Talk:Ebionites/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This page contains the original discussion about the Ebionites article up to the appearance of the Ebionite Restoration Movement group. To see more discussion about the article, go to Archive 2. To see the initial discussion and RFC on the ERM group, go to Neo-Ebionite. To see discussion following the RFC, including AfD deletion of the ERM stub, go to Neo-Ebionite 2. Ovadyah 05:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

About Modern Ebionites

• Ebionites still exist, they are not extinct. I belong to a group of sects, Talmidi Jews, one sect of which are the Ebionites. We uphold Torah, we follow the teachings of Yeshua`, but reject any notion of his divinity, and we don't believe in the virgin birth. We follow a non-rabbinical interpretation of Torah (we reject the Oral Law), and we consider ourselves Jews. The pinnacle of our faith is the humble, merciful and compassionate practise of religion. .. [email protected]

Perhaps you could author an article concerning the Talmidi Jews, since they are probably unknown to most people. A discussion of their origins, founders or leading historical personalities, and specific doctrines would be of interest. With regard to the Ebionite Talmidis, it would be of interest to know whether there is any documented continuity with the historical Ebionites. Athanasius 18:09, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• I made the most recent revision (Shemayah Phillips) which before read that Ebionites wanted Jews and Christians to adhere to a "Karaite form" of Judaism. We do not want people to become Qaraite (B'nei Miqra)! That wouldn't do much to justify Ebionites, would it? But actually we are not rabbinic, and coincidently neither are Qaraites. But centuries before Qaraites, it is apparent that Yeshua had strong disagreements with what later prevailed as Rabbinic Judaism, calling them "traditions of men", etc. The rabbis mention Yeshua's insolence of not relying on the traditions of those before him, being a "scoffer at the words of the Wise." As you know, rabbinic Judaism is based on those "words of the Wise" passed on as "Oral Torah." The Qaraites did not come to the scene until seven centuries or so later. So it would be better to mention the approach to Torah rather than mislead with a group link who may also hold the same approach.

While these groups claim to be Ebionite if the reason why all but a very limited selection of quotes from church fathers regarding thier beliefs and thier gospel not allowed is to make these groups not seem totaly off the mark then this entire artical should be called Modern Ebionites because that what its being used for and doesnt seem to agree with witnesses of the time. 205.188.116.198 05:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The article

• The other main Wikipedia concerns of Loremaster who is responsible for this entry may be viewed at Priory of Sion. The actual history of the Ebionites, the disdain of influential mainstream Pauline Christians for the circumcised followers of Christ, and the tasks of reconstructing what the early Ebionites in fact believed and practiced in the first centuries of the Christian Era would all be highly interesting. I agree that Wikipedia needs an article on Talmidi Jews.Wetman 20:58, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I apologize for over 100 edits(!) of this article. Since early December, both my computer and Wikipedia have been experiencing systematic technical difficulties during my attempt to describe the Ebionites as accurately as possible, following extensive and continuing research. However, I think my work may be close to an end. Loremaster 00:45, 05 Feb 2004

• The claim for "...Jesus of Nazareth who existed in the Iudaea Province of the Roman Empire during the early centuries of the Common Era" needs corroboration on each point. As far as I am aware, there is no reliable evidence that this character existed. On the other hand, there is good argument that he did not. An alternative would be "...the biblical Jesus". I also question the validity of the label "of Nazareth" - maybe "the Nazirite" would be an appropriate alternative.

Such doubts belong in the Jesus article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nazarenes and Ebionites

• a pre- and post-Nazarene sect This is mysterious as it stands. If the phrase is suggesting a connection with Essenes it should explain that. Most readers (like me) have trouble distinguishing Nazarene and Ebionite. Can anyone do this for both entries? These entries are shaping up. Wetman 20:31, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I added the phrase a pre- and post-Nazarene sect rather than a post-Essene sect because 1) the connection between the Essenes and the Ebionites is vague while the one between the Ebionites and the Nazarenes is stronger, and 2) the Nazarenes adopted the myths of the trinity, the virgin birth, and divinity of Jesus and recognized Paul as an apostle while the Ebionites did not. That being said, I've now changed the mysterious phrase to a non-Nazarene sect for the sake of simplicity. Loremaster 19:47, 20 Feb 2004

Help us finish the following phrase in two or three clear succinct, historically accurate sentences, keeping to definitions that were current in the first centuries of the Common Era (not modern distinctions):

The distinctions between ancient Ebionites and Nazarenes are that the former rejected the apostleship of Paul and refused to adopt doctrines which were being elaborated by and taught in the early Christian churches such as the divinity, virgin birth, and atoning death of Jesus while the latter embraced them.

Let's work on the text here, then insert it into the entry. Wetman 03:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Are you satisfied with my additions? Loremaster 17:24, 23 Feb 2004

The article is looking very solid to me (I'm no expert, though). I don't understand this: which existed east of the Jordan River It seems so specifically to be excluding Syria and Jerusalem... Wetman 00:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the majority of Ebionites lived east of the Jordan river. However, you bring up a good point so I have edited the article to reflect that. So where did you want to use text on the distinctions between Ebionites and Nazarenes? By the way, you should check out the Priory of Sion article. It's pretty solid too. Loremaster 07:13, 20 Mar 2004

I didn't mean to be directing the entry. I was just afraid that some text in a goiod entry was less that clear and accurate. I made a couple of tweaks for clarity and emphasis. This entry reads very well. Wetman 06:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I'm getting the signifigance implied in the reference to Galatians 2. From the mention in the article it should be clear that the passage should demonstrate some preeminence of James over Peter. I scarcely expect such a charge to survive so many ecumenical councils unanswered to remain canon and perhaps that's why I'm blind to it. Perhaps a direct quote would be more useful. The analysis of the passage here: http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4802.htm seems exclusively concerned with the inclusion of gentiles into the christian community as asserted by Paul who publicly argues with Peter on the matter. James is scarcely mentioned at all. xiaou

An Ebionite "statement"

• "They stated that Paul converted to Sadduceean Judaism in order to marry the High Priest's daughter, and then apostasized when she rejected him." Without any surviving texts, how can we attribute this very modern motivation to the Ebionites' view of Paul? Let's have a quote on this subject from one of the mainstream contemporary Patristic writers, if this was genuinely a perception that Paulist Christians really did attribute to Ebionites. Wetman 22:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'They [the Ebionites] declare that he was a Greek . .. He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry the daughter of the priest. For this reason he became a proselyte and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the sabbath and the Law' (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.16.6-9).

Now it's an interesting statement, whereas it was just a dubious one before. As long as it doesn't look like Wikipedia endorses this as historical fact, it's very revealing of Epiphanius' views of Ebionites, too, and as such should have a place in the entry. Wetman 06:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Buried information?

• The following text, still in the opening paragraph, is full of attitude but actually transfers little real information:

Several modern scholars, including Robert Graves, Joshua Podro, Hyam Maccoby, Hugh Joseph Schoenfield, Benjamin Urrutia, and others, believe that the Ebionites, being led by the relatives of Jesus, probably were more faithful to the original and authentic teachings of Jesus than Paul was.

Anyone with an interest might easily improve this bit. --Wetman 22:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of the recent anonymous insertions are quite similar. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

"Yeshua" in Aramaic

Jayjg I see that you deleted this with the comment "Unclear what his name in Aramaic really was"

I'm not an Aramaic expert, but I know it is clear that his Hebrew name is Yehoshu`ah, and if I'm not mistaken, it is also known that the Aramaic form of this name is something like Yahshuah or Yeshua (not a big difference in pronunciation at any rate) Codex Sinaiticus 16:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not clear at all what his Hebrew or Aramiac names were. Modern scholars have guessed at what his name might have been, based on the Greek manuscripts and common names of the time. Claiming it was one specific thing is hardly NPOV, much less accurate, and in any event does not seem to add anything to the introduction. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The Hebrew form of the name is definitely Yehoshu`ah. I've never seen anyone dispute this before, until now. Even Rabinnic writers of the time spell it that way. It is even the name of one of the Old Testament books (Joshua). Can you show that there is any academic dispute that this is so? Codex Sinaiticus 17:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Which Rabbinic writers of the time are you referring to? We only have his Greek name Iēsoûs, which is often used as a translation of the Hebrew "Yehoshuah". It's not clear whether or not that was his Hebrew name, or he had a similar Hebrew name, or an Aramaic cognate like "Yeshua". As well, as I said, the claim that his name was Yeshua seems to add nothing to the introduction - can you explain why it is relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The only record is the Greek record, i.e. ΙΗΣΟΥΣ, all capitals, Greek accents and lower case came later, transliterated into the Latin alphabet it becomes IESOUS. The final S is added to aid Greek grammer, therefore does not record a sound (phonetic languages record the sounds of words). So, in Aramaic, it could have been ישו , written right to left, transliterated into Latin as Yeshu, or it could have also included an ayin which was silent or not recorded in Greek. It could also have been the full "Old Testament" version: יהושוע

It is not clear any of the "Rabbinic record" refers to the Jesus of Christianity.

Jesus vs. Yehoshua ben Yosef

Wikipedia has a naming convention, it uses the common English name for things. In this case, that is Jesus. Your POV that his real name was "Yehoshua ben Yosef" is noted, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions is a Wikipedia policy that must be followed. Please get consensus for your changes here before insterting them, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the RFC: Scientz: Even if His name was Yehoshua ben Yosef, He is popularily referred to as Jesus, right? People will more readily understand Jesus. If you think the name refers to the same person and simply prefer for Jesus to be referred to as Yehoshua ben Yosef then you need to respect that Jesus is more recognizable.

If you think that they are two different people, and you think Jesus of Nazereth is an incorrect reference in this article while Yehoshua ben Yosef is correct, you need to provide sources. Another possibility if you think they are different people is to simply say (if it is accurate to say) the following instead "...were a sect of Judean followers of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth (though some say it was not Jesus, but in fact a different man: Yehoshua ben Yosef) who existed in Iudaea Province..." This can also be reversed if it turns out that the man in question is actually more often referred to as Yehoshua ben Yosef than as Jesus of Nazereth.

If this conflict is how it is traditionally written (such as within Ebionite sects), but you agree that they are one and the same you might write "traditionally referred to in texts as Yehoshua ben Yosef."

If you are simply trying to point out the differences/sameness of the names you should really be having this discussion on the Yehoshua ben Yosef and Jesus pages instead of here.

I am not very familiar with the topic, but I hope this at least gives you some ideas in figuring out what the problems are and ways to solve them!--Ben 01:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I came to say more or less what Ben has said. It seems clear that the name used in the article should be "Jesus". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), the most common name should be used. A quick Google test on the World Wide Web searching for the word Jesus, but excluding the word Wikipedia yields 55,400,000 results. A search for the exact phrase Yehoshua ben Yosef, excluding the word Wikipedia yields 464 results. I believe that we cas safely assume that Jesus, the most common name should be used. If Yehoshua ben Yosef is used, no one will know who you are talking about as everyone knows him as Jesus. The Google test proved that. Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) requires the use of English names, providing that they exist. Jesus is the English name for this man, Yehoshua ben Yosef is a Hebrew name for him. Therefore, the name Jesus should be used. Izehar 14:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Names and titles of Jesus: Jesus is derived from the Latin Iesus, which in turn comes from the Greek Ιησούς (Iēsoûs). And if I remember correctly "ben Yosef" means "son of Josef". +MATIA ☎ 23:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If Ebionites refer to Jesus as "Yehoshua ben Yosef," it could be mentioned once in the article and thereafter the name Jesus could be used. A link to the article Jesus could help fill in the gaps. Logophile 15:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I know quite a few Ebionites in the EC, and I have never heard any of them refer to Jesus by this name. He is usually referred to as Yeshua or Yahshua, but these are just informal designations. Jayjg is correct that there is no evidence for the original spelling and pronounciation of his name. The name Iesous in the Greek gospels is a title, not a name. It is almost always written as "The Jesus", unlike James, John, Peter and others. --Ovadyah 00:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It is clear to me that per the Wikipedia naming convention, the commonly recognized and used name 'Jesus' should be used over Yehoshua ben Yosef. There is consensus in the Wikipedia community for this as well.--Alhutch 19:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The definite article preceding his name is a normal Greek occurrence happening regularly with other names (e.g. "the Joseph" in Mt. 1:24). Jesus and its cognates are standard names (IHCOUC is the term used in acts for Joshua!) in Palestine. Jesus certainly is well attested as a name, and most likely functioned as one here. I know of no places where it functions as a title. Christian Askeland 16:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ebionite Gospels

The following ¶ is moved from Jesus:

Judging by what the Church Fathers, such as Epiphanius of Salamis wrote about them, the Ebionites appear to have used a number of sacred texts depicting the life and teachings of Jesus, including a possibly edited version of the Gospel of Matthew missing the first two chapters, and a harmonization of the synoptic gospels known as the Gospel of the Ebionites. They also claimed apostolic succession from James the Just (often referred to as the brother of Jesus), and to a lesser extent sucession from Simon Peter.

I don't have a specific citation, but the source is Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Pacifism and vegetarianism"

• "Other modern religious thinkers, while not going so far, do believe that Christianity would greatly benefit by a return to pacifism and vegetarianism, and a greater respect for its Jewish roots. A later, more liberal version of Ebionitism, "Followers of the Way" Talmidaism is based in the UK."

I deleted this. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, and is actually a rather cheap advertisement for what someone else perceives to be better. Unacceptable, unneeded, and gone.

I am also going to reword the Modern section, as it is quite obviously not NPOV, and written by not a neutral, but sympathetic, voice. In particular, the article is more of a cheerleading propaganda tool than informative. the changes reflect what the author meant to convey, without the missionary work.

L.A.F.

PS: Someone added:

"Some religious thinkers, while not calling for a return to Ebionism, believe that Christians would be more faithful to the original message of Jesus by embracing vegetarianism, pacifism and simple living, and showing more respect for the Jewish people and tradition."

If you could provide some sort of proof or documentation of who said this, why they said it, and from which teachings they decided it, I would be ok with it being put back in. Please don't add it without quoting someone or making it clear which "religous thinkers" have said this.

The text "though the pacifist and vegetarian strands in Christian doctrine may be traced back to the Ebionites" might be more accurately rendered "though some modern Christian pacifists and vegetarians trace their beliefs to the Ebionites". Any objections to this rendering? --Wetman 8 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

First of all, how many people is it? If it's 100, or even 1000, it's simply not notable. Second, it's POV, in that it asserts that the original Ebionites were pacifists and vegetarian. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)

The evidence that Jesus called for an end to violence against all animals is non-existent. The evidence for non-violence toward humans is conjectural at best. For every saying that seems to support it, eg. "love your enemies", there are two that argue against it, eg. curses upon Pharisees and scribes from Q, legal disputes with Pharisees, scribes, rich man from Mark, cleansing of the Temple, etc. --Ovadyah 02:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Romans14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

1Cor8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelebionites-panarion.html: "Where will you have us prepare the passover?" And him to answer to that: "Do I desire with desire at this Passover to eat flesh with you?" (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.22.4)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelebionites.html: These Ebionites were vegetarians and objected to the idea of eating locusts. A locust in Greek is akris, and the word they used for cake is enkris, so the change is slight. We shall meet with this tendency again.

http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/gosebi.htm: The gospel also makes vegetarians of Jesus and John the Baptist by modifying Luke 22:15, and changing the Baptist's diet from locusts (Greek=akris) to cake (egkris).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelebionites.html: The gospel presents both John the Baptist and Jesus as vegetarians, and Jesus says that he has come to abolish sacrifices. Cameron says, "Together with the sayings about the passover, this intimates a polemic against the Jewish Temple." This indicates that the Gospel of the Ebionites, like the Gospel of Matthew, addresses the issue of "Jewish identity after the destruction of the Temple." The solution offered to this problem is "to believe in Jesus, the true interpreter of the Law." Cameron suggests that the Gospel of the Ebionites was written in the mid-second century in Syria or Palestine.

This spirited defense of vegetarianism does not refute my comments about pacifism; it only changes the subject. While it is certainly possible that Nazaraenes / Ebionites of the 1st and 2nd century lived a vegetarian lifestyle, it is implausible to say this proves that Jesus called for an end to Temple sacrifices. Vegetarianism could simply have been part of a Nazirite lifestyle. The ending of Luke makes clear that Peter and the other disciples continued to worship in the Temple. Thanks for the references. --Ovadyah 15:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the Ebionites, not Jesus or the Historical Jesus or the Nazarites or the Nazirites or the Jewish Christians or the Gospel of Luke ...

No argument here, although it's ok to bring these things up on the Talk page if they relate to historical references about Ebionites. The article is another matter. The absolute statement that Ebionites were strict pacifists is not supportable by historical sources and should be removed. --Ovadyah 21:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The Sermon on the Mount is pacifist, but then you have the hate commandment, Luke 14:26, and the sell everything and buy two swords one for each hand commandment, Luke 22:36

Face it. Vegetarinism and Jesus have no traditional or implied basis. It is simply prostelytyzing by so-called "modern" Ebionites. I could accept that maybe vegetarianism is Ok, or Jesus ate Kosher, but give up the Jesus is Vegetarian so We Should Be To speech. Furthermore, Jesus in many ways kept the Laws of Moses and was a Jew; and the Old Testament states that man was given dominon over the animals. It makes it hard to prove a Vegetarian Jesus.

This is Wikipedia. Bring your facts. L.A.F.

I removed the following text from the Ebionites article: Another View Some modern Christians, while not insisting that all Christians should become Ebionites, believe that we should imitate them at least in their Pacifism, Vegetarianism and simple living.

Could the person who keeps wanting to add versions of this text to the article offer some details as to who these Christians are. --Loremaster 18:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit protection

User 64.107.3.126 and 66.99.2.88 is obviously a 'Christian vegetarian' trying to use the Ebionites article to promote his unsupported views. I am requesting an edit protection to deter him. This has been going on and off for months so he always returns. --Loremaster 17:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. You may repeat your request there, though from what I can tell, the issue seems to have been resolved. -- Ec5618 15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Understood. However, how do we know this issue has been resolved? --Loremaster 16:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The edit history doesn't show any unusual spikes of vandalism in recent days. Certainly, the page is vandalised from time to time, but it doesn't appear to be unmanageable. Note that protected pages are considered harmful, which is why protection is generally not a long term solution in these matters. -- Ec5618 17:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a reference to the Ebionites being vegetarians. See Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities, Oxford, 2003, p. 102. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The unsupported views are the very ones promoted as the orthordox verson of Ebionites on this site.

Everything regarding Ebionites down to quotes from church fathers speaking of thier doctorines are Gnostic as it comes. They were the Gnostic's Gnostic. Thoes that would attempt a form of edit protection to promote ignorance are only following in the way of Constantine. Nothing changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.198 (talk • contribs)

I'm not involved in this, but I'll just mention that when an article is protected, it is not an endorsement of the protected version. I believe this is mentioned in the tag box, but I'll repeat it here. Protection is an invitation to discuss and resolve the issue, not force one version. --DanielCD 17:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The View of Keith Akers

Keith Akers, an authority on the Ebionites, says in his book The Lost Religion of Jesus that modern Christians need not become full Ebionites, but should imitate the Ebionites in Vegetarianism, Pacifism, and simple living. Das Baz 5 de Mayo 2006, 10:51 AM.

Sect not Heresy

I reverted a load of mainstream Christian POV changes. There may be some good stuff removed as well (e.g. Gnostic Ebionites), but since it was unsourced it seemed wiser to revert the whole lot.--Michael C Price 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing Catholic POV text

I have removed the following paragraph from the Catholic encyclopedia[1], inserted without comment:

The doctrines of this sect are known from the writings of Church Fathers. One, Irenaeus, thought them to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. According to the primary sources, Ebionites denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18), but their observance of the Law seems no longer so prominent a feature of their system as in the account given by Irenaeus.

for a number of reasons.

• duplication with later material (e.g. denying the virgin birth, divinity of Jesus, regarding Paul as an apostate, reliance on Matthew)
• "clung to" seems rather POV
• Cerinthus and Carpocrates were gnostics not Ebionites -- this is covered elsewhere in article.

I've also removed the heresy tag, which is blatant Nicene POV.

I've left the Catholic Encyclopedia link in the external links section.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 04:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)