 1 FA main article on a religion, after all) but there are a number of other, extant, reference sources, some of quite high regard, which can be used for this purpose. We are, after all, an encyclopedia, and our encyclopedia article probably should, as much as possible, reproduce most of the content of other recent encyclopedias and other overview works, within the confines of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia.
• We should use, as much as possible, the sources used by other highly regarded works on the topic, as per, more or less, encyclopedic standards. If certain proposals or ideas are too new to be adequately represented in such sources, of course, that is a different situation.
• We should make a concerted effort to determine what, if any, sources are being used to espouse theories or beliefs which may qualify as fringe per wikipedia, and isolate such material in either a section for such content, the main article on the fringe source, or other pages.
• Given the fact that the previous FA may now be recognized as of less than FA quality, I cannot see any reason to automatically return to an article which may, based on the more recently provided evidence, be no closer to FA than this existing version.

User:Michael C Price

• The lead should mention that the Ebionites did not consider Jesus as divine or a "Son of God". We seem to have assumed that readers will understand this.
• Prior to this, they are considered to be part of the Jerusalem church led by the Apostle Peter and later by Jesus' brother, or cousin, James. Where are the sources that claim the Ebionites followed Peter before James?
• it was beyond the Jordan, that the Nazarenes/Ebionites were first recognized as a distinct group when some Jewish Christians receded farther from mainstream Christianity. Where are the sources that claim that the Ebionites "receded" rather than Pauline Christianity?

User:Ovadyah

The following steps are how I would resolve this dispute:

1. Recreate the Ebionites/wip page so that all interested editors can participate. That is the Wiki way.
2. Go back to the FA version as of the day it was featured on the main page. The FA article was stable before this day.
3. Document summaries of historical facts by reliable secondary sources (based directly on primary sources).
4. Document all theories that interpret what may have happened beyond the summaries of historical facts.
5. Distinguish single-source and tiny-minority theories from majority or multiply-attested minority theories.
6. Base all specific content in the main body on reliable secondary sources (no tertiary sources at all).
7. Tertiary sources may be used for summary statements, particularly in the lead. Ideally, they should have secondary references.
8. Specialist encyclopedic sources should be avoided if only specialists have reasonable access to them.
9. All primary sources should be subordinated into references for reliable secondary and tertiary sources, and never stand alone.

User:Ret.Prof

I am keeping an open mind at this point.

User:Astynax

My involvement traces from an old Rfc. My concerns, which I expressed in comments at that time, are 1) that some sources used are minority at best and fringe at worst, 2)some references have been misused to support what appears to be editor synthesis (I had flagged references here which failed verification, though the flags were immediately and inappropriately removed and other instances of this exist), and 3)the article is about a group about which almost nothing is known with certainty. Most scholarly works I have read prominently and repeatedly mention this, but the article at the time I commented gave the impression that there is a wide and firmly supported consensus for its statements when that is usually not the case. Going over it again, I still come away with that impression. • Astynax ^talk 09:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by mediator

Thank you all for clarifying your positions, I think this has been helpful. It would be impossible for a mediation to authorize a return of an article to a version from years ago, even though it was an FA at the time - it was subsequently demoted from FA status, FA standards have changed significantly since then, and there's no indication that all edits since then were unhelpful. Also, mediations cannot manage complete re-writes of articles, that's simply too large a task for this process. I'm going to move on to specific issues now, in the hopes that we can deal with the most significant sentences in contention, and come to agreements about them. By the way, please don't read anything into the order in which I ask for input in these sections, I've just done it alphabetically by userid. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sentence that most needs to be changed

If you were able to add/delete/modify one sentence in this article, what exact change would you make?

User:John Carter

Although I cannot right now produce the sources for this (they are in paper elsewhere) The Encyclopedia of Religions edited by Lindsay Jones was described in multiple sources as being one of the best reference sources of the year when it first came out/ Its statement is found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd edition. To the best of my knowledge, no other sources, with the possible exception of the earlier Eliade Encyclopedia and the Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (both much older) have been given similar praise. It states rather clearly that the Ebionites probably were not one group. Even though the quality of the encyclopedia is not necessarily reflected in the quality of each individual article, I would have to say that that statement should be given much more prominence than it now has, and that, accordingly, the remainder of the content should also be adjusted to that. Regarding Ovadyah's comments below, there are serious questions whether the final quote produced is particulary well-phrased, exactly how applicable it is, whether it might be a violation of WP:SYNTH, and possibly exactly how significant it might be. It does seem to me anyway to be perhaps asserting something which is not necessarily particularly so significant as to be oarticularly relevant to this article. After all, how many groups didn't consider themselves to be a direct continuation of the early Jerusalem church? Yet we do not find such material given the same weight elsewhere.

Hi John. I don't understand, which specific sentence would you like to add, delete or modify? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably the best single location is the second paragraph of "Name." The usage of the term by modern scholars is I believe inherently biased, given the fact that it does not seem to differentiate between reliable, non-fringe modern sources and more reputable sources; also, it seems to overlook and perhaps actively ignore the possibility that there may be developments in the relevant theories since the first of these arbitrarily-chosen "modern" sources, which itself could be seen as perhaps denying that any development in theory is possible. Also, for what it might be worth, I first consulted the Butz book some time ago, and myself agree that it is a very good, reputable book, and think I said so at the time as well. There does seem to be a potential problem in differentiating between the "Ebionites", as one or more groups of individuals who adhered to specific beliefs, and the "Ebionite heresy", the belief system first attributed to them which seems to have been advanced by several groups, not all of whom are necessarily referred to in the literature by the name Ebionites, such as the Elkeasites. That difference would seem to relate to WP:NAME, and might perhaps best be resolved by the creation of a separate article on the "Ebionite heresy" or some similar title. However, I believe it makes sense to differentiate between the group(s) specifically referred to as Ebionites and the "heresy" which is most frequently referred to as the "Ebionite heresy" or similar. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John, that's helpful. Can you narrow it down to a specific sentence you'd like to add, modify, or delete? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A single sentence might be difficult. Perhaps, as a starting point, it might be two sentences, the second and third sentences of the first paragraph, which seem to be lumping all the divergent "Ebionites" into one group with homogenous beliefs, could be moved later or altered to remove the impression of homogenousness for anything other than the "defining" belief in Jesus as a non-divine Prophet within the Jewish tradition. Alternately, perhaps before them, a sentence could be added which would indicate that while the term "Ebionites" has, apparently, been used to describe or name any number of groups, the roughly contemporary sources (whose prejudice would possibly negatively impact their absolute reliability) have indicated that the groups specifically referred to by this name held a number of beliefs, some of which differed from each other, but all apparently held the "defining" belief above. Sorry if that seems an inadequate response, but I hope it might be useful. Regarding the controversy about the beginnings of the Ebionites as the Ebionites, that is a matter of dispute today, and I have every reason to believe that the dispute should be mentioned explicitly. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And, while I have the opportunity, I believe that, at least in my eyes, one of the biggest problems of the article is the comparative disregard of the comparatively few primary sources which are, factually, the source of all the information (speculation not included) we have on Ebionites. The book by Klijn and Reinink, which is one of the most frequently referred to by other sources, discusses the statements of the sources in depth, and I have to think the religious beliefs attributed to a religious group are important enough to receive significant attention, as is the other information from these primary sources, given their status as the exclusive source of non-speculative information. Under the circumstances, I think that somewhere between a third and a half of the article could, if necessary, be spend discussing the statements of the sources. Material on beliefs and opinions of modern academics, which do significantly differ, could be discussed in summary fashion as per WP:SS in this article and in greater detail in either the article on the books or authors, or, perhaps, a separate article on "theories about the Ebionites." John Carter (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Michael C Price

Since I've already given two sentences that need revision, I can do no better than refer you back to my previous response. Either one will do, if you just want one.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Astynax says that:

Scholarship that I have read place their origin much later

It is true that sources vary on the dating of the origin of the Ebionites, but this is all trivially contingent on the naming issue. This is all explained in the article. Primary sources date from after the apostolic age - as they do on all aspects of early Christianity - but some modern scholarship projects their existence back by inference to earlier ages. Thus, to claim that all the citations are deficient, in a blanket tagging, is factually incorrect and why it was reverted. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Ovadyah

The crux of this content dispute is the contrast between this sentence,

Prior to this, they are considered to be part of the Jerusalem church led by the Apostle Peter and later by Jesus' brother, or cousin, James.

which remains unsourced after 3 1/2 years, and this sentence,

Scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church, including Pierre Antoine Bernheim, Robert Eisenman, Will Durant, John Painter, and James Tabor, argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death. rather than Peter.

which is heavily sourced yet remains highly contentious. No amount of searching for reliable sources covering the past 40 years has produced a single reliable source to back up the first statement. Clearly, something has to give here. And far from being unimportant, I recall the same content being described in the first attempt at mediation as something that "has to be removed". Ovadyah (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Ret.Prof

The agree that the crux of this content dispute is the contrast between this sentence,

Prior to this, they are considered to be part of the Jerusalem church led by the Apostle Peter and later by Jesus' brother, or cousin, James.

which remains unsourced after 3 1/2 years, and this sentence,

Scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church, including Pierre Antoine Bernheim, Robert Eisenman, Will Durant, John Painter, and James Tabor, argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death. rather than Peter.

which is heavily sourced yet remains highly contentious.

I have been reading The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings - by Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, 2010. "The Secret Legacy of Jesus is masterful, nothing less than the new definitive work on Jewish Christianity..." -- Dr. Barrie Wilson. "It is eminently readable and accessible to non-scholars while being thorough in [its] research [and] raises the specter of a revisioned Christianity and challenges readers to rethink the nature of both orthodoxy and heresy.” -- Publishers Weekly. It is the most extensive and up to date work ever published on the Hebrew family and followers of Jesus from the time of the Crucifixion to the destruction of the Temple. Google Link

Therefore, I have moved closer to the position of Ovadyah.

User:Astynax

The sentence in which the sources failed to support the text is one which should be removed or re-referenced:

Scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church, including Pierre Antoine Bernheim, Robert Eisenman, Will Durant, John Painter, and James Tabor, argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death. rather than Peter.

These sources do not "argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death". This introduces a POV synthesis that the Ebionites were in existence under James the Just, when these sources say no such thing. Scholarship that I have read place their origin much later, and there are problems with the unflagged sources as well. This is one example of the introduction of synthesis. • Astynax ^talk 09:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Reminder about the ground rules

I've just removed a number of comments that violated the ground rules listed at the top of this page. I remind everyone here that comments about the past, or about other editors, will be removed, as they are not helpful. I've generally marked where and why the statements were removed, so people can understand what kinds of comments are inappropriate, but in the future I will likely just remove them. In the future, please restrict your comments to discussing sources only, not history, or other editors, in any way, so that I don't have to do this. Thank you all! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayjg, the atmosphere was starting to grow thick! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed more unhelpful comments. Please review to understand what kind of comments do not assist in reaching consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Ovadyah (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Scholarly tools

Fellow editors, I don't want to involve myself directly in this debate, but I thought I would post some potentially pertinent literature that may help bring some insights about the state of the literature. I am sure much of this is already familiar, so my apologies if this is redundant. (If this is disruptive, please feel free to refactor or extirpate) Eusebeus (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

1. State of the literature review on James:

Matti Myllykoski. "James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship, Part I" Currents in Biblical Research 2006 vol. 5 no. 1, pp. 73-122 DOI: 10.1177/1476993X06068700. Online at: http://cbi.sagepub.com/content/5/1/73 (Includes a review of the reception of Eisenman's theories at 76-77) id. "James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship, Part II," Currents in Biblical Research October 2007 vol. 6 no. 1, pp. 11-98 doi: 10.1177/1476993X07080242 Online at: http://cbi.sagepub.com/content/6/1/11

Thanks. We also looked at this last year in informal mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. If you need the full article, let me know. Eusebeus (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Eisenman, 2006

Perhaps because it is not considered a scholarly undertaking per se, this work has only received one academic review (noted above). A google scholar search pulls up only one or two results (excluding the book itself), which would seem to reinforce Google's astonishingly low cite number of 3. I am further surprised to discover the same search term on JSTOR produces 0 results (no reviews, no cites...).

Eusebius, if you think The New Testament Code is "not considered a scholarly undertaking", what do you think it is? There are extensive scholarly end-notes available online here. Unlike Tabor's (2006) Jesus Dynasty, I don't see a list of critical reviews denouncing the quality of the scholarship either. What do you suppose the silence means? Ovadyah (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My comment is inferential based on the absence of both reviews and citations, both of which mitigate against it's value as a RS. I suspect that it has been ignored in favour of Eisenman 97, since the underlying theory remains the same. A mere three citations however and none in the scholarly literature suggests it should be treated with circumspection as a source for the article here. I admit I was rather surprised. Eusebeus (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a different perspective on what silence means, but I think we can converge on a way to use Eisenman as a source based on the suggestions offered by Nishidani and Dbachmann. Ovadyah (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ovadyah about silence, but more importantly such arguments tend toward POV pushing. The result is that Ovadyah and Michael make sound edits with reliable sources but their sources "will never measure up". In any event , have a good weekend. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, as per the Fringe theories noticeboard basic guidelines, works which have received little if any attention from scholarly sources tend to be lumped together as "fringe theories." Reasons for this tend to be, in some cases, that the source might say little if anything new. This might include things like Eisenman's indicating the early Christians were discussed in the Dead Sea Scrolls - such a linkage had been proposed before, by J. L. Teicher, it had received little if any support at the time, and the later source might not have specifically introduce any particular developments which might make the statements regarding the earlier proposal not apply here as well. In such cases, the silence is often because, basically, the questions had been addressed earlier. In most such cases, the issue is not so much about reliability as per RS. Pretty much every book published by a major publisher is an RS for something. The question is more about whether the material which might be, basically, be a repetition of what others had said earlier should be taken as being less "fringey" because of the repetition. This can be a particular problem regarding eras and subjects which have recently been the subject of very controversial but well selling literature. Even respectable academics will face the temptation of "cashing in" on a very lucrative trend. Sometimes, like Bart Ehrman, by writing rebuttals of such works, like his rebuttal of The DaVinci Code. This work tends to be seen as RS and non-fringe, because it is effectively an overview of the subject stressing the preponderance of contrary or non-supporting theories and evidence. Other works, which might make new speculations, sometimes with no better support than those of The DaVinci Code or other blockbusters, might be seen as being, basically, books perhaps putting forward a reasonable theory but in such a way as to appeal to the sometimes very lucrative "controversial literature" field. Regretably, in the current market, conspiracy theories and similar works have shown a tendency to sell sometimes very well, particularly if the primary topic being discussed is one about which people have strong emotional positions. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ret. Prof, WP:FT requires the application of an objective standard, and it cannot be applied to subjects where everything is based on unprovable conjectures. Ovadyah (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a comparatively clear guideline on the subject. Your own sttement that it cannot be applied on matters of conjecture is itself, I believe, contrary to guidelines and policy. It can be applied once it is determined how much support within the academic community the subject has received.

And, of course, specifically regarding the possibility of claims to apply this thinking to the subject of Tabor, there have been several sources written by academics about the subject. I believe, in general, we would probably count the Boston University theology librarian who gave the book a "not recommended" ranking (the lowest that publisher gives), as well as the other works by academics referenced at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor, gives a fairly clear indication of the academic reception of his work.

Regarding Butz, introduced elsewhere, I note that he did, apparently, endorse Tabor (In all honesty, I scanned the book, and may have missed that. My apologies.) I also note that one of the reviews of his book The Secret Legacy of Jesus, that by Graham Christian in Library Journal, vol. 135, issue 1, p. 64, noted how the book took had a "hectoring title and presentation" similar to that of "certain best sellers and blockbuster movies" (presumably The DaVinci Code and The Jesus Dynasty), that there was talk of a movie version (I think it was made on German TV), and that, remarkably, the review itself didn't really say anything which would be counted as clearly favorable regarding any of the content of the book. Rather, the author of the review said that the book was a welcome examination of the subject of James. James clearly does deserve more attention than he has recently gotten. However, given what could be taken as a refusal to actively endorse any of Butz' theories, there is a question how much that review can be used to support the contentions per se as non-fringe. Having said that, he does assert a connection between the Ebionites and others, which has in at least a few cases been asserted by others before. He apparently says there is some form of "continuous history" of the idea, which the reviewer disputes, but that is not necessarily required to say that one group repeats ideas that had previously been also put forward by others. WP:WEIGHT might still apply, but that is a separate matter. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

First sentence to be mediated

Thank you all for your contributions so far, they've been clear and helpful. It seems obvious to me that the most contentious sentence, and much of the general disagreement, relates to the following sentence.

Scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church, including Pierre Antoine Bernheim, Robert Eisenman, Will Durant, Michael Goulder, Gerd Ludemann, John Painter, and James Tabor, argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death. rather than Peter.

I'd like to dig into this sentence, and examine the sources supporting it. For each (listed below), could an exact quote be provided, and then arguments for or against its use or applicability be brought forward? One might, for example, object to Durant on the grounds that he was a non-specialist, and his research outdated. Based on the information and arguments presented, we should be able to see if the sentence should be kept, re-worded, or removed. Please keep in mind the Ground Rules listed above.

Luedemann 1996 pp. 52–56

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Relevant quote(s)

• "Since there is a good century between the end of the Jerusalem community and the writing down of the report quoted above (by Irenaeus), of course reasons must be given why the group of Ebionites should be seen as an offshoot of the Jerusalem community. The following considerations tell in favor of the historical plausibility of this: 1. The name 'Ebionites' might be the term this group used to denote themselves. 2. Hostility to Paul in the Christian sphere before 70 is attested above all in groups which come from Jerusalem. 3. The same is true of observance of the law cumulating in circumcision. 4. The direction of prayer towards Jerusalem makes the derivation of the Ebionites from there probable." - pp.52-53

• "therefore, it seems that we should conclude that Justin's Jewish Christians are a historical connecting link between the Jewish Christianity of Jerusalem before the year 70 and the Jewish Christian communities summed up in Irenaeus' account of the heretics." - p.56

Arguments for

• Ludemann links the Ebionites known to Irenaeus (c.180) back to the Judaic group described by Justin in Dialogue with Trypho (c.130) - (a linkage also made by Skarsaune, btw) - and in turn links the group(s) attested by both back to the Jerusalem community as an "offshoot" with similar practices. His views on a linkage between the Jerusalem Church and the Ebionites are closer to Painter and both are more nuanced than the direct relationships posited by Eisenman and Tabor.

Arguments against

• Elsewhere in the text, Ludemann mentions James eventually assuming the leadership role in the Jerusalem Church, which implies that someone else, presumably Peter, had that role earlier. Therefore, Ludemann can be used as a source to support a linkage between the Jerusalem Church and the Ebionites, but not the statement that James was the leader from the beginning rather than Peter.

Mediator's comment

The consensus appears to be that Ludemann can be used to support the view that Ebionites were linked to the Jerusalem Church, and that James was at least at some point the leader of the Jerusalem Church. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No objections here, although there are potentially at least a few other, probably later, discussions regarding whether it is the best available source and exactly how much weight to give such views, and exactly how the content to be supported by this source should be phrased. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

However, Ludemann cannot be used to support the synthesis the Jerusalem Church was synonymous with the Ebionites, or that the Ebionites regarded James as "their leader". • Astynax ^talk 17:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The above comment pretty clearly defines the "matter of phrasing" I was referring to. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unclear source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Relevant quote(s)

• James is traditionally considered the leader of the Jerusalem church. As such he appears in Acts (15 and 21), Eusebius of Caesarea (Church History II, 1, 2), Clement of Alexandria (quoted by Eusebius in Church History I, 1, 3–4), Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius in Church History II, 23, 4) and the Gospel of Thomas (saying 12).

Arguments for

These are all priamry sources quoted by secondary sources to support James' primacy over Peter, therefore they can be cited without introducing OR or SYNTH. Readers benefit from being able to access the primary sources, alongside the secondary sources.

Arguments against

I did a lit search on this and it came up empty, other than Wiki mirror sites. OR?

There is also the question as to whether James was the leader or a leader of the Jerusalem church - the two are not identical terms. I would have to see clear and explicit quotes which gave James the unique position of leader of the Jerusalem Church. And, of course, I agree that the reader can benefit from primary quotes as well, and wonder why that argument is not also used for quotes from the church fathers regarding the beliefs and teachings of the Ebionites. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Insisting on a review of primary sources to establish the claim that James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church is a violation of WP:OR. Reference to the past removed Ovadyah (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am opposed to the creative reuse of primary sources. Primary sources should always be subordinated to reliable secondary sources, either as inline references in the Harvard style, or embedded within secondary references. They should never stand alone in an article. Ovadyah (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  Interesting, because none of the sources you have cited address the question raised, specifically whether he was the only leader or the leader from its beginning. If you can provide any statements that explicitly say as much, I would love to see them. There is also, of course, the clear question as to the definition of the "Jerusalem Church," which seems to be only assumed in the above quotations. However, without direct comments regarding a question which I consider to be a valid and reasnable one, specifically, how his leadership is defined, both in terms of time and in terms of jurisdiction, the question is, basically, unanswered. I would welcome a clear statement from the sources which address these matters, but, without them, I would have to say that the sources would apparently be less reliable or useful than they would seemingly be required to be to make a clar and definitive statement, and should thus be sublimated to better sources which do specifically address these valid concerns. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is this statement relevant to me? I did not add any of these primary sources into the article. Ovadyah (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:BURDEN, which clearly states the person seeking to include or restore material is the person upon whom the obligation of proof lies, and consider the material in question removed, thus placing the burden on the individual seeking to restore it. Personal comment removed. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Proofs are not constructed by assembling primary sources. That is a major violation of WP:PRIMARY. Personal comment removed I have already assembled all the reliable secondary sources I need to make my case. Personal comment removed Ovadyah (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal comment removed I am aware of no individual who is demanding primary sources be used. The source I believe most useful is Klijn & Reinink, which is a secondary source which specifically uses the primary sources extensively. Personal comment removed If you yourself, of course, consider the material not worthy of inclusion in the article, then there is no need for anyone to defend its inclusion. Personal comment removed Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's comment

Given the contentious nature of this information, I think it's best to leave out this footnote, as it's based on 2,000 year old sources. Let's stick to reliable secondary sources as sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Once primary sources become separated from the secondary sources that mention or quote from them, it causes problems. Even worse is the argument, advanced on the article talk page (now archived), that patristic sources and quotations from scripture are timeless truths that serve as their own witnesses, therefore, no secondary or tertiary sources are required. All of this needs to be cleaned up, and this is a good place to start. Ovadyah (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting into a closed discussion, but I don't understand the logic. All the primary sources here are approximately 2,000 years old, so by the logic advanced here, there should be no primary sources anywhere (there are, of course). Confused, but will not rock the boat further. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tabor 2006 pp. 222-223, 231, 257-258, 302-303

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Relevant quote(s)

• "Peter did rise to prominence in the group of Twelve, as we shall see, but it was James the brother of Jesus who became the successor to Jesus and the undisputed leader of the Christian movement." & "James, not Peter, became the legitimate successor of Jesus and leader of the movement." pp.222-223 (UK ed)

• Clement of Alexandria, who wrote in the late 2nd century A.D., is another early source who confirms this succession of James. At one point he wrote: "Peter and James and John after the Ascension of the Savior did not struggle for glory, because they had previously been given honor by the Savior, but chose James the Just as Overseer of Jerusalem." 2) Eusebius also preserves the testimony of Hegesippus, a Jewish-Christian of the early 2nd century, who says he is from the "generation after the Apostles": "The succession of the church passed to James the brother of the Lord, together with the Apostles. He was called the Just by all men from the Lord's time until ours, since many are called James, but he was holy from his mother's womb." 3) We also have a recently recovered Syriac source, The Ascents of James, that is embedded in a later corpus known as the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, which reflects some of the earliest traditions related to the Jerusalem church under the leadership of James the Just. It records events in Jerusalem seven years following the death of Jesus, when James is clearly at the helm: "The church in Jerusalem that was established by our Lord was increasing in numbers being ruled uprightly and firmly by James who was made Overseer over it by our Lord." - pp.257-258

• We do know that these original Christians survived, mostly in the areas east of Palestine, well into the 4th century A.D. But they were scattered and without power or influence and they had little or no part in influencing what went into the New Testament, which became the official story of early Christianity. They were known subsequently by the term "Ebionites", which meant in Hebrew "poor ones". - pp.302-303

Arguments for

• Tabor explicitly identifies James as the successor to Jesus as the leader of the Jerusalem Church. His identification of James as leader from the beginning rather than Peter is the most explicit (termed a succession), followed by Painter, who identifies James as the leader of the apostles as well as the Jerusalem Church. The other sources (except Goulder) leave room implicitly for Peter to be the immediate successor followed by James in the 40s to 60s. Tabor explicitly identifies the Ebionites as being the direct successors of the original Christians.

• My rebuttal regarding the use of Tabor is that his hypothesis is hardly unique. Gerd Ludemann also argues for a dynastic succession by the relatives of Jesus (the Desposyni) as leaders of the early Church, as shown here, resulting ultimately in their beliefs and practices being passed along to the later Ebionites. Richard Bauckman makes a similar argument about the dynastic succession of the Desposyni, as shown here, with the exception that he sees the ultimate inheritors of the Jerusalem Church being identified with the Nazoraeans of the fourth century. Therefore, Tabor, no matter the frequency of citations, cannot be considered to have a single-source hypothesis. Ovadyah (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The claims of Tabor being WP:FRINGE are Personal comment removed smear by association with a non-existent link to the Da Vinci code. (BTW Tabor dismisses the Da Vinci Code in the forewood of Jeffrey Butz' The Secret Legacy of Jesus.) Butz reviews the development of Judaic Christianity in this book, placing Tabor firmly in the midst of other respected researchers such as Robert Eisenman, Hugh Schonfield, Hyam Maccoby, John Painter and Richard Bauckham. Of Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty Butz says it is "a long overdue and most welcome addition to our knowledge of the historical Jesus, which has, not surprisingly, been widely denigrated by conservative scholars." p.24 -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael, which specific source made this statement? Also, do you have supporting material from these other sources, either for Tabor specifically, or for the theory in general? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Has the clarification of a pronoun above made it clearer? If not, it is by Jeffrey Butz, in his The Secret Legacy of Jesus, ISBN 978-159477307-5, page 24. What this demonstrates is that, within the field of Jewish Christianity, Tabor is a respected source.

No, I don't have any supporting material from Butz' sources, or least not to hand.

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading Tabor, in relation to the Gospel of Matthew and agree totally with Michael. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Tabor as a WP:RS

Could those supporting the use of Tabor explain why further why he should be considered reliable enough to use here? Please focus on criteria that are relevant to WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

He cites primary sources and presents summary conclusions based on them, as shown here, that are directly relevant to the content of the article. Ovadyah (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, that isn't really relevant to WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A favorable review of Tabor's Jesus Dynasty can be found here. Ovadyah (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He is published in respected journals, has respectable credentials and engages in research (both literay and archaeological). -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you be more explicit about his compliance with WP:RS as regards this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, can you clarify what you're getting at here? I'm not sure what you're after. Tabor has published extensively on early Christianity and Roman-era Judaism. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly that - his academic qualifications and publications. Those, along with where this was published, are generally the most important factors in deciding if a source meets WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is Tabor's bio with links on the Department of Religious Studies website at UNC. Also, his Wiki article James_Tabor has ISBN numbers for all his books. Ovadyah (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, regarding Tabor's history and qualifications, there has never been a lot of serious objection to him or any of his published works as reliable sources per WP:RS per se. Almost all of them, if not all, have been published by publishers with at least a bit of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The question has been almost from the beginning whether the material associated with him qualifies as fringe as per WP:FRINGE. The bulk of the objections on the later point have been about the comparatively few, if any, other RS's which support his contentions, and the number which have considered them negatively. A corollary objection has been the almost completely disproportionate emphasis given to Tabor over almost all other sources. I think Nishidani said some time ago that there were seventeen or so individual citations to Tabor, and there are few if any other sources which receive anywhere near that degree of attention. On that basis, in addition to the FRINGE issues above, WP:WEIGHT has been involved. From my own perspective, the primary concern has been for some time the really poor attempt to in my eyes synthesize the views of Tabor and Eisenman with the historical sources, presenting primarily (if not only) the perspectives of those two. A more reasonable, and I believe more encyclopedic, approach would be to present the historical sources which clearly do reference the Ebionites first, and then, in a separate section thereafter, the theories which have arisen since then. So far as I can see, however, there has been little if any interest in making such adjustments to the article. When the article were finally presented into a more clearly NPOV manner, and the information about all the theories examined for degree of support and sympathy in the academic community and the broader world, then it would be reasonable to determine how much weight to give each individual theory in that section. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Arguments against

Tabor's work has received little if any real support, or even discussion of any kind, in the academic press, and the majority of the independent opinions I have seen about it are negative. I believe he probably qualifies as per WP:FRINGE as a fringe source. Any material currently cited from him should probably be either researched and cited from a less fringey source, or, if no such sources are available, perhaps be removed entirely. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Much of Tabor's recent work is barely distinguishable from historical fiction. His speculations are unsupported, or only weakly supported, by the very few scraps available from ancient sources, and are insinuated as valid premises. Tabor makes for a good read, and like those who choose to believe that The DaVinci Code is based on historical research, has a popular following, but is no longer taken seriously in the archaeological and historical disciplines. There are things Tabor has written that probably could be referenced, but only with more solid and explicit backup references than have been used here. • Astynax ^talk 19:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal statements removed the comparison with the Da Vinci Code has been made many times. (e.g., Wavell, Stuart. "God, this conspiracy is getting bigger", The Times, London, 5 March 2006; Enright Michael. "All in the family: move over, Da Vinci Code". Literary Review of Canada May 2007; among others) John Carter has previously noted many of the reviews which have treated Tabor's work with a good deal of skepticism (typical is Strange, James F. "Historical Jesus and Christianity Reviews", Biblical Archaeology Review). Time Magazine in an article entitled "Religion: Rewriting The Gospels" describes material in Jesus Dynasty as "speculative", and lumps it with similar books which exhibit "the Da Vinci Code effect" (i.e., speculative and sensationalist claims slickly put out for the general audience with the aim of hitting the Best Seller lists). So, despite Tabor's dismissiveness of The Da Vinci Code, others have indeed made the connection. • Astynax ^talk 03:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The allegedly non-existent links of Tabor to The DaVinci Code can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor, specifically including statements by Tabor himself that his book is at least in part aimed at The DaVinci Code's readers. Simply because those comments have been ignored for some time now does not mean that they do not exist. I very strongly suggest that the individuals involved perhaps take the time to read that material. Regarding Butz, a source I think I first introduced to this discussion some time ago, I note that the majority of his book, as I remember, was about how the Ebionites served as the originator of a Christology adopted later by the Cathars, Muslims, Freemasons, and Founders of the US, among others. While it is true that he, in his book, does indicate that there may be a stronger connection between the Ebionites and James than others have said, those others include, so far as I can remember, just bout all of the other recent sources on the subject, including encyclopediac sources, as can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites. Given that there is, so far as I can tell, only a very few sources, including Butz and Tabor, who support this theory, while it has been apparently not taken up by any other sources in the journals (as per JSTOR's lack of recent content on the subject or references to Tabor), I am myself far from sure that the idea deserves any more weight than the theories of H.-J. Schoeps, Klijn & Reinink, J. L. Teicher, and all the other sources who have theorized on the subject whose work is addressed in those sources. So far as I can see, there is no real independent support for the theory of Tabor other than Butz, and substantial opposition to it. If and when it receives attention from tertiary sources, then I would have no reservations for saying that it has received support. However, neither Butz nor Tabor have apparently received much support in this argument to date, given the lack of comments about either. The bulk of the content from Butz, about the history of Ebionite Christology, is another matter which has been discussed earlier by others, and is a different matter. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I fail see how Tabor's statements about his audience composition, even if accurately reported, have any bearing on his reliability or suitability as a source.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Equating Tabor's published work with The Da Vinci Code – a speculative, unsupported, work of pseudo-historical fiction – has been used by reviewers to underline their points about Tabor's book making similar breathless claims that seem to be oriented more towards garnering publicity than adding anything solid to what we know. Tabor's fringe theories have not changed the consensus of either the historical, religous studies or archaeological communities. • Astynax ^talk 20:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• As an outside view, the scholarly review in RSR is particularly dismissive: DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0922.2006.00116_39.x. Slightly more charitable is doi: 10.1177/001452460711800532. Either way, this book is not intended as an academic study, but is specifically written for a wider audience and its use as a source is questionable given the widespread availability of more substantial works. Eusebeus (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you provide links for those reviews, for us lazy readers/editors? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Eusebius, thanks for your input. Links would be really helpful so that everyone here can read them. Ovadyah (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• • • Sorry - I should have been clear: you can just paste the full doi ("doi: 10.1177/001452460711800532") into google and it will bring up the item. Let me know if you don't have access (e.g. you don't have an institutional affiliation), and I'll go ahead and cite the text directly inline. (Securing the scholarly reviews of this kind of material is usually a good idea wrt to secondary sources to determine their value as WP:RS). Eusebeus (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's comment

The consensus here is that Tabor meets the qualifications of WP:RS, and that he believes James led the church after Jesus, and that his church became known as the Ebionites. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Note, though, that they may have called themselves Ebionites much earlier, since it was common self-designation. See Ebionites#Name. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 04:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael's comment brings up the subject I would like to get into next: The relationship between the Essenes, the Jerusalem Church, and the later Ebionites. That whole section was moved to the talk page in Sept. 2007 over concerns about SYNTH. This is probably the best chance we will have to retrieve it from the talk page and go through all the sources. Since, the section on the Essenes precedes the sections on John the Baptist and James vs. Paul in the article, it will also resolve the question for those sections. I recommend that we accept Jayjg's statement as the consensus for now, until those details can be worked out. Ovadyah (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we assume that if we accept Eisenman and Tabor as WP:RS on this sentence that we don't have to re-fight this battle every other place they are used as sources in the article? It seems obvious, but it probably needs to be made explicit for some people. Ovadyah (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it can be reasonably assumed that a work published by any publisher which in general meets RS would qualify as RS. There is the question about the Slavonic Josephus, which neither specifically mentions the Ebionites nor is generally accepted as being necessarily containing content actually written by the purported author, but rather, at least potentially, by a later individual seeking to fraudulently establish some sort of contemporary historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and his followers. I think it probably has to be made explicit to some people that that even the quotations cited do not explicitly reference the Ebionites, and thus that it is very likely the case that it cannot be seen as a reliable source on the Ebionites, given that fact. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are willing to apply the same reasoning you are currently applying to Slavonic Josephus to all of the books of the New Testament, except for the 7 genuine letters of Paul (1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philemon, and Philippians chapter 3). They are pseudo-graphical in their entirety, and their content, at least according your suggestion for how to handle fraudulent sources, is therefore presumably worthless. Ovadyah (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to wonder how the above completely irrelevant comment does not violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and simply constitute yet another attempt to ignore difficult questions. I believe that there are already guidelines about using Biblical texts, and that those guidelines do not necessarily apply to the Slavonic Josephus. I also note how the comments at RSN, saying that the Slavonic Josephus should only be used in conjunction with another source specifically using it. There may well be a WP:V violation otherwise. Am I to take this tangential comment as being the basis for the continuing failure to abide by the statements of independent editors at RSN? John Carter (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Far from irrelevant, I would think. And how Ovadyah's response can be conscrued as WP:IDHT is beyond me. But I see no point in pointing out, yet again, that John Carter is applying OR to judge primary sources. So you can classify that as WP:IDHT as well, if you like. :-) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Since, the only place Slavonic Josephus even comes up in the article is in the section on John the Baptist (i.e it is not even relevant to the sentence on James we have been discussing), why don't we table further discussions on the SJ until we work on the JTB section. The JTB section is dependent on the results of mediating the section I mentioned earlier (the relationship between the Essenes, Jerusalem Church, and the Ebionites). Ovadyah (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should stay focused. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, there is a comment on the AfD page of the EJC article by John Carter shown here - third from the top, indicating that he refuses to accept any consensus has been reached on James Tabor being a reliable source. How do you want to proceed? Ovadyah (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus here is that Tabor meets the requirements of WP:RS for this article. I'm not concerned with other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Particularly as the comments linked to completely and utterly fail to demonstrate the claim made. Tabor has not been cited as a source for that article, and, thus, I did not comment on him. If it would be possible for Ovadyah's claims to more accurately reflect objective reality than his comments above do, which are not supported by the evidence presented, that might be beneficial for us all. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

However RS Tabor may be for some subjects, his work being cited in this article pushes unsupported fringe conjectures that are widely dismissed and which are mostly notable for garnering popular attention through sensationalistic presentation. Even such reviewers who have "welcomed" his Jesus Dynasty (and there have been few outside his students, fans and publicists), have not gone on to adopt his speculations in their own works. Were his theories not interwoven into this article, but instead separated out and presented as a view with almost no support within the scholarly community, then he could be cited for that minority view. I consider him non-notable for supporting the particular sentence being examined here or the article's topic, however, and the quoted material does not support the synthesis made in the sentence. • Astynax ^talk 17:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

James K. Walker's Guide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Relevant quote

The single quote/citation provided.

Hey, it would be helpful to actually have the quote here. Thank you. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Arguments for

Arguments against

I am the individual who added this quote, based on my having earlier given my word to add such material should I find it. However, I have to myself wonder whether the material in question might violate WP:UNDUE. I cannot remember seeing any reference in any of the RS I consulted on the broad subject of the Ebionites which in any way made any mention of the EJC or any other neo-Ebionite groups. And that might be seen as arguing against even a brief mention of the group(s), let alone a separate short section. Also, at least as far as I can personally remember, I did not see anything particular about the EJC website which would qualify it to be included as per WP:EL regarding the Ebionites per se. If anyone can point out to me material in those pages which does clearly and specifically provide information about the historic Ebionites, I would be very appreciative. However, without that information, I would have to question both whether there should be other external links which do more clearly address the matter of the historic Ebionites, and also whether that link should be included at all. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Q. What does this have to do with the sentence we are currently working on? Answer: nothing. Ovadyah (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This matter I agree does not specifically relate to that discussion. However, the mattter is one which I believe deserves serious consideration. As this was the only existing way to raise the issue according to the format, I added it in accord with the existing format. I also have extremely serious questions regarding the "References" section. I believe we would perhaps best allow Jayjg to decide matters of formatting of the issues raised. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I have no problem with removing the specific content. However, the consensus of the AfD on the EJC article was to merge, not to delete it. If you want to restore the version of the EJC article that was originally merged into the Ebionites article, that's fine by me. Ovadyah (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And, as per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus can change. I believe given that there is now more evidence available for independent editors on the subject, such as at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, a reevaluation can be called for. Also, I do not see how the last comment above, about merging content, relates to this matter at all, unless the existing external link was the only content. The question I asked is whether the link meets WP:EL, and, at least so far as I have seen, that question is is not addressed in the above comments. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we can leave the question of merging content aside for the time being. Go ahead and self-revert the content you added to the article. This should not be a part of the ongoing content dispute, as nothing you have proposed here is in dispute. Ovadyah (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that the above comment seems to ignore the fact that there is a dispute now regarding how the use of the EJC website meets WP:EL. I would still like to see that addressed, as opposed to ignored. So, yes, it is now clearly the case that the EL is in dispute. Personally, and I would like the input of others here, I think the section would be best addressed by changing the name and having the section deal with all the groups since the Ebionites which have promoted the Ebionite Christology. I think that information is also clearly relevant, and there probably should be discussion about it. Also, I would like Jayjg's review of the material here in advance before acting. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no link to the EJC website in the article, nor is there any ongoing discussion about it on the talk page. The statement "there is a dispute now regarding how the use of the EJC website meets WP:EL" is fictitious nonsense. Please stop making things up to provoke yet another dispute. Ovadyah (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the EL has, apparently since the Request for Arbitration, been removed. I had not noticed the removal, having not been actively editing the article as per my recusal, and profoundly apologize for same, with my thanks to the person who removed it. Jayjg, please feel free to remove inaccurate comments. I would however still like, somewhere, discussion on adjusting the section to include subsequent ises of Ebionite Christology. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, feel free to self-revert your addition to the article. Let's spend our remaining time in mediation working on issues that actually matter. Ovadyah (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the matter of Ebionite Christology is a significant one, and probably deserving of a separate distinct section in this article. One specific current source, F. E. Peters' "Jesus and Muhammad", specifically says that he believes that Muhammad was likely influenced in his Christology by Ebionite Christology. He specifically names the Elkeasites, but says that specific group is only named by him because they were attested as being in the general area, and it might have been some other group as well. The book has been checked out for some months, and my notes are at this point kind of blurred, but the statement seems to be on page 117 or 177. The fact that his statements are as vague as they are makes it hard to determine where if anywhere the material should be placedJohn Carter (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no article or article section on Ebionite Christology. Bringing up subjects to contend over that have not even occurred yet is hardly the purpose of a mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed an option which, I believe, is potentially a reasonable way to address some concerns regarding the content dispute. And, yes, there are encyclopedic sources which have "Ebionites" as only a "see also Christology" link, so there is basis for discussion of it. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of mediation is to resolve current disputes over content, not potential future disputes. I'm not going to engage in a hypothetical discussion over how someone might disagree over something that might be written. If and when it becomes an issue, we can deal with it then. Ovadyah (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that you seem to be assuming that you do, and appreciate the humor. And the proposal is being put forward as a resolution of some of the material already introduced into this discussion as being relevant. I am thinking in particular of the Butz material. Considering that such material has already been put forward in this discussion as relevant to the existing issues, it seems to me that it is very relevant to indicate that there are other ways, which might be better, to address such content. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any arguments in favor of keeping the content you added to the article. Ovadyah (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been taken care of, as you suggested. Ovadyah (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's comment

Let's focus on coming to a consensus on the current issue, before adding new ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You are probably aware that the neo-Ebionites section was removed from the main Ebionites article and restored as its own article. It is currently undergoing AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ebionite_Jewish_Community_(3rd_nomination), and is most likely headed toward deletion, in which case the point of this discussion will be moot. Ovadyah (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Goulder 1995 p. 134

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Relevant quote(s)

• "So the 'Ebionite' Christology, which we found first described in Irenaeus about 180 is not the invention of the late second century. It was the creed of the Jerusalem Church from early times." - p.134

• "We should never lose sympathy with the Jerusalem Christians; they lost the great battle, but not for want of devotion or energy. They took the label 'of Cephas', the Petrines, because Peter had been Jesus' leading disciple; but the real leader of the Jerusalem Church in the vital period from 40 to 60 was James, Jesus' brother." - p.188

Arguments for

• Goulder's statemment that the Ebionites known to Irenaeus had a similar Christology to the Jerusalem Church is similar to the exposition of Ludemann, with the exception that Ludemann details various religious practices held in common rather than shared beliefs. Goulder's statement that James was the Leader of the Jerusalem Church from 40 to 60 AD is similar to Eisenman's. His contrarian hypothesis is similar to F.C. Bauer's original hypothesis that there were two competing factions within the Church from the earliest times.

Arguments against

• Goulder explicitly states that Peter had a leading role before James, unlike Eisenman and Ludemann, where his role may be inferred implicitly. Therefore, Goulder can't be used to support a statement that James was the head of the Jerusalem Church from the beginning rather than Peter.

Mediator's comments

Peters Goulder explicitly states James was a leader of the Jerusalem Church, though he does not explicitly state James was its first leader. Peters Goulder can be used to support that specific point. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean Goulder as the author. Goulder supports Luedemann's assertion that James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church from the 40s to the 60s. As Bernheim pointed out in 1997, this view can be found as far back as Adolf von Harnack, and it was the majority view among scholars during the period of the Third Quest prior to 1997. Ovadyah (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As I showed in the analysis section under John Painter, Goulder and Luedemann represent the following view:

Scholars Goulder and Luedemann believe that James the Just was the leader of the Jerusalem Church, from the 40s to the 60s, and there is a probable connection to the later Ebionites.

This was the prevailing view among scholars before the paradigm shift in the thinking about James in 1997. Ovadyah (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to type Goulder. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Durant 1944 p. 577

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Relevant quote(s)

• "James "the Just," "the brother of the Lord," became the head of the now reduced and impoverished church in Jerusalem [...] The Jerusalem Christians [...] left the city and established themselves in pagan and pro-Roman Pella, on the farther bank of the Jordan.[...] Thereafter Judaic Christianity waned in number and power, [...] Judaic Christianity survived for five centuries in a little group of Syriac Christians called Ebionim ("the poor"), who practiced Christian poverty and the full Jewish Law. At the end of the second century the Church condemned them as heretics."

Arguments for

• Durant is a historian who brought together information based on secondary sources about the Ebionites. He functions as the equivalent of a third party source with defined authorship, roughly the equivalent of an encyclopedic article, which is allowable under the guidelines.

Arguments against

• Durant is less strong as a source than a reliable secondary source authored by a scholar. The much older date than all the other sources also argues against inclusion. (A weak argument at present when some of the sources in the article are 100 years old.)

While I agree that some of the other sources are 100 years old or so, at least one of the sources of that age, the Hastings Encyclopedia, is itself cited as a source by other encyclopedias, indicating that much of its content is still considered quite worth reading. Other such dated sources, including, perhaps, translations, and sources roughly contemporary to the Ebionites themselves (like Irenaeus), might well be argued as acceptable on the basis of translations having not changed much over time (and, possibly, these old sources being public domain) and/or being, like Irenaeus, et. al., the only really contemporary sources on the group we have. If, like with those sources, they are pretty much the sole basis of evidence upon which later work is based, I would have to think that they would qualify for inclusion as being the few independent generally reliable (to a degree, anyway) contemporary sources available, and, like I said, the only hard evidence upon which later speculation can be based. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• As I noted on the article talk page, "Durant makes a single mention of Ebionim as a survival of Judaic Christianity. He makes no mention of James as having founded a sect, nor does he say anything at all else about the Ebionites—including anything about Ebionites regarding James as 'their leader after Jesus's death'." This reference (and I've gone over the chapter repeatedly) does not support the synthesis that the article introduces that the Jerusalem church=the Ebionites and that James was their leader. • Astynax ^talk 19:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• AGFing the above, I would have to say that the single brief mention of this subject in the source, without any source cited. Also, the above clearly indicates that there are serious SYNTH problems with using the brief quote to substantiate something it does not address. Material which fails to adhere to guidelines is generally supposd to be removed, and I have seen nothing which indicates that this is not an instance of such failure to adhere to content guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, Durant makes no mention of James as having founded a sect. Neither does the article, so what is the issue here? As for claim nor does he say anything at all else about the Ebionites I am having trouble processing - "anything else" beyond the Ebionites being a survival of Judiac christianity? That strikes me as fairly relevant! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Personal comment removed Durant makes no connection between the Ebionites and James. Period. Personal comment removed • Astynax ^talk 01:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Personal comment removed Durant makes the connection with the word "Thereafter". I have expanded the quote to include the reference to Pella, to make it clearer that the synthesis is made by Durant. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Personal comment removed Durant in no way makes a connection between the two. Durant simply begins a new paragraph which says that "Thereafter" [i.e., after the death of James, after the fall of Jerusalem, after the split between Judaism and Christianity, etc.), Jewish Christianity waned, though "Judaic Christianity survived for five centuries in a little group of Syriac Christians called Ebionim ("the poor"), who practiced Christian poverty and the full Jewish Law. At the end of the second century the Church condemned them as heretics." It is entirely editor synthesis that posits this as supporting the statement that Durant is among those who "argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death." • Astynax ^talk 17:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• All sources agree it was the Ebionites who fled to Pella (see Butz' The Secret Legacy of Jesus, for example). Durant calls them Jerusalem Christians whilst they are in Jerusalem, and Judaic Christians and Ebionim after the move from Jerusalem. It really is as simple as that; an open and shut case.
• If I said "King John died after eating a surfeit of eels. Evidently his meal disagreed with him.", no one would misunderstand that "meal" refers to the eels and "his" to King John. I don't see the difference here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that this is the prevailing view of modern scholarship. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica supports this view, Encyclopedia Britannica: Ebionites "The Ebionite movement may have arisen about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (ad 70). Its members evidently left Palestine to avoid persecution and settled in Transjordan (notably at Pella) and Syria and were later known to be in Asia Minor and Egypt. The sect seems to have existed into the 4th century." Ovadyah (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's comment

Durant does not appear to be a strong source for this claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What does "not a strong source" mean here? Does it mean that you feel the source does not support the cited statement (i.e. is being misread), or does it mean that the source, whilst supporting the statement, is not sufficiently reliable? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I was more referring to his status as a WP:RS for this information. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. In that case I would argue for retention on the grounds of popularity. Many readers will have already encountered Durant during their education, formal or informal, and will be interested to see that he had something relevant to say about this obscure sect, James etc. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we can live without this third party source. We already have some excellent reliable secondary sources to support this claim. Ovadyah (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No objections to removal from me. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I object to removal since the claims made are supported by other sources. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all sure the exact sense of the above statement. As Ovadyah has noted, there are other sources, better ones, which support the claim. Therefore, this discussion is not about the removal of the material which is supported by the reference, but to the specific reference itself. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course I understood "that fact". Removing an encyclopedic source for an (apparently uncontested) statement is to the detriment of readers who read references. If the statement was contested then removal of the source would make sense, but not since it is uncontested (i.e. alternately sourced). -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

References are really only useful, even to the readers who read references, if the references cited are particularly useful. In this case, the reference is to a single sentence in a work which, while widely hailed as an outstanding achievement by its author, is held to be of at best questioned academic quality. Your argument seems to be along the lines of saying "if one source says it, we should include each and every other source which say the same thing." I cannot see how that argument is supported by any policies or guidelines. And I still haven't seen how you have necessarily addressed the matter for the specific reasons for the inclusion of this specific source in this article. The only reason I can see you giving for the inclusion of the source, is, basically, "piling on is a good thing," and I can't see how that argument makes much sense in terms of policy and guidelines. The source is, at best, of dubious academic quality, and your comments have not addressed that matter at all. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the source should remain for now, until the mediator makes it clear that the remaining reliable secondary sources are going to be retained. Otherwise, this just plays into your attempt to knock off every single source one by one. Ovadyah (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, so far as I can determine, this page was set up to discuss every single source one by one. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that the whole point made here by Durant is being contested here, the article should stick to the strongest sources only. Weak sources do not improve strong sources, and we haven't even explored all the sources that make this claim regarding the Ebionites, as some have not yet been brought up or used as a footnote. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Durant is a weak source, relatively speaking, and weak sources do not improve strong sources. Llywrch made this point as well: two or three strong sources are better than five or six mediocre sources. Michael's opinion about retaining all relevant sources should be considered, but that doesn't change the power of the argument. Ovadyah (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I accept, of course, that weak sources do not improve strong sources, but Durant is a popular encyclopedic source that readers may have already encountered and be familar with. To remove it is to the detriment of the article's readers. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is basically a continuation of the discussion we had with Llywrch, and it raises an interesting policy question. Assuming the source passes WP:R and WP:V requirements (your first question to Jayjg above), is there any valid policy reason to omit it? Ovadyah (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The above question seems to indicate a total disregard for wikipedia's guidelines, which are also supposed to be observed in most all content, barring extremely rare exceptions. There is a valid concern regarding WP:WEIGHT on this content, because, of course, the same argument for the inclusion of any other source which is even tangentially related to the subject could be made as well. It is because of such matters that we have such guidelines. I notice that WEIGHT concerns are, in fact, one of the concerns which led to this mediation being required in the first place. Otherwise, if those concerns are not met, then I believe each and every individual point raised by the sources which can be found quoted at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites should also be included with the same degree of inclusion as Durant. In fact, according to policies and guidelines, I believe that there is in fact better reason for their inclusion than for Durant's inclusion. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Which sources did you have in mind? If you have additional reliable sources that either support the article content or provide an alternative point of view, please bring those specific sources to the mediation page, along with page numbers and specific quotations from them, so that we can review and discuss them. Please keep in mind, however, that sources which discuss something other than what we are currently working on are irrelevant to the task at hand. Ovadyah (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS is clear that reliability in a source is not simply binary, but is generally a continuum, from "extremely unreliable" to "highly reliable". In addition, source reliability is contextual - for example, a lawyer may be reliable when writing about his/her legal specialty, but unreliable when writing about, say, genetics. The problems with Durant is that a) he is not an expert on the subject of early Christian history, and b) his book, while well-written, is almost 70 years old, and therefore does not reflect any of the voluminous scholarship on the topic in the past seven decades. Policy cannot be explicit enough to state "source X is forbidden in article Y", but editors must make editorial decisions, including which sources to use. Durant is a weak source for the reasons listed, and we should focus on using only the strongest sources in this contentious area. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. There are any number of sources which can be used to support any number of points here, but it does seem to make sense to use the ones which have the highest regard in the relevant academic areas. Durant's reputation in this particular field is, perhaps, not the best. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming away with the impression that the the point is being sidetracked that Durant never says anything that indicates that the "Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader". With regard to this sentence, the point has little to do with the whether James or Peter was the initial head of the Jerusalem Church, but rather it has to do with the sentence presenting the Ebionites as actually constituting the initial Jerusalem Church itself, and James the Just as being the leader of the Ebionite sect circa 33 CE. The editor synthesis required to leap from James being a leader of the Church at some point, to presenting him as leading the Ebionites is (to me) astounding, as is the sentence's contention that Durant and the others "argue" in favor of that assertion. The best reason for not citing Durant and others is simply that he never said anything that supports such a premise. • Astynax ^talk 19:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's the opposite point that's more important for the purposes of the mediation; since Durant is not a strong source here, there's no point in arguing about what exactly he wrote. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If Durant is adding some new information that we don't already know from the other sources, that would seem to be a valid reason to retain Durant. However, if Durant is merely echoing information from the reliable secondary sources that are already cited, there is no compelling reason to retain Durant as source. Ovadyah (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Since Durant is a popular source, often used by schools, I say we should retain. It is his reliability that is apparently the issue (although on specious grounds, IMO, but I go with the consensus), but since he is merely echoing material from other sources we can therefore retain him.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have myself never seen any evidence myself that Durant is often used by schools, or even used at all. In fact, personally, in my own secular college work at the University of Southern California, which included a lot of history courses, I don't remember any of Durant's books, other than maybe the separate The Lessons of History, being even mentioned in class. On that basis, I would like to see some evidence which supports this contention that the books are "often used by schools," considering I have never seen it used as a source or a text at any schools, including junior high, high schools, and colleges in the US. Yes, the series is included in quite a few school libraries, but that is a separate matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, this is a weak source. Durant's value now is largely as a product of its particular time more than as a scholarly resource. That is not to say that older scholarship should be discounted as a matter of course, but Durant is simply echoing others and his work has had no influence on later biblical scholarship. I think it should be excluded since it is the kind of source that would only barely be acceptable for a High School history paper and certainly not acceptable at college level or higher. Eusebeus (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked Durant over again just to be sure. Durant meets the test of WP:RS and WP:V. Therefore, removing Durant is an election based on a guideline rather than a policy. I did not find anything particularly novel in Durant's summary report; he echoes the work of the secondary sources also cited. If we choose to retain Durant as a source, it would be based on an argument that removal of any reliable source constitutes the POV-suppression of that source. However, the information communicated by Durant is not suppressed; it is represented in the citation of multiple reliable secondary sources. Ovadyah (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.