This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
It is not clear any of the "Rabbinic record" refers to the Jesus of Christianity.
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)
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)
The following ¶ is moved from Jesus:
Judging by what the Church Fathers, such as Epiphanius of Salamis wrote about them, [1] 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 Talk TCF 03:32, 21 March 2006 (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 is Wikipedia. Bring your facts. L.A.F.
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}}
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)
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.
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)
I have removed the following paragraph from the Catholic encyclopedia [1], inserted without comment:
for a number of reasons.
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
It is not clear any of the "Rabbinic record" refers to the Jesus of Christianity.
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)
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)
The following ¶ is moved from Jesus:
Judging by what the Church Fathers, such as Epiphanius of Salamis wrote about them, [1] 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 Talk TCF 03:32, 21 March 2006 (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 is Wikipedia. Bring your facts. L.A.F.
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}}
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)
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.
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)
I have removed the following paragraph from the Catholic encyclopedia [1], inserted without comment:
for a number of reasons.
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)