Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites

Question of POV

It has been rather belabored by several people that this topic has not gotten much recent attention. In general, when that happens, one of the most common reasons for such a situation is that there is, basically, not much new to say about it. So far as I can tell, the reference source with the longest entry on the subject is the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which also happens to be one of the most highly, if not perhaps the most highly, regarded relatively recent reference book on the subject out there. That article is roughly a full page long, much longer than any others I have seen. The differences between that reference entry and this article are, honestly, nothing less than amazing to me. I believe that the source is also among the most easily accessible, and I am frankly astonished at the remarkably different content of the two pages, including the comparative disregard in this article to several of the major points in the article in that source, which I believe would be all but impossible if that highly reputable reference source had been consulted much, if at all. I also believe that there is more than sufficient cause to believe that the major editor of this article, Ovadyah/Ignocrates, who has both indicated in the first very first surving edit to his user page here indicates a clear interest to "modern Ebionite movements." It is worth noting that none of them, despite several later edits to his talk page about the topic, have ever been demonstrated to have any independent notability, although he apparently took part in an “agreement” in a mediation to create such an article despite lack of notability anyway, as is indicated below. I also believe that Ovadyah/Ignocrates' insistence on the reliability of James Tabor's book The Jesus Dynasty, which the author has admitted was not even submitted for academic review, and his refusal to remove or adjust content based on legitimate concerns about the use of that source was one of the primary reasons that article lost FA status. On the basis of all of this, particularly the remarkable variance from the content of the substantial "Anchor Bible Dictionary", particularly without any apparent reason given that I can see for such differences, I believe that there is sufficient reason to believe that POV concerns may be exhibited here. I very much request that independent editors review the related reference sources, including the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which should be rather easily available to most people, and review the matter for the unexplained and apparently undiscussed differences between them.

I also believe that it might well be extremely useful to have independent editors review all the conduct of all those involved with this topic to see if they believe that there is sufficient basis for a second arbitration hearing, or perhaps a request for administrative action, be started. I am at least temporarily withholding tagging the article for POV, which I believe it clearly deserves, and from nominating it for FAR, which I believe is probably justified, pending some sort of review from other individuals in the near future. Some statements here, for instance, which indicate that Ignocrates/Ovadyah displays an extraordinary degree of knowledge of a subject which had at the time, and still has, little if any independent sourced material, and even seems to indicate that he knows that what independent reliable sources say is wrong, is a particularly troubling matter. I believe that there are sufficient grounds for serious consideration of administrative or arbitrator review of this matter, and would be extremely grateful if any independent individual would review the discussion of the topic, particularly that of Ovadyah/Ignocrates. Regarding my own conduct, I have said from the beginning if an independent admin requested me to withdraw my adminship, and demonstrated to me good reason, I would do so myself voluntarily. I will stand by that principle here as well. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, for any interested editors/reviewers:

• Petersen, William L. (1992). "Ebionites, Gospel of the". In Freedman, David Noel (ed.). The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 2 (1 ed.). Doubleday. pp. 261–2. ISBN 978-0-385-42583-4.

Here is the complete citation for the Gospel of the Ebionites article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992), which I thoroughly reviewed while preparing for FAC. Ignocrates (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No reference is made, apparently, to the Justin Martyr statement, That article stresses the fact that this source is seen as a gospel harmony, in even the first few sentences, which is delegated to a truly subordinate position here. The extent of the controversy regarding the Jewish-Christian gospels, which is called near the beginning of that article not on the Jewish-Christian gospels, but the Gospel of the Ebionites, is relegated to a minor position here. I could go on. I also have researched the minimal amount of journal content since that source was published, including JSTOR, ProQuest, EBSCOHost, NewsBank, and others, and have found nothing in them which indicates that the statements in that source have been in any way changed. I have also checked the latest edition of the Zondervan Bible dictionary and other later highly regarded academic reference sources. While they do not go to the same degree of length, given their shorter nature, there is nothing in them which is contradictory. Also, I also urge everyone involved to review the contribution history of Ovadyah/Ignocrates. His truly devout support of Tabor's book in the article on the Ebionites, despite any evidence that it has ever been given any particular academic attention, let alone support, and the fact that, despite the name change, he has over his time as an editor ever edited anything which is not clearly related to the Ebionites, along with his regular support of the non-notable Ebionite Jewish Community, which has since been renamed the Ebionite Community, still with no indication of any reliable sources, or sources at all, other than the group itself, I believe cannot help but raise very serious questions regarding this individual's motivations and whether he is capable of contributing to this topic in a neutral fashion. Other of his comments over the years also raise serious questions. Again, I believe it is in the best interests of the project itself if someone who does not have this editor's rather remarkable almost overriding interest in groups which have never earned any notability in their own right, and barely any mention at all, were to review the material and see if it is neutral and balanced. This recent rather snarly, juvenile, and frankly irrational comment here from Ignocrates is an indication as to why I believe it should be someone who Ignocrates does not regularly demonize who should be doing the review. By the way, the unfounded accusation that I am a "stalker" is unfounded. I do try to check up on all religion based content, and, clearly, someone with as poor a judgment as this editor is someone whose work clearly needs being checked up on. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The Justin Martyr material is too speculative to add to the body of the article, except perhaps as a brief footnote. First of all, it is far from obvious that Justin was in possession of an actual gospel harmony, as clearly stated in the article on Justin Martyr. Second, even if Justin did possess a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, and the Ebionites also had a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, it doesn't mean they were related - correlation is not causality. Vielhauer & Strecker (1991) and Klijn (1992), which set the standard for scholarly work on this topic, don't even touch on this subject because it is considered a tiny minority speculation. Btw, as to the "diff" where I alluded to you, I commented that out almost immediately and archived it as a test. The only way you could possibly even be aware of it was by trolling all my edit logs, and "stalking" me. Ignocrates (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It is included in an encyclopedia. Please inform me how it is that you have decided, apparently completely on your own, that not only do you as an individual have more authority than leading reference books, but that you as an individual are someone in a unique capacity to know when the most reliable reference source in the field, with an article probably shorter than this, is somehow "too speculative" for you personally? Are you, in effect, saying that you know more than the experts who have published in the field? Really? And I note that you only addressed a single point of those raised. Can you provide any real reasons for your own apparently unilateral decision that someone like you, by virtue of, apparently, some greater knowledge, know more than the published experts? Also, your defense of the term "stalking" is rather weak. Going over my watchlist during a time when I was editing and seeing you post such a rather silly comment while I was editing is something I think only the most prejudiced would describe as stalking. And, again, you seem to be ignoring the question of the language itself, although, admittedly, I guess that there is a bit of a history of ignoring things you don't like about these subjects? Again, requesting a full review of all the above editors recent history, including as I recall derogation of non-notable neo-Ebionite groups other than the Ebionite Jewish Community/Ebionite Community, for the purposes of determining whether there are sufficient conduct issues for arbitration or administrative review. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As you are well aware, the same encyclopedic article also reports on Boismard's speculation about a primitive Hebrew Gospel of Matthew underlying the text - a speculation that is universally rejected by modern scholars as fringe scholarship. The point is that some of the material in that article is outdated crap; no modern scholars take it seriously. Featured articles are supposed to comprehensively represent the consensus thinking of modern scholars, where that is possible, and majority vs. minority views in a balanced manner; however, they are not required to be exhaustive in their coverage of fringe views. Ignocrates (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? Universally? Do you have a source for that, as per WP:BURDEN? So far as I can tell, there has been, as you have said repeatedly, very little recent scholarship on the subject. I myself have seen nothing which really indicates that it is "rejected" as fringe. Also, again, this reference work is only 20 or 30 years old, and in the interim there has been only rare attention given to this document at all. That being the case, the size of this "universal rejection" would seem to be only a few papers which have discussed the subject at all, and few if any dealt with that topic directly. And, please, cease from attempting to recast the statements of others in a perjorative matter. My point is, to what degree is someone who is to all practical purposes more or less a SPA account dealing with a subject which he also seems to have, based on his previous history, a possible POV concern, in a position to on his own, possibly in violation of WP:POV, determine what material is appropriate for an article regarding which he has a rather I believe clear history of POV pushing? And how is it that you are today in a position to apparently declare by personal fiat such statements of fact? I believe [{WP:BURDEN]] might apply here, particularly given the extremely small size of this "universe" to which you refer. Also, by the way, have you ever read WP:POV? One editor's personal opinions, regardless of however self-aggrandizing that editor might be, is still, basically, one editor's opinion. If you have evidence that one of the most highly regarded reference sources of recent years is as universally rejected as you say, then you can presumably provide evidence of that rejection? Also, again, please address some of the other issues as well, including the juvenile commentary, if, of course, you deign to respond to the comments of individuals whom you see fit to address with such snarling incivility. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As recent reviews of the field by Broadhead (2010) and Paget (2010) make clear, there has been a considerable amount of research done in this field since Klijn published the definitive work on the subject in 1992. Try reading some of it and come back when you know something about the subject. Ignocrates (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Btw, in addition to WP:BURDEN there is also WP:PRESERVE. I don't have to prove the crap you want to add is fringe. You have to prove it isn't by demonstrating these subjects represent a consensus or a significant enough minority view among modern scholars to merit inclusion. Ignocrates (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

First, Ignocrates, I have to say that this is the first time I have ever seen anyone display the really amazing degree of absolute gall to call one of the best, most highly regarded sources of recent years "crap." Maybe, if you can, stop indulging in your gratuitous incivility and maybe, if you can, actually read the material. Let me put it bluntly. 'I believe I have met BURDEN requirements by producing an article which is possibly/probably shorter than this one, from one of the most highly regarded short articles in recent years, about a topic which you have repeatedly said has received little attention of any kind. What part of that comparatively simple statment is so clearly beyond your capacity to understand? Also, I have checked not only JSTOR, which produces little if any matches for the Gospel of the Ebionites at all, as well as the more recent reference sources since the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Honestly, I feel that I have to ask this question. Are you so blinding convinced of your own personal opinions regarding this topic that you so clearly place them before the comments in the recent reference sources on the material? And, in addition to the gratuitous use of profanity above, I once again ask anyone who sees this discussion to review the entire history of this editor Ovadyah/Ignocrates, do determine if there does exist, as I believe there does, sufficient basis to request either arbitration review of his conduct or perhaps some other form of more direct administrative action. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

My conduct is an open book; if you think there is a sufficient basis for review then do something about it. Ignocrates (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Noting once again failure to respond to any other points, and addressing only one which has been raised more than once now. Honestly, Ignocrates, are you so blinded by your obvious emotionalism about this topic that you can not only read through comparatively short beginning posts, but can also only apparently respond to any of multiple points on an item by item basis? Is there any chance of your addressing other matters, as well, or is pretty much as close to really addressing points raised as can be expected of you? And, just out of curiosity, do you think that there is any chance you can refrain from further basically pointless posts, like the one above, so that others who might take part don't have to read through such wastes of energy? John Carter (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't waste anymore of my time arguing. If you have something you believe merits inclusion, make a detailed proposal on the talk page about what it is and how you propose to include it. Ignocrates (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

First, I urge you to maybe familiarize yourself with policies and guidelines, in this case including WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS. Like I basically said earlier, this article looks to me to be, basically, far far short of the standard of even a good article. Much like, unfortunately, the rather dreadful and sub-par Ebionites article was before other more experienced editors with perhaps a bit better grasp of policies and guidelines became involved. It is not so much a matter of what needs to be included. At this point, the problems seem to me to be very possibly dealing with WP:POV, and I believe that what may well be required is the involvement of other editors who may not be quite as devoted to their opinions as some other editors are. Like I also said earlier, I am willing to wait a week or so for other input before filing the FAR myself. However, I do have to say that I am more than amused by what seem to me to be a display of a rather poor, if not very poor, grasp of the existing level of academic opinion on this subject displayed by, well, you. In general, a GA or FA class article should probably at least say most if not all of the things that are said in similar articles in other reference sources, particularly if, as is true with this article, those sources are almost all much shorter. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, third edition revised, edited by F. L. Cross and E. A Livingstone, 2005, Oxford University Press, 0-19-280290-9, p. 526 has an article published in 2205 on this topic, which runs more or less as follows:

“Ebionites, Gospel of the. The name given by modern scholars to the Jewish-Christian apocryphal Gospel supposed to have been used by the Ebionites (q.v). Irenaeus says that the Ebionites use the 'Gospel according to Matthew' … though from the beliefs he ascribes to them … it seems that this cannot be identified with the canonical Mt. Eusebius … on the other hand, says that they use the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews'. The principal authority is Epiphanius... He not only states that the Ebionites 'receive the Gospel according to Matthew' and 'call it the Hebrew Gospel,' but he quotes passages from the Gospel used by the Ebionites. These show that it was written in Greek. The relationship between this Gospel and the 'Gospel of the Nazarenes' and the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' is unclear; they are perhaps quite distinct.”

The bibliography includes 6 works, including a few early translations, Neuetestamentliche Apocryphen, Waitz' 1937 article, and, the last 2, Boismard's 1966 article and Petersen's article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.

On the basis of that recent reference source, I would have to say that not only are the stated objections to Boismard apparently unfounded, but that individuals expressing such objections might be seen as having little, if any, real familiarity with the existing reliable sources on this topic, and that the article might benefit if they were to perhaps allow others who do not have the potential POV problems they have to edit it without threats to be taken to ANI or other harrassing conduct which has been displayed when others have questioned the work of, well, some editors here. Basically, I think like with the Ebionites article, what might be most required here is basically another total rewrite, preferably without interference by biased editors. I have already pointed out specific concerns regarding the minor emphasis this article gives to the pretty much absolute agreement of academia that this work is a gospel harmony. That should probably be stated in the very first sentence. The questions about its origins and influences as expressed in reference books probably deserve similar attention here as well.

If certain editors could stop wasting their own time, and that of others, basically whining to some surrogate mother whenever someone questions their apparently biased and sometimes poorly founded opinions, as has happened repeatedly regarding this topic and others, and maybe drop a bit of the all-too-evident ego that is displayed, that would help a lot. Unfortunately, I am far from sure that there is any reasonable chance of that happening given the current situation. I will, however, give the matter a week, like I said, before taking action myself. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The featured article is locked until July 15th. However, you can leave a detailed list of your suggestions/concerns here on the talk page in the interim. Meanwhile, I am working on restarting the Ebionites 2 arbitration case. That will be the quickest way to get these conduct issues resolved permanently. Ignocrates (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I will check out the article in the Oxford Dictionary (2005) for myself tomorrow. Thanks for the reference. Ignocrates (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm offering an opinion about this article as a hopefully disinterested party, although I admit I did offer criticism on this article as it was being worked on for Featured Article. First, the subject of the "Gospel of the Ebionites" is full of speculation, inference, & not in the least controversial. When I offered criticism of this article, that was a major concern of mine & I feel that Ignocrates/Ovadyah responded to that concern responsibly. What is stated here reflects my understanding of recent scholarly findings (based on such sources as Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities & Fred Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha). Where this article differs from hat the article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary states, I don't know; I just saw this discussion & haven't had the chance to consult a copy of that book, & it may take me some time to consult a copy due to my schedule. It would be helpful if John Carter were to lay out the specific points where this article varies from what is written in the Anchor Bible article.

I will guess to a few points John Carter objects, & offer some responses. One is that this gospel -- as stated by Irenaeus & Eusebius -- was a version of Matthew written in Hebrew (or Aramaic). However, after reading both Ehrman & Lapham's books, it's clear that scholar consensus believes the work cited by Epiphanius is a harmony of at least the synoptic gospels; the brief arguments they present are understandable by the layman. Why a close reading contradicts the testimony of Irenaeus & Eusebius, I can't say: I'm not knowledgeable enough to say, & WP:NPOV keeps me from doing so.

As for Justin Martyr's connection to this work, I'm unclear what it is. I looked through the writings of Justin at www.ccel.org, & the only thing I could find was an oblique reference to Jewish Christians in his "Dialogue with Trypho", ch. 47. I could find no reference to Justin Martyr alluding to either the Ebionites or their gospel specifically in the secondary sources.

As for using questionable sources, I believe all of the sources in this article meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. The two authorities cited most often in this article--Luomanen & Skarsaune--are published by respectable publishers & their publications are cited by other authorities. One can read much of Paget 2010's article online at the link in the article for oneself, & see what the current ideas about this lost writing are. There are no novel or unusual ideas in this article that can't be found in the current expert literature.

Now for two other, non-content, issues here. One is that all articles about Early Christianity will be controversial for the indefinite future. For one thing, it is a subject where, as I noted above, speculation & inference greatly outweighs the existing evidence. For another, much of the scholarly &/or expert research is to some degree at variance with widely-held religious beliefs. Specifically, for at least 100 years experts have studied the Bible not as an inerrant text, but as one demonstrating human bias with subtexts of meaning. This is an approach that is guaranteed to make some people unhappy, who will not listen to reason or to pleas for harmony or tolerance. I don't think that's the problem here, but I know it will be at some future time.

The other non-content issue is this. The two individuals in this discussion--John Carter & Ignocrates--have a long history with each other, which is regrettable because both are knowledgeable about this topic, & sincere about getting the facts right. I suspect this is why John Carter mentions James Tabor above, a writer whose name appears nowhere in this article & has no place in it. I don't know what to do about this conflict, beyond suggesting that each should try to avoid the other.

I hope I have made it clear that there is no pressing need for this article to undergo a Featured Article Review, nor anyone to give up his or her Adminship, or for any other drastic actions concerning this article. I do think everyone involved should take a step back, partake of their favorite beverage (if desired), & move on to other matters. If this article does find its place on Wikipedia's Front page, that may attract new attention from knowledgeable parties who may, indeed, find problems in the article. But waiting until then is not going to harm anything.--llywrch (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The name of Tabor was mentioned above given Ovadyah/Ignocrates' insistence on his work The Jesus Dynasty being appropriate to the article Ebionites, even though the author has admitted here on his own talk page that his book was never submitted for academic review. That can and does I believe very reasonably raise questions regarding the basic competence of the editor who supported it to adhere to, or even understand, policies and guidelines. I also have very serious questions, given Ovadyah/Ignocrates's long history of considering the non-notable Shemayah Phillips worthy of even discussion in this content as per here a very serious reason for questioning his possible, or likely, POV regarding that subject, which is so clearly linked to this one.

While I acknowledge that speculation and inference are subjects about which, in general, early Christianity is prone to more than most, because of the regular production of sensationalistic, fringe literature, I do not believe that there is necessarily any reason for our articles to give them more weight than we would in other topics, simply because of the amount of such speculation. We are supposed to be, as per the third pillar of wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias in general do not give more weight to modern fringe or speculative theories simply because of their prominence in popular or sensationalist literature, more or less as per our own WP:RECENT. Material on the marginal speculation can, and probably should, reasonably be included in articles on those works which source such speculation, but not necessarily in the main article on the broad topic. It is, in general regarding biblical literature-related topics, the case that articles in journals will only discuss about which the scholarly community is basically in consensus when the article's or work's author disagrees with that consensus. So, there is some reason to believe that at least a few modern scholars dispute Boismard's theories does include that there may now be serious question about it, but I cannot see that the possibility that some modern scholars question that material is sufficient grounds to remove it completely, instead of, perhaps, indicating that Boismard's theory has been "accepted" as reasonable by the academic community for some time, although there are some serious questions about it. That is however nowhere near the same as saying that it does not deserve mention in the article.

Regarding other points, like I said, I personally very much think that anything discussed at lenght in the Anchor Bible Dictionary should be included, in roughly the same order, until and unless independent reviews of that article or other works by its authors indicate that the content of that article is open to question. I have seen reviews of other reference works which criticize some specific articles in them, and would assume the same here as well, although I haven't seen any such evidence that the content of that article does not reflect standard academic consensus presented yet. Also, I cannot see any rational reason to include the speculation about the ties to the Clementine literature. That idea was I believe first proposed in Baigent and Leigh's The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, which basically used Robert Eisenman as it source. Despite Eisenman's recent reissue of the theory under his own name, those later books of his seem to have received only the "polite" response which is given to a lot of wildly speculative works of today that have little if any reasonable bases for their speculation. Having gone through a previous arbitration dealing primarily with the conduct of an editor who was a supporter of Eisenman, I have to say I have seen little if any evidence in academic sources or reference sources which give those ideas any particular regard at all.

Also, I have another serious question here. Yes, there does seem to be some basis for saying that modern opinions do not accept Boismard. I think that there would be some indication in the scholarly literature exactly why those academics question Boismard. He isn't like some of the other more recent speculative works, like Eisenman and Tabor, which have, basically, little if anything remotely resembling objective evidence to support them. To date, I have seen nothing in the academic sources which raise questions about Boismard's idea. Having said that, I also haven't read Boismard himself, so I'm personally not sure exactly what he said, but if the idea is considered significant enough for inclusion in a reference source, I find it hard, if not impossible, to believe that someone would have indicated why they now disregard it. To date, I haven't seen that. I agree that I'm not sure exactly why Justin is mentioned in that regard at all, but any statements to that effect from me would constitute OR, and I would prefer seeing some indication as to why certain rather single-purpose account editors here now believe that this idea, which has (apparently?) had some currency for some time, should now be considered too insigifnicant for inclusion based simply on that one individual's opinions. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FAR

With regard to having this work reviewed, I welcome any and all reviews, as long as they are based on reliably-sourced facts rather than hearsay comments and innuendo. Bring your evidence to the talk page in the form of reliable sources, with page numbers and quotations from them, to back up your claims. That was the point of having two peer reviews, GAN and FAC. Ignocrates (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So far, the following subjects have been mentioned from the Gospel of the Ebionites article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992):

1. A possible gospel harmony written by Justin Martyr and its putative relationship to the Gospel of the Ebionites

2. A speculation by Boismard that a primitive Hebrew Gospel of Matthew underlies the Gospel of the Ebionites

I don't see any sources published in the last 20 years that support these speculations. Would any editors/reviewers care to comment on these subjects, and back up your comments with evidence to support inclusion? Ignocrates (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

List of sources

• Bellinzoni, Arthur J. (1967). The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr. Brill. ASIN B0007ISJW6.
• Bertrand, Daniel A. (1980). "L'Evangile Des Ebionites: Une Harmonie Evangelique Anterieure Au Diatessaron". New Testament Studies (in French). 26 (04). Cambridge University Press: 548–63. doi:10.1017/S0028688500005816. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Boismard, Marie-Émile (1966). "Évangile des Ébionites et problème synoptique". Revue biblique (in French). 73 (1–4). Lecoffre: 321–52. ISSN 0035-0907.
• Cross, Frank Leslie; Livingstone, Elizabeth Anne, eds. (2005) [1997]. "Ebionites, Gospel according to the". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 526. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3. (no contributing author cited)
• Howard, George (1988). "The Gospel of the Ebionites". Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. 2 (25.5). Walter De Gruyter: 4034–53. ISBN 978-3-11-001885-1.
• Petersen, William L. (1992). "Ebionites, Gospel of the". In Freedman, David Noel (ed.). The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 2 (1 ed.). Doubleday. pp. 261–2. ISBN 978-0-385-42583-4.

Findings so far;

I read the Gospel of the Ebionites article in the Oxford Dictionary, cited above. There is nothing in here that is problematic in terms of content. However, it can't be used as an encyclopedic source because the contributing author is not named (similar to the Encyclopedia Britannica). Another problem is its brevity - the article is really more like a summary digest than a full encyclopedic article. However, the article lists Boismard's journal article and the Anchor Bible Dictionary encyclopedic article as sources (citations shown above). It's not clear what specific content is being supported by these sources. Nevertheless, their presence as endnote citations indicates that both should be considered to be reliable sources. This point of argument goes to John Carter, as far as possible inclusion as sources in this article. Ignocrates (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In all honesty, the above statement might include the lamest excuse I have ever seen. First, I am in no way certain that unsigned articles cannot be used. Also, Ignocrates, if you had bothered to look, you would see that the author, W. L. Petersen, is directly named. Is this is the level of thinking that has been used throughout the development of this artiole, it would reasonably prompt review of everything from punctuation on, given the miserably poor level of research or mis-stated attempts at disqualifying information which might not be consistent with neo-Ebionite sources which seem to be favored by the above editor. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I must need new glasses. All I see is W.L. Petersen listed as source #6 - the last source listed for the ABD (1992) article. Where do you see that he is the author of this encyclopedic article? And you are wrong about unsigned articles. They cannot be used as sources for feature articles. Ignocrates (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The content of the Anchor Bible Dictionary article on the Gospel of the Ebionites is unproblematic and a typical summary of the subject from the beginning of the article to the material on Boismard's conjecture. There is an intervening section about the Ebionites – who they were as a group – which is also unproblematic. All of this material is already covered in the article and backed up by reliable secondary sources. Ignocrates (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I will check the print edition, which, as I remember, listed his name as well. Also, I believe WP:COMMONSENSE applies here, although, admittedly, that might be a bit of a problem for, well, some editors. However, your assertion above is still, basically, nonsensica;. I have provided a source which meets WP:BURDEN. Your rather amusing response is that without a signature, that source cannot be used. Then use another one. Please make an effort to understand the basics of wikipedia, Ignocrates. It is our primary interest to provide the content, not to obsess about any degree of recognition. I have met the requirements, I believe, as per BURDEN. If you choose to ignore them, fine, I will formally requiest FAR of the article on the basis of what seems to me to be an attempt to dodge the issue. If an article fails to meet encyclopedic quality, on the basis of the rather ridiculous statement above, then it can't meet FA standards either. Are you capable of understanding that, Ignocrates? The source is considered among the most reliable, unless you meet BURDEN requirements and can demonstrate that it isn't. If no effort to meet that standard is made, then formal FAR is called for. I do not myself necessarily believe that the source itself must be used itself, but you have provided nothing yet which deals in a substantive way with the matter under discussion. Please address it, or, alternately, ask for input from a noticeboard or through some other means. However, dear Ignocrates, I do not think anyone would consider your comment above to be in any way useful in the developing this article, and I urge all individuals to read WP:TPG to prevent recurrence of same.

P.S. Is there any particular reason you have still refused to address the fact that the article in its current form downplays the scholarly consensus that it is a gospel harmonty, by not including that information in the lead, which something I stated I think at the beginning? Or could it be that some neo-Ebionites consider it an original work, and POV issues on certain editors parts might be functioning as an impediment in this case? John Carter (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you take Llywrch's advice and walk away from this article before you humiliate yourself any further. Ignocrates (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I very, very strongly suggest that you read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and cease both embarrasing yourself and also comply with policies and guidelines.. First, if you could be bothered to actually check the print version of the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which is among the most readily available sources out there, you would see that the article is in fact signed in the print version, on page 262 of the 2nd volume. The sources have been provided, and you have apparently done nothing to address them. Please desist from arrogant refusal to deal with reality and actually make at least some nominal effort to comply with policies and guidelines, please. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

P. S. I also very strongly suggest to you, Ignocrates, that you cease in the rather laughable attempt at prejudicially rephrasing the comments of others. The apparent inability to read which it indicates probably humiliates you much more than your own misreadings of the comments of others would ever humiliate anyone else. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

John. I'll have to step in here. I find what you are repeating at great length very hard to follow. I've been reviewed Ignocrates work and find it reflective of the best scholarship and responsive to comments by other parties. Your edit summary was unfortunate (Iggy is a Christian nickname, from St Ignatius), and your tone exudes a taunting hostility that Ignocrates, whose answers have been precise, and to the point, does not merit. You and I have had a good, long-standing relationship in wiki, so I say this with a certain feeling reluctance.By the way Boisnard's views are not as depicted, highly marginal. A version of the view that behind Matthew there was an original Hebrew text was also argued by Philippe Rolland, though not if I recall regarding the Ebionites. If I have time I will look into that. Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe it would be very useful if you reviewed several of his comments as well. These include his comments regarding the Ebionites FAR where he seems to have explicitly indicated that he believes he should be able to add his own opinions to the article. I would also very strongly recommend that you review his repeated calls that (pardon me if I get the spelling wrong) Shemaiah Phillips and his non-notable Ebionite Jewish Community/Ebionite Community are reliable sources for this topic, and that their website is a reasonable external link to that article, and even his apparent collusion to produce an article on that group, even though it clearly does not meet notability requirements. All that, taken together, raise extremely serious questions regarding his capacity for anything remotely resembling neutrality and NPOV on this topic. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, welcome to the discussion. You raise a very good point about Philippe Rolland in general. Neither the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, Gospel of Matthew, nor Gospel of Mark include the work of either Boismard or Rolland. It was left to Delbert Burkett (2004) Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark, pp. 138–40, to bring their contributions to the notice of the English-speaking general public. I suspect one of the issues is language; both scholars published almost exclusively in French. The French "school", which also includes Simon Claude Mimouni, indeed takes a putative Hebrew Matthew much more seriously than American, English, and German scholars. To the best of my knowledge, Philippe Rolland did not comment on the Ebionites, but there may be a journal article published in French out there somewhere that will prove me wrong. Ignocrates (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well. You appear to have the ability to access such sources. If you can get copies of key articles in the original by either, email them to me, and I'll read them for you, and, though I haven't that much time, try to pass you a summary of them.Nishidani (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this reply directed to me? If so, I will take a look at Rolland's list of publications and see what I can find. Ignocrates (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

First, it is useful to have some outside input. The following points are the points of contention. One. The third edition of the Oxford source cites both the article in the ABD and Boisnard as sources, and the ABC explicitly refers to it. I am the first to acknowledge that any reference work will have weak articles, and this could be one. However, given the inclusion in the most highly regarded reference book of recent times, there is a very hard case to say that it does not merit inclusion as per WEIGHT, if only, perhaps, to indicate that the source is not held as particularly reliable now. Honestly, I have to say that it is almost obligatory, based on the ABD, to be included as per WEIGHT. It may be discounted - that happens. It might have been nice if certain editors had made the edits in wikipedia space, which they did not; had they done so, the problems could have been resolved earlier. I stand by the fact that a 2005 reference work, one of, I think, the last two or three published with recent updates on the subject, includes it in its short bibliography, if not text. It only had a short paragraph of text. And I'm not sure exactly what the meaning of your last sentence is. It could mean that the views are highly marginal (they might be) or that they aren't (they might be that, too - I dunno). But I believe that saying the ABD is inaccurate on this topic is rather an extraordinary claim, and such extraordinary claims require extraodinary sourcing to oppose them, and I am far from convinced that standard has been met here. Now, if there is a good review of the ABD in some sort of remotely academic source which explicitly says this content is wrongly emphasized, hopefully indicating why, that's fine - that would meet those criteria. But I haven't seen that evidence produced yet. Regarding conduct, I can't say calling me JC, apparently indicating that perhaps I think I'm Jesus Christ, is necessarily something that would be called respectful either, but I have let that slide. However, honestly, Ignocrates is a word which doesn't appear on my spell check, and Iggy, referring I guess Iggy Pop does. Go figure. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That's great to know John, except that we were discussing the The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. That is the encyclopedic article which is unsigned. So, who is embarrassed now? Hot tip: learn to use spell-check. Ignocrates (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates, honestly, you seem to once again be indulging in some irrational attempt to avoid dealing with the reality of the subject and in behavior which rather clearly violates the guideline I linked to above. However, it may well be that your cognitive faculties aren't all that I may have to date perhaps unfoundedly assumed them to have been. Let me restate my comments, then. The Anchor is cited as one of the six sources in that recent reference work. There have been, FWIW, two more since then which deal with this topic, the very conservative Zondervan encyclopedia, which gives the article only a short paragraph and, given its bias, not the best anyway, and the Coogan Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, which only mentions the Gospel of the Ebionites twice in two articles on other subjects. I, however, was saying that the Anchor Bible Dictionary is among the most reliable sources out there, and that its content be used. I produced a source which includes it in its short bibliography;. Apparently, you are perhaps engaging in a completely off-topic and rather, well, irrational, argument that because that second source is not signed, then the first one cannot be used. There is I believe a rather transparent flaw in what might be called, charitably, the reasoning in that argument. At no point did I say that the Oxford was to be used as a source, and I cannot see how any rational person would have made that mistake. It is hard not to see the above comment as a continuation of the behavior which might be considered dubious as per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Honestly, I am at this point very, very close to placing what I believe to be reasonably placed quality tags on this article if the above editor continues in making comments which in no way relate to the comments to which he is responding. Most any rational adult would be able to do so. If you aren't able to do so, Ignocrates, that would be very interesting evidence not only for the featured article review people, but also for any arbitrators or administrators who might be called in regarding problematic behavior. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

Next, I'm going to cover Boismard's speculation about a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as an underlying source of the Gospel of the Ebionites. I was the one that raised this issue above as fringe scholarship. The Anchor Bible article compares Boismard's conjecture as a dissenting opinion to the modern consensus view of Vielhaur in Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha first edition (1963). I quote the text as follows (with text separated to avoid of copyright violations):

A dissenting position, however, is that of Boismard, who detects two traditions in Epiphanius' quotations from the gospel used by the Ebionites. One is a later, more developed tradition, which is probably a Greek language original;

the second is a much more primitive tradition and has a strong imprint of a Semitic language. It is this latter tradition which Boismard equates with the Hebrew (i.e. pre-Greek) recension of Matthew - the document described by Epiphanius.

— Petersen, W.L., The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol.2, p.262

I'm going to stipulate that this is an accurate summary of Boismard's original article in French. Ignocrates (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Having reread the Anchor Bible article, I am retracting my statement that this conjecture is universally regarded as fringe scholarship. It is a minority view surely, probably a tiny minority view, but it is not fringe. The Wikipedia article on the Gospel of the Ebionites already mentions a putative linkage between the GEbi and a hypothetical Hebrew Gospel in the lead and the body, so this information should be easy to incorporate. I propose to cite the Anchor Bible Dictionary reference in the lead and add a citation of Boismard's journal article to the body along with a note containing a paraphrase of the above second quotation. Ignocrates (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

To provide a counter-point to this perspective, I'm going to cite Gregory (2008), which is already a source, with a quotation in a note as follows:

The reasons for believing that Matthew was composed in Greek are so compelling that the quest for a Hebrew original is best regarded as a dead end, no matter how romantic its pursuit might seem.

— Gregory, The Non-canonical Gospels, p.55

I think these additions will adequately support the content on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in the article. Ignocrates (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have implemented the suggested changes to the article. Ignocrates (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Justin Martyr's gospel harmony

The content about Justin Martyr follows the discussion about Boismard's conjecture. Rather than comment on it at this point, I'm going to show it as a series of quotations:

1. Investigations into the gospel text of Justin shows that he used a harmony which incorporated the Synoptics but not John (Bellinzoni, 1967, p.140)

2. The date of Justin's gospel text, its harmonized form, and its failure to incorporate John are all reminiscent of the Ebionite gospel. The relationship between Justin's gospel and the Ebionite gospel, if any, is unclear at present.

3. It is plain, however, that the genre was known, and Bertrand has argued that the harmonized Gospel of the Ebionites antedates the Diatessaron of Tatian, which was composed about 170 CE.

— Petersen, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, p.262

The rest of the Anchor Bible Dictionary article to the end is unproblematic and already covered in this Wikipedia article, supported by reliable secondary sources. Ignocrates (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The content of the third quotation above is unproblematic and covered in the article. I could, and probably should, add Bertrand as a source to back up the content that is already there. Frankly, I missed this reference because Bertrand published in French. Bringing this article up to FA quality has made me keenly aware of my deficiencies in reading publications in French and German; deficiencies I plan to remedy, but it will take time. Ignocrates (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of the first two quotations probably seems straightforward to a reader who is unfamiliar with the peer-reviewed literature. Bellinzoni is cited as a source for the statement in quotation 1 "Investigations into the gospel text of Justin shows that he used a harmony which incorporated the Synoptics but not John (Bellinzoni, 1967, p.140) (underlines are mine). The plain meaning of this statement is that Justin used a gospel harmony somehow associated with him (whether, written by him or merely used by him is not made clear). The problem is that Bellinzoni is not discussing a gospel harmony here (p.140); he is summarizing conclusions about a primitive Christian catechism. Bellinzoni concludes that Justin's principle sources for his harmonistic materials were a Christian catechism and a reference manual (vade mecum) against heresies. With respect to Justin's composition of a gospel harmony, Bellinzoni further states on p.141, and I quote here:

It must, however, be emphasized that there is absolutely no evidence that Justin ever composed a complete harmony of the Synoptic Gospels; his harmonies were of linited scope and were apparently composed for didactic purposes.

— Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr, p.141

Therefore, one has to interpret the meaning of quotation1 narrowly as "harmonistic materials containing gospel sayings used by Justin" for this statement to be factually accurate. I'm not sure a non-expert reader would do that. I flagged this discrepancy immediately, which is one reason I elected to not use the ABD as a source. Ignocrates (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Bellinzoni continues by comparing the harmonistic materials used by Justin to the harmonistic materials used in the homily known as 2 Clement. He points out that 2 Clement was probably written before Justin composed his first Apology and his Dialogue, pointing out that:

2 Clement merely indicates that there were in use before Justin's period written gospel harmonies, which served as models for the harmonies used and perhaps composed by Justin. Justin's similarities to 2 Clement are no more than would be expected when two different harmonies of the Synoptic Gospels are composed.

— Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr, p.142

Bellinzoni does not make a comparison between the harmonistic materials Justin used and the Gospel of the Ebionites. Ignocrates (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

All of the above analysis with respect to Justin leads me to believe that the statements in quotation2 – the assumption that Justin used a gospel harmony and the comparison of that harmony to the Gospel of the Ebionites – are the result of Petersen's own original research rather than based on any reliable secondary sources. I don't think a tertiary source like an encyclopedic dictionary should be creating original research. Therefore, it is my opinion that if this ABD article is going to be used, it should be supported by reliable secondary sources as backup. That is the subject I will address in the next segment. Ignocrates (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Scholar Richard Bauckham, who is already listed as a source (Bauckham, 2003) in this article, notes the following about the Gospel of the Ebionites:

George Howard has also shown that in many specific respects its text is typical of the harmonizing tendencies of the second century, both in transmission of the gospel texts themselves and in the use of the texts by writers such as Justin.

— Bauckham, The Image of the Judeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature, p.172

It may take me a few more days to track down Howard's scholarly publication to get a more complete description from the original source; however, even Bauckham's brief note in passing about Justin's use of harmonized materials, based on a reliable secondary source, should have priority over Petersen's unsourced statement in the 1992 ABD, which appears to be a summary of Howard's 1988 work without attribution. Ignocrates (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I was able to locate Howard's (1988) article at the university. It is a substantial piece of work; it's going to take me at least a day to go through it. I will copy the citation to Further Reading for now while I figure out how to incorporate it into the reference sources. Ignocrates (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Howard simply states that Justin also used harmonized gospel materials and refers to Bellinzoni (1967) as a reference. He makes no attempt to compare between the GEbi and Justin, other than Justin's mention of fire on the water during Jesus' baptism in Dial. 88 in contrast to a great light on the water in Gebi and the Diatessaron. Howard makes the important point that the creation of harmonies based on the gospels was a typical method of composition in the 2nd century. I may add a sentence in "Relationship to other texts" about the nature of GEbi as a harmony and a comparison to other pre-Diatesseronic harmonies (2 Clement, GThom) as well as Justin. Ignocrates (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I believe that addresses the content issues with Justin Martyr. Ignocrates (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Fwiw, this is a nice bio by SBL of William L. Petersen who tragically passed away in 2006, the same year as his mentor Gilles Quispel. Maybe someone reading this can find the time to acknowledge his contributions in a biographic article on his life and works. He was an expert in the Diatessaron and gospel harmonies in general, which explains his interest in the Ebionite gospel. Ignocrates (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)