![]() | 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 |
The text as written implies that the Ebionites edited the Gospel to make Jesus fit with their philosophy. What evidence is there that it was the Ebionites who changed Jesus to match their teachings and not the Synoptic Gospels which changed Jesus to fit theirs? Marwood 13:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There are several early "orthodox" texts of Matthew in the Alexandrian family that lack the genealogy and virgin birth. I'll try to locate the specific variants. This could point to a second century origin for the gospel harmony. Ovadyah ( talk) 18:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Much of this article is talking about the Ebionites, rather than their gospel. As such I suggest that that material be moved to Ebionites.-- Michael C. Price talk 05:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I applied a merge tag to indicate this content should be incorporated into the Ebionites article. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 22:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I applied a tag proposing that the Matthaei Authenticum material be merged into the Gospel of the Hebrews or possibly the Jewish-Christian Gospels article. This is the least likely place to put this material out of the four pages on Jewish-Christian Gospels. What little we know about the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites is contained in Epiphanius' Panarion chapter 30. The material quoted by Epiphanius suggests it was composed in Greek and was a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels. (I suggest the Gospel of the Hebrews as a fourth synoptic gospel and the probable source of the great light on the water during the baptism of Jesus.) The reference to "us" in the text, referring to the apostles, suggests the source may be the Gospel of The Twelve mentioned by Origen. This is the majority view among scholars in the last 20 years. There is only a single mention by Jerome of a different gospel that may have been used the Ebionites. That is the same gospel used by the Nazoraeans (and is indistinguishable from the Gospel of the Hebrews). Ovadyah ( talk) 22:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The merge seems okay, but why has this material suddenly appeared in Ebionites? I suggest that Matthaei Authenticum (which redirects to the Gospel of the Hebrews), Jewish Christians and Ebionites are distinct enough to merit their own articles, and that the material just moved into the latter should remain the former. A simple link or two will suffice to link to the material where required.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ret.Prof, does this mean you changed your mind? I still think it's a good idea. It's just not as simple as a cut and paste. How about a compromise. We can leave the GoE article intact while the GoE section of the Ebionites article is expanded to incorporate relevant new information (relevant being the key word and open to discussion). After a majority of the editors are happy with the changes (nothing is ever unanimous on the Ebionites article), we can complete the merge. Any thoughts? Ovadyah ( talk) 18:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the google books link to Schneemelcher; have added it to the external links sections. It has a number useful statements about the GoE, as well as the Ebionites themselves. I have deleted the section that spoke solely about the Ebionites - we must strive to avoid duplicating material in other articles. Some of the remaining material looks a bit POV, but that's for the future. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Over the past two months I have been reading up on the Jewish gospels starting with Clement and finishing with Casey.
It has been a lot of work to read through this mountain of material. I would sum up these sources as follows:
In a topic where there are many strange ideas ranging from "Jesus as alien being" to "Jesus as a mythical God", Occam's razor states the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one. In other words, Jesus was probably a 'Jewish' rabbi and one of his followers wrote some 'stuff' about him in the 'local dialect'.
The simplest explanation is also supported by the historical evidence. During the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link
During the formative years of Early Christianity 0 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Gospel of the Ebionites in circulation. Also it is listed in 0 ancient catalogs. Indeed there is no historical evidence from either Christian or non Christian sources that the Ebionites ever composed a gospel. The Church Fathers all state that the Ebionites only used one gospel which was composed by Matthew in Hebrew and was referred to by "most people" as the Authentic Gospel of Matthew or less frequently the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Therefore Schneemelcher's "imaginary" Gospel of the Ebionites is a non existent gospel or as Edwards politely puts it a scholarly neologism
Schneemelcher's "numbering" has also been weighed, measured and found wanting for the following reasons.
Finally, I may have been a little hard Schneemelcher, as
Therefore I strongly oppose any change to the present numbering. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
A likely explanation for all this confusion is that there is only one so-called Hebrew gospel; it is the same gospel that Jerome had in his possession, which was written in Syriac using Hebrew letters and with OT quotations in the Hebrew language. The title of this gospel was almost certainly "According to Matthew". That's how Jerome identifies it the first time he mentions it. (The first and only time, presumably before he was able to read it in Syriac.) However, once Jerome (and others) realized the text was different than canonical Matthew, that presented a problem. Jerome subsequently refers to the text as "According to the Hebrews", following Eusebius, to distinguish it from canonical Matthew. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm listening: please explain Thanks In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Some non-enthusiast mainstream editors are needed here to allow that e.g. the mainstream Schneemelcher numbering system and majority point of view needs to take precedence over Melissa from the Bangkok internet cafe and other enthusiastic OR NPOV contributions:
In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I would be happy to help out as an informal mediator, if asked. Biblical textual criticism is a big interest of mine, so I know a wee bit about the subject matter. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 19:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I took a look. Frankly, I would consider going back to this version as a starting point. The current section on the Ebionites is basically a duplicate of the material in the Ebionites article. The section on the Matthaei Authenticum was added shortly after this version by an anon. It has nothing to do with the gospel quoted by Epiphanius, which appears to be a gospel harmony of the three synoptic gospels (probably plus the GoH). We know enough about the baptismal scene in the GoH, based on quotations by Jerome from his personal copy, to know that it can't possibly be that gospel. So, I would consider starting with this older version and adding in what we do know based on the testimony of Epiphanius. His specific quotations from the gospel might be added in the reference section. Most modern scholars equate the GoE to the Gospel of The Twelve. The article should reflect that with proper sourcing. I hope this helps. Ovadyah ( talk) 23:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with going back to your version of 9 May 2009 as a starting point.
There is a lot of good work in the current article, and I'm not suggesting that it all be thrown away. However, it was expanded in two different directions, a description of the Ebionites as a sect and the Matthaei Authenticum, that are covered more completely elsewhere. Apart from a single mention by Jerome of a gospel that the Nazaraeans and Ebionites use (likely a mistake on his part as the two christologies are incompatible), all we know about the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites (modern name) is contained in Epiphanius' Panarion 30. I would start there with reliable secondary sources. Ovadyah ( talk) 23:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I will list all the primary source material before Epiphanius in chronological order. All of the quotations are taken from Skarsaune, Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007):
Irenaeus
For the Ebionites who use the Gospel according to Matthew only, are confuted of this very same book, when they make false suppositions with regard to the Lord
— Haer. 3.11.7 (p.435)
Irenaeus claims they are using a gospel text that contradicts their own beliefs.
Pseudo-Tertullian
Cerinthus' successor was Ebion, not in agreement with Cerinthus in every point, because he says that the world was made by God, not by angels; and because it is written, "no disciple is above his master, nor a servant above his Lord", he brings to the fore likewise the Law, of course for the purpose of excluding the gospel and vindicating Judaism.
— Haer. 3 (pp.434-435, 438-439)
Ps. Tertullian seems to imply that they exclude the gospel (italics are mine).
I could not find any quotations by Origen about the gospel the Ebionites used, but I will recheck.
Eusebius
These men moreover thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the Apostle, whom they called an apostate from the Law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.
— Hist. eccl. 3.27.1 (p.446)
Eusebius' report is similar to Irenaeus before him, but he refers to the gospel as the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews (italics mine), possibly implying that it is called that name by others to distinguish the text from canonical Matthew.
Jerome
in the Gospel which the Nazoraeans and the Ebionites use which we translated recently from Hebrew to Greek and which is called the authentic text of Matthew by a good many, it is written...
— Comm. Matt. 12.13 (p.544-545)
Here, Jerome explicitly states that a good many regard it as the authentic text of Matthew (italics mine).
This is everything excluding Epiphanius. Everything up to this point suggests (to me) that the Ebionites used a gospel text they called the Gospel of Matthew and others called the Gospel of the Hebrews to distinguish it from the canonical Gospel of Matthew. The confusion begins with the report of Epiphanius in Panarion 30.
Ovadyah (
talk)
02:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The point of the above quotations was to show what the Church Fathers said about a gospel or gospels used by the Ebionites in chronological order. All the Church Fathers depend to some extent on the reports of those that came before them. I may have been too hasty when I said Jerome was probably mistaken when he reported that both the Nazaraeans and Ebionites use the Gospel of the Hebrews. Jerome's report agrees with that of Irenaeus 200 years earlier when he said the Ebionites use a gospel that contradicts their own beliefs. Anyway, all of this was intended to be background information for an analysis of what Epiphanius had to say in Panarion 30. The problem confounding scholars (and editors) is that Panarion 30 has a big internal contradiction. Part of his report is consistent with the prior witnesses I listed above, and part is totally different. The probable reason is that Epiphanius is believed to have written the Panarion in at least two drafts (probably three according to Glen Alan Koch). The base text is a historical report that conflates the testimony of the previous Fathers. There may be an intermediate draft containing material from the Circuits of Peter (what Origen calls the Vagaries of Clement) where he believes that the Ebionites have corrupted the text. Epiphanius is believed to have then inserted new material based on his own experience, including the gospel he quotes from and the Count Joseph story, into the final version he wrote in Cyprus. That gospel (probably the Gospel of The Twelve), and the beliefs and practices he associates with it (like Samaritans), is completely different and incompatible with the material contained in his previous version (testimony of the earlier Fathers including the Gospel of the Hebrews). One way out of the trap is to lay out what Epiphanius said and separate the two versions (using reliable sources of course). Hope this helps. Ovadyah ( talk) 16:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
One more thing and then I'm moving on. I'm sure you guys have plenty of sources, but I find textexcavation to be a valuable resource for this area of study. The original Greek and Latin transcriptions are all there along with the English translation. Good luck on sorting it all out. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 16:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add in here Gospel of the Ebionites mention of mainstream scholarship Schneemelcher etc, Martin Dibelius, Anchor Bible Dictionary, that the GE of Epiphanius was composed in Greek, per p167 Schneemelcher Vol.1 In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed we seem to be talking at cross purposes.Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Primary sources include video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, original philosophical works, archeological artifacts, ancient works, religious scripture, etc. In our case the primary source is the Gospel of the Ebionites. The difficulty of course is that were no longer have a copy of it. According to Schneemelcher, etc this is because it has been lost, while Edwards etc argue it is because it never existed, hence our conflict. Until the primary source is discovered and studied we will be able to say little with certainty and this will be an area of continued scholarly debate.
Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed. They rely on the primary source for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about it. Our policy is that Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source. The secondary sources would include Epiphanius, Jerome etc.
Here the secondary sources appear to be in agreement. Matthew wrote a Hebrew Gospel that was used by the Ebionites. The Ebionites used no other Gospel. I am aware of no secondary source that contradicts this fact.
Tertiary sources are publications that mainly summarize secondary sources. Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics. Here is where we have the scholarly debate.
Starting with Andrews Norton (1846), Schneemelcher etc have argued that the Ebionites actually composed a gospel called the Gospel of the Ebionites.
Nicholson, Edwards etc argue that the Ebionites only used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. They argue that the Gospel of the Ebionites is a scholarly neologism with no historical evidence to support it. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I restored the Gospel of the Hebrews section, properly sourced it, and made a few changes to the text (hopefully improvements). As I mentioned previously on the talk page, all of the Church Fathers prior to Epiphanius and including Jerome refer back to this gospel. I covered off on them in two sentences, using inline primary quotations and sources in the reference section. Ovadyah ( talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
One possibility for how to handle the conflicting Epiphanius material in Panarion 30 would be to put all of his references to the Gospel of the Hebrews, including reports based on the earlier Church Fathers and possibly some quotations he derived from the GoH, into this section. That would free up the main section to discuss what scholars typically think of as the Gospel of the Ebionites. Another way to organize the material would be to leave out all the testimony of Epiphanius from this section, the way it is now, and cover the conflicting gospel references in a separate main section. Ovadyah ( talk) 21:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This is getting interesting, so I decided to dig a little deeper into the structure of the Panarion 30. Skarsaune claims that 30.3.7 connected directly to 30.15.1 in the original version, and that 30.4-12 and 30.13-14 are large inserts which were added later (p.457). Chapters 30.4-12 are the Count Joseph story and 30.13-14 are the so-called Ebionite Gospel. Chapter 30.15 begins the Pseudo-Clementine material that Epiphanius refers to in 30.15.1 as the Journeys of Peter.
The report in 30.3.7 about the gospel used by the Ebionites is in agreement with Jerome and the earlier Church Fathers as follows:
They also accept the Gospel according to Matthew. For they too use only this like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus. They call it, however, "according to the Hebrews" which name is correct since Matthew is the only one in the New Testament who issued the Gospel and the proclamation in Hebrew and with Hebrew letters.
— Panarion 30.3.7 (p.457)
Skarsaune claims this account is a conflation of information provided by Papias, Irenaeus, and Eusebius on the Gospel used by the Ebionites. Ovadyah ( talk) 02:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Skarsaune (p.458) mentions in footnotes that Schmidtke thought 30.14.15 might be an addendum to the material Epiphanius excerpted from the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites, and his paraphrase may have come from Origen's Commentary on John 2.12 about the Gospel of the Hebrews, possibly along with a quotation from that gospel. Skarsaune summarizes the point, so I reproduce the translation from Glen Alan Koch as follows:
Again, they deny that he is a man, indeed, from the word which the savior spoke in response to that which was reported to him, "'Behold your mother and your brethren stand outside'. 'Who is my mother and my bretheren?' And stretching forth his hand upon the disciples he said, 'These are my brethren and my mother and sister, those who do the will of my father'".
— Panarion 30.14.15
The verse in Origen's commentary translates as follows:
But if any should admit the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where the savior himself says: "Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit...
— Comm. Jo. 2.12
However, Skarsaune is not convinced of Schmidtke's argument. If I can indulge in a little OR, by best guess is that Epiphanius may be alluding to Comm. Jo. 2.12 above, but the verse in 30.14.15 is probably still from the gospel harmony in 30.13-14 the Gospel of the Hebrews based on an analysis of the parallel passages
here. You will need a browser that can read Symbol font to view it properly.
Ovadyah (
talk)
04:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I changed my mind about the quotation above based on internal considerations. The commentary and quotations in 30.14.15 and 30.16.4-5 are parallel passages. They both come at the end of a section and both are used to contrast a preceding comment about adoptionist Christology. Epiphanius attributes the quotation in 30.16.4-5 to the Gospel of the Hebrews as follows:
And they say that he was not engendered from God the Father, but created, as one of the archangels, but being greater than they are, and that he is Lord even of angels and of all things created by the Almighty, and that he came also to declare, as the gospel among them called according to the Hebrews has: "I came to abolish sacrifices, and if you do not cease to sacrifice, the wrath will not cease from you."
— Panarion 30.16.4-5
Both of these taken together suggest they may have come from the same polemical commentary. Note that the commentary doesn't seem to align very well with either quotation. Ovadyah ( talk) 21:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This discussion will go a lot faster if we can reach a consensus on how to group the disparate gospel references within Panarion 30. The analysis shows that there are three internal contradictions regarding the gospel(s) the Ebionites used within Panarion 30, based on Skarsaune. I can dig out the refs from Koch too if needed.
1) Chp 1.1 to 3.7 is a historical review of the previous Church Fathers plus Epiphanius' comments on that material. The only section relevant for our purposes is 3.7, which agrees with the Gospel of the Hebrews.
2) Chp 13.1 to 14.5 is the new material added in the final draft that contains the gospel harmony in Greek plus Epiphanius' comments on that material. The first four gospel quotations almost surely come from this material. The quotation in 14.5 possibly does too, but it might be from the GoH. It's clear that Epiphanius associates it with a docetic Christology.
3) Chp 15.1 to the end uses the Journeys of Peter as a base text with other material added, possibly from the an alternative Acts of the Apostles and the Book of Elxsai. The emphasis of this whole section is on Peter and the True Prophet. The material relevant for out purposes are the last two gospel quotations in chapter 16 and 22 along with numerous comments by Epiphanius about how the Ebionites corrupted their text. Epiphanius says explicitly that the quotation in chapter 16 comes from the Gospel of the Hebrews. There is a paraphrase of the quotation in Homilies 3.51.2, so Epiphanius probably found the quotation in materials he received from Origen. The Christology is completely consistent with what we know from other sources citing the GoH, where Jesus is said to be the first-born of creation. The last quotation in Chp 22 is the trickiest to identify but most consistent with the Journeys of Peter.
I'm going to take a short wiki-break and then get to the specifics of the proposals. Ovadyah ( talk) 15:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Almost no one thinks GoH = GoE, so move all sources relevant to GoH, including parts of Panarion 30, to the GoH section and refer readers to the main GoH article. Then proceed to lay out the conjectures of the secondary sources regarding the origin of the remaining primary source material in Panarion 30.
Begin with the historical perspective of what Epiphanius believed to be true, taking all primary sources into consideration together. Follow this with the speculations of modern scholars beginning with the predominant conjecture, the so-called "standard model", if one exists, followed by newer or more controversial conjectures. I believe the most recent consensus is that there is none, so don't be shy about reporting ideas from the "fertile imaginations" of modern scholars (Panarion 30 being the source of the manure). It will make the article messier but more NPOV.
How about beginning a discussion with these two proposals, and feel free to add more proposals. Attention to detail on the talk page will head off bigger edit wars later. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 15:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This scholarly debate is very similar to the Synoptic Problem, where the 2 Source (or 4 Source) theory has been around for 100 years and is kind of the "standard model". Along comes the Farrar/Goulder/Goodacre theory to challenge the conventional wisdom, which they argue is a simpler explanation (but not without its own problems). By analogy, lay out the 3G theory first with the main advocates. Then bring in the 2G challenger, and let the sources argue for themselves why their solution is simpler (parsimonious) without an appreciable loss of explanatory power. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
So......... I'll say to all what I think would be best for these pages is that you and I both walk away from all 4 pages. Seeing as my edits are deleted anyway, and seeing as the 2 other editors who have arrived both look able and willing to add mainstream sources and remove OR, NPOV and OVERWEIGHT, that would be great. And I can get on editing articles about classical music etc. How about that? Sound good? Let's just walk away? In ictu oculi ( talk) 20:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Ovadyah, yes Klijn considers the mainstream 3x GE/GN/GHeb division proven beyond all doubt - a very strong statement from an academic. It was footnote I included in one of the 4x pages before RetProf deleted everything on Saturday, I cannot remember now which one of the 4x pages. Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 21:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You are making an old guy do some work - which is fine. I have researched the topic and can now address the concerns you raised here and earlier in the discussion. Matthaei authenticum is not just an invention of 1 or more Wikipedia editors. It is to be found in many English scholarly works. Google Link Although term is Latin, English speaking scholars often use Latin when writing. Using Latin is a sort of scholarly tradition. The term Matthaei authenticum has been translated as meaning the authentic gospel Matthew, authentic Matthew, true Matthew, original Matthew etc. Google Link. According to most scholars the gospel that the Nazarenes and Ebionites used was called Matthaei authenticum by "most" people in the the early Church.
As far as Wikipedia is concerned the first editor to use the term Matthaei authenticum was Peter Kirby (2005?) but it would wrong to argue that he invented the term. If the early Church fathers are right and the gospel that the Ebionites and Nazarenes used is truly Matthew's authentic gospel, then this has implications, not only for the Canonical Gospel of Matthew but the whole Synoptic tradition. This is the reason for the heated debate among scholars and why care must be taken to write this article from a NPOV. A final note is that I tend to lean toward using the Latin name as there are several English translations of the term which often causes confusion. I hope this addresses the concern you raised. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to do a little tidying up. If any of the editors actively working on the article has a problem, I will self-revert and then be happy to discuss. Please don't revert my edits without discussion. Let's avoid unnecessary trips to ANI. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's most of the easy stuff. Much more work to be done. Ovadyah ( talk) 21:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I reordered the sections putting the description of the Ebionites as a sect first. I like the concept of three short sentences describing who they were, but the wording sounds rather OR. One or two encyclopedic references covering the same points are needed here to provide reliable sources and tighten up the wording. I also collapsed the single sentence about Epiphanius into the main body and reworded it. Ovadyah ( talk) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
An important point I'm trying to get across about Panarion 30 is that Epiphanius intended it to be contradictory. Epiphanius is often described as ignorant, confused, mistaken, etc., but that is from the perspective of modern scholars trying to recreate a gospel from their "fertile imaginations". Epiphanius' intent here was straightforward - the Church has the one right-belief, heresy many false ones. He deliberately combined disparate materials, which he uses to point out over and over how the Ebionites are internally inconsistent in their doctrines. I need to find a better reliable source that describes the aims of Epiphanius. That is a key to understanding his use of sources. Ovadyah ( talk) 00:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I have updated the reference for Schneemelcher and Robert McLachlan Wilson along with a URL link. Ovadyah ( talk) 05:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The Ebionites did have other Christian texts as part of their canon, however. which? They appear to have accepted Matthew's Hebrew Gospel in Aramaic but with Hebrew Letters. It appears likely that this gospel was different from the Gospel of Matthew now in the canon."
I removed the first part of the paragraph (shown here), since it relates to the Gospel of the Hebrews (which I already covered) rather than the Gospel harmony described by Epiphanius. I incorporated the rest along with the Ehrman reference. Ovadyah ( talk) 01:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
During the time of the Early Church most scholars who? referred to Matthew's Hebrew Gospel [1] as Matthaei Authenticum ( Authentic Gospel of Matthew) to distinguish it from the Canonical Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible. verification needed
Although many believed that Canonical Matthew was merely a Greek translation of Authentic Matthew it was Jerome who first pointed out that this was not likely. In a letter to Pope Damasus in 383, he pointed out that there were major discrepancies between the two. [2]
These small paragraphs are largely redundant and don't have anything to do with the gospel harmony described by Epiphanius. Ovadyah ( talk) 03:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
A partial list of mainly 19th Century sources would include:
Archived from Controversy section of the article. Replace with one or two current reliable sources to support the content. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Bart D. Ehrman (2003). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press. p. 96 pp. 101-102 Google Link Ovadyah ( talk) 00:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica: Ebionites Ovadyah ( talk) 15:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I moved James Edwards' hypothesis about a Hebrew gospel underlying the L-source of the Gospel of Luke to the talk page for now.
There is continuing debate among Biblical scholars regarding the composition of the Synoptic Gospels. As part of that discussion some scholars have written concerning the relation of Jewish-Christian Gospels to the Synoptic Gospels. [3]
This may have something to do with a common vorlage underlying GN/GH and Luke, but it doesn't seem relevant to the GE gospel harmony. Ovadyah ( talk) 20:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I will continue to use the previous "Cleanup" section to document any changes to the current material. I want to use this new section to "sketch" some thoughts on the direction of the main section of the article. Ovadyah ( talk) 15:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer that the article not begin and end with a list of seven quotations extracted from Panarion 30, organized into a list devoid of any context, and called a gospel. Several scholars have done just that, so we are obligated to report it, but I want to take it further by considering the intentions of Epiphanius in writing Panarion 30 and the characteristics of the specific group of "Ebionites" he has personal knowledge of on Cyprus.
I have already reported on Finley's recent Ph.D. thesis regarding the "attitude" of Epiphanius toward the Ebionites in Panarion 30. Finley goes even further by stating that he believes Epiphanius grouped together all of the low Christologies he knew of, only some of which were an accurate reflection of previous accounts and his personal knowledge of the Ebionites, as a polemic against the Arians of his time. It was common practice in the 4th century, and later, to insult Christians suspected of having a lower Christology than orthodoxy by referring to them as "Ebionites". I may add more about this to the article eventually, but in any case, it's important for understanding why Epiphanius selected the materials he used for Panarion 30.
Skarsaune reports that he believes Epiphanius only inferred Ebionites had been living on Cyprus, based on the Gospel harmony he found there, which he attributed to the Ebionites. Chapters 13 and 14 of Panarion 30, where most of the quotations are located, are believed to be a late insertion of material from this Gospel harmony. Epiphanius refers to Cyprus as one of the "roots" of the Ebionites along with the Trans-Jordan region and others. However, his description of the Ebionites sounds much more like Samaritans (they used the Pentateuch only) than Jews, probably based on materials that originated from the Circuits of Peter. Petri Luomanen concludes Epiphanius was probably referring to a sect of Hellenistic-Samaritan Jewish-Christians that were independent of the Judaic sect we associate with the term Ebionites based on the testimony of the earlier Church Fathers. So, it is extremely important to the context that we understand which "Ebionites" are in view in this so-called Gospel of the Ebionites. I may add a short paragraph under the Ebionite section explaining this difference. Ovadyah ( talk) 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I checked the stichometry of the first three verses. There are 944 Greek letters with no spaces (yes, I counted them twice). Allowing for nomina sacra for Jesus, God, and Lord, that might reduce the number of letters to 932. At 30 letters per line (a typical line length for a papyrus codex), that would result in 32 lines on the first page. That is a typical number of lines for a bible codex. The reason I checked was to verify there is no way that the fourth verse could fit on the same page. I think the "fourth verse" is actually a dedication on the title page of the codex by Matthew speaking in the first person. That's why Epiphanius discusses it first, right after the title. Ovadyah ( talk) 20:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to divide the main body into sections following a brief introduction. The sections I will include for now are Name, Provenance and Date, and Composition. I may include additional sections such as Christology, Vegetarianism, One Gospel Text or Many?, and Relationship to Authentic Matthew. Some of these will attempt to document ongoing controversies in this field of study. Ovadyah ( talk) 16:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to add a section after Composition called Christologies, and I added a new section for Controversies. The Controversies section will have multiple subsections such as Vegetarianism or Proof from Prophesy?, One Gospel Text or Many?, Is the Gospel of the Ebionites an Ebionite Gospel? The point of the Controversies section is to attempt to capture hot topics now under discussion by scholars in one place. Ovadyah ( talk) 21:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The Christology and Vegetarianism sections have been added to the article. The Controversies section could still use some work, but the article is now reasonably complete (ie. a C-class article as opposed to a Start-class). I double-checked all the references and everything seems to be complete. The Lead section now needs to be rewritten to accurately reflect a summary of the main body of the article. Ovadyah ( talk) 15:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
since:
Can you please rectify the 3rd lede paragraph using the above? Thanks again for your work. Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Like this?
Cleaned up
Now
Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ovadyah. 1. Sorry, archive where? Here in Clean Up, above? 2. This is a further sterling set of edits. 3. There is another "Matthaei Authenticum" statement on the tail of the article implying that scholars used to use the term, which is not true. About to reword. In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 4. edited out " Andrews Norton (1846)" with "conventional name given at least as early as the French priest Richard Simon (1689)" and moved Norton 1846 and Pick 1908 to final biblio footnote. Also changed "modern scholarly neologism" to "scholarly convention" and broke following sentence with a stop/period. reworded to "in the Gospel used by them" which is what Epiphanius says and ref. I suspect that Richard Simon is far from the earliest but just put 1846 back to 1689. Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Epiphanius refers to the Gospel harmony "found among them" as "according to Matthew" and "the Hebrew [Gospel]" in 13.1-2. I'm going to move this content from the "Composition" section to the "Name" section. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
There was a man named Jesus, and he was about thirty years old; he has chosen us. And He came into Capernaum and entered into the house of Simon, surnamed Peter, and He opened His mouth and said, 'As I walked by the sea of Tiberias, I chose John and James, the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Thaddaeus and Simon Zelotes, and Judas Isariot; thee also, Matthew, when thou wast sitting at the receipt of custom, did I call and thou didst follow me. According to my intention ye shall be twelve apostles for a testimony unto Israel.'
— 13.2b-3
I am now convinced this quotation is a dedication on the title page of the Gospel harmony that served as the title. Unfortunately, I can't say so (OR), unless we find at least one reliable source that makes the same connection. Please check your sources and see what you can find. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I moved the GH section back to its original location early in the article. The point of locating it there was to direct readers that are more interested in the GH as an Ebionite Gospel to the main GH article. Ovadyah ( talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
We still need a citation for the third paragraph in the lead section. I will check to see if it was deleted accidentally. Ovadyah ( talk) 02:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Fine with the location back btw. Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Good point about the Davidic genealogy via Solomon in Matthew as opposed to via Nathan as per Luke. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 02:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Everything is now properly sourced with reliable sources, and all references to primary sources have been subordinated as inline comments of reliable secondary sources. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 14:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I am going to start rebuilding the Lead Section to accurately reflect a summary of the main content. As usual, I will copy anything I don't use over to the talk page so that nothing is lost. Ovadyah ( talk) 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This second paragraph of the Lead section is problematic and needs some thought. It doesn't summarize anything in the main body. Ovadyah ( talk) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The sentence provides a useful link to the Jewish-Christian Gospels gateway article. That part should be kept. Maybe it should be reworded like this: **The Gospel of the Ebionites is one of three Jewish-Christian Gospels, along with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans.** The rest is irrelevant, since we just said the GE consists of 7 quotations. It is also obvious that the GE is not a slight variation of the others. The confusion is whether the GH and the GN are slight variations of each other. I will give this some more thought. Ovadyah ( talk) 16:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I moved the controversy statement about the relationship between the three Jewish-Christian Gospels from the Lead section to the Controversies section to expand that section, and I replaced it with a more neutral descriptive statement about the Jewish-Christian Gospels to retain the wikis in the Lead section. That should fix the problem. Now I can expand the Lead section further with summary statements about the content in the main body. Ovadyah ( talk) 22:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The Lead section is now completed. Please check everything over one more time. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It usually takes some time for editors to respond to a request for peer review. I'm going to apply the template to the top of the talk page to initiate the process, and meanwhile, we can make any final changes to improve the article for review by a wider group of editors. Ovadyah ( talk) 01:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I have addressed Llywrch's bullet points 3 and 4 by, (3) substituting Ehrman's Lost Christianities as a RS for the Encyclopedia Britannica, and (4) rewording the sentence about Shneemelcher to make it sound less dogmatic by removing "the standard critical edition". I think Llywrch makes a good point that if we believe it is the critical edition, we need to prove it somewhere, i.e. not just an editor's POV, or if there is more than one critical edition, we should list all the additions. In any case, this sounds like a disclaimer that belongs in the references rather than the article content. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Llywrch's bullet points 1 and 2 are about style and readability, (1) rewording the Lead section, and (2) condensing paragraphs or moving around the order. I will address these style questions after all changes to the article content are finished. Bullet points 5, 6, and 7, are about omissions from the article, potentially involving the addition of sourced content. I will address these next. Bullet point 8 was an oversight. Vegetarianism is already mentioned in the Lead section as well as the main body. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I addressed bullet point 1 by rearranging and condensing the four short paragraphs in Lead section down to two paragraphs. There's always room for improvement, but I think the changes substantially address the point that the Lead section appeared to be too fragmented. Ovadyah ( talk) 18:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed Llywrch's bullet point 7, discussing the uncertainty of the relationship between the GE and the other Jewish-Gospels and a hypothetical original Matthew. In ictu oculi, is this ok with you? Ovadyah ( talk) 03:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Llywrch asked an interesting question in bullet point 6 about the name of the Gospel, and I have been pondering it for a few days. Why did scholars name it the Gospel of the Ebionites rather than refer to it by the same title used by Epiphanius? That's a good question. I think the answer is, to avoid confusion with two other gospels that are more widely known, the canonical Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of the Hebrews, they named it after the writers of the Gospel instead. I inserted a sentence in the name section to explain this as follows (as hidden text for the moment):
This seems logical enough, but I have never read this explanation (or any other) in a reliable secondary source. Does anyone know of a source that explains the origin of the name? Ovadyah ( talk) 20:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Hi These 3 together as one ref would probably be sufficient?:
Except that the origin is not modern, it is at least as early as Grotius:
In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I am reproducing Llywrch's fifth bullet point here on the talk page for further discussion:
This is a deep question that can be approached on three levels, 1) Why was this text important to Epiphanius? This gets into his aims in using it as a source in Panarion 30, 2) Why is this text important to scholars? How does it fit into the larger picture of the study of J-C Gospels, and what does it tell us, if anything, about the Ebionites?, and 3) Why is this text important to the reader? Why should the reader care about an article on the GE? If we can comprehensively answer this series of "why" questions, this article will be a lot closer to professional quality. Ovadyah ( talk) 19:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I addressed some of the organization and style comments in bullet point 2 by collapsing the Gospel of the Hebrews section into the Relationship to other Gospels section at the bottom. I think this improves the flow of the article. I also collapsed the Name and Provenance and Date sub-sections into an introduction with no sub-heading (yet). Ovadyah ( talk) 20:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I have reorganized and simplified the sections as Llywrch suggested in bullet point 2 by moving the Ebionites section to a new Inferences about the Ebionites sub-section at the bottom. That allowed me to get rid of the Gospel of the Ebionites section header and replace it with a Background sub-header. The structure of the article is now much simpler and more readable. I believe that addresses all of Llywrch's points in peer review. Ovadyah ( talk) 22:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I still need to expand the new section on Inferences about the Ebionites. The material I copied over describes the Ebionites known to the Church Fathers that report on them except Epiphanius. I need to add another paragraph that describes characteristics of the "Ebionites" known to Epiphanius, and I probably need to add a third paragraph describing how our knowledge of the GE influences that characterization. Ovadyah ( talk) 22:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I expanded the section on the relationship between the "GE and other gospels" to the "GE and other texts" by adding some content on the similarities between the GE and the Ascents of James to the Lead section and the main body. Ovadyah ( talk) 16:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have finished my primary editing on the article. I now consider the article to be reasonably complete and the Lead section to stand on it's own. I will work to incorporate any additional suggestions that seem appropriate while peer review is still open. Ovadyah ( talk) 00:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
![]() | 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 |
The text as written implies that the Ebionites edited the Gospel to make Jesus fit with their philosophy. What evidence is there that it was the Ebionites who changed Jesus to match their teachings and not the Synoptic Gospels which changed Jesus to fit theirs? Marwood 13:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There are several early "orthodox" texts of Matthew in the Alexandrian family that lack the genealogy and virgin birth. I'll try to locate the specific variants. This could point to a second century origin for the gospel harmony. Ovadyah ( talk) 18:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Much of this article is talking about the Ebionites, rather than their gospel. As such I suggest that that material be moved to Ebionites.-- Michael C. Price talk 05:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I applied a merge tag to indicate this content should be incorporated into the Ebionites article. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 22:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I applied a tag proposing that the Matthaei Authenticum material be merged into the Gospel of the Hebrews or possibly the Jewish-Christian Gospels article. This is the least likely place to put this material out of the four pages on Jewish-Christian Gospels. What little we know about the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites is contained in Epiphanius' Panarion chapter 30. The material quoted by Epiphanius suggests it was composed in Greek and was a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels. (I suggest the Gospel of the Hebrews as a fourth synoptic gospel and the probable source of the great light on the water during the baptism of Jesus.) The reference to "us" in the text, referring to the apostles, suggests the source may be the Gospel of The Twelve mentioned by Origen. This is the majority view among scholars in the last 20 years. There is only a single mention by Jerome of a different gospel that may have been used the Ebionites. That is the same gospel used by the Nazoraeans (and is indistinguishable from the Gospel of the Hebrews). Ovadyah ( talk) 22:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The merge seems okay, but why has this material suddenly appeared in Ebionites? I suggest that Matthaei Authenticum (which redirects to the Gospel of the Hebrews), Jewish Christians and Ebionites are distinct enough to merit their own articles, and that the material just moved into the latter should remain the former. A simple link or two will suffice to link to the material where required.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ret.Prof, does this mean you changed your mind? I still think it's a good idea. It's just not as simple as a cut and paste. How about a compromise. We can leave the GoE article intact while the GoE section of the Ebionites article is expanded to incorporate relevant new information (relevant being the key word and open to discussion). After a majority of the editors are happy with the changes (nothing is ever unanimous on the Ebionites article), we can complete the merge. Any thoughts? Ovadyah ( talk) 18:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the google books link to Schneemelcher; have added it to the external links sections. It has a number useful statements about the GoE, as well as the Ebionites themselves. I have deleted the section that spoke solely about the Ebionites - we must strive to avoid duplicating material in other articles. Some of the remaining material looks a bit POV, but that's for the future. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Over the past two months I have been reading up on the Jewish gospels starting with Clement and finishing with Casey.
It has been a lot of work to read through this mountain of material. I would sum up these sources as follows:
In a topic where there are many strange ideas ranging from "Jesus as alien being" to "Jesus as a mythical God", Occam's razor states the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one. In other words, Jesus was probably a 'Jewish' rabbi and one of his followers wrote some 'stuff' about him in the 'local dialect'.
The simplest explanation is also supported by the historical evidence. During the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link
During the formative years of Early Christianity 0 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Gospel of the Ebionites in circulation. Also it is listed in 0 ancient catalogs. Indeed there is no historical evidence from either Christian or non Christian sources that the Ebionites ever composed a gospel. The Church Fathers all state that the Ebionites only used one gospel which was composed by Matthew in Hebrew and was referred to by "most people" as the Authentic Gospel of Matthew or less frequently the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Therefore Schneemelcher's "imaginary" Gospel of the Ebionites is a non existent gospel or as Edwards politely puts it a scholarly neologism
Schneemelcher's "numbering" has also been weighed, measured and found wanting for the following reasons.
Finally, I may have been a little hard Schneemelcher, as
Therefore I strongly oppose any change to the present numbering. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
A likely explanation for all this confusion is that there is only one so-called Hebrew gospel; it is the same gospel that Jerome had in his possession, which was written in Syriac using Hebrew letters and with OT quotations in the Hebrew language. The title of this gospel was almost certainly "According to Matthew". That's how Jerome identifies it the first time he mentions it. (The first and only time, presumably before he was able to read it in Syriac.) However, once Jerome (and others) realized the text was different than canonical Matthew, that presented a problem. Jerome subsequently refers to the text as "According to the Hebrews", following Eusebius, to distinguish it from canonical Matthew. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm listening: please explain Thanks In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Some non-enthusiast mainstream editors are needed here to allow that e.g. the mainstream Schneemelcher numbering system and majority point of view needs to take precedence over Melissa from the Bangkok internet cafe and other enthusiastic OR NPOV contributions:
In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I would be happy to help out as an informal mediator, if asked. Biblical textual criticism is a big interest of mine, so I know a wee bit about the subject matter. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 19:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I took a look. Frankly, I would consider going back to this version as a starting point. The current section on the Ebionites is basically a duplicate of the material in the Ebionites article. The section on the Matthaei Authenticum was added shortly after this version by an anon. It has nothing to do with the gospel quoted by Epiphanius, which appears to be a gospel harmony of the three synoptic gospels (probably plus the GoH). We know enough about the baptismal scene in the GoH, based on quotations by Jerome from his personal copy, to know that it can't possibly be that gospel. So, I would consider starting with this older version and adding in what we do know based on the testimony of Epiphanius. His specific quotations from the gospel might be added in the reference section. Most modern scholars equate the GoE to the Gospel of The Twelve. The article should reflect that with proper sourcing. I hope this helps. Ovadyah ( talk) 23:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with going back to your version of 9 May 2009 as a starting point.
There is a lot of good work in the current article, and I'm not suggesting that it all be thrown away. However, it was expanded in two different directions, a description of the Ebionites as a sect and the Matthaei Authenticum, that are covered more completely elsewhere. Apart from a single mention by Jerome of a gospel that the Nazaraeans and Ebionites use (likely a mistake on his part as the two christologies are incompatible), all we know about the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites (modern name) is contained in Epiphanius' Panarion 30. I would start there with reliable secondary sources. Ovadyah ( talk) 23:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I will list all the primary source material before Epiphanius in chronological order. All of the quotations are taken from Skarsaune, Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007):
Irenaeus
For the Ebionites who use the Gospel according to Matthew only, are confuted of this very same book, when they make false suppositions with regard to the Lord
— Haer. 3.11.7 (p.435)
Irenaeus claims they are using a gospel text that contradicts their own beliefs.
Pseudo-Tertullian
Cerinthus' successor was Ebion, not in agreement with Cerinthus in every point, because he says that the world was made by God, not by angels; and because it is written, "no disciple is above his master, nor a servant above his Lord", he brings to the fore likewise the Law, of course for the purpose of excluding the gospel and vindicating Judaism.
— Haer. 3 (pp.434-435, 438-439)
Ps. Tertullian seems to imply that they exclude the gospel (italics are mine).
I could not find any quotations by Origen about the gospel the Ebionites used, but I will recheck.
Eusebius
These men moreover thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the Apostle, whom they called an apostate from the Law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.
— Hist. eccl. 3.27.1 (p.446)
Eusebius' report is similar to Irenaeus before him, but he refers to the gospel as the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews (italics mine), possibly implying that it is called that name by others to distinguish the text from canonical Matthew.
Jerome
in the Gospel which the Nazoraeans and the Ebionites use which we translated recently from Hebrew to Greek and which is called the authentic text of Matthew by a good many, it is written...
— Comm. Matt. 12.13 (p.544-545)
Here, Jerome explicitly states that a good many regard it as the authentic text of Matthew (italics mine).
This is everything excluding Epiphanius. Everything up to this point suggests (to me) that the Ebionites used a gospel text they called the Gospel of Matthew and others called the Gospel of the Hebrews to distinguish it from the canonical Gospel of Matthew. The confusion begins with the report of Epiphanius in Panarion 30.
Ovadyah (
talk)
02:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The point of the above quotations was to show what the Church Fathers said about a gospel or gospels used by the Ebionites in chronological order. All the Church Fathers depend to some extent on the reports of those that came before them. I may have been too hasty when I said Jerome was probably mistaken when he reported that both the Nazaraeans and Ebionites use the Gospel of the Hebrews. Jerome's report agrees with that of Irenaeus 200 years earlier when he said the Ebionites use a gospel that contradicts their own beliefs. Anyway, all of this was intended to be background information for an analysis of what Epiphanius had to say in Panarion 30. The problem confounding scholars (and editors) is that Panarion 30 has a big internal contradiction. Part of his report is consistent with the prior witnesses I listed above, and part is totally different. The probable reason is that Epiphanius is believed to have written the Panarion in at least two drafts (probably three according to Glen Alan Koch). The base text is a historical report that conflates the testimony of the previous Fathers. There may be an intermediate draft containing material from the Circuits of Peter (what Origen calls the Vagaries of Clement) where he believes that the Ebionites have corrupted the text. Epiphanius is believed to have then inserted new material based on his own experience, including the gospel he quotes from and the Count Joseph story, into the final version he wrote in Cyprus. That gospel (probably the Gospel of The Twelve), and the beliefs and practices he associates with it (like Samaritans), is completely different and incompatible with the material contained in his previous version (testimony of the earlier Fathers including the Gospel of the Hebrews). One way out of the trap is to lay out what Epiphanius said and separate the two versions (using reliable sources of course). Hope this helps. Ovadyah ( talk) 16:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
One more thing and then I'm moving on. I'm sure you guys have plenty of sources, but I find textexcavation to be a valuable resource for this area of study. The original Greek and Latin transcriptions are all there along with the English translation. Good luck on sorting it all out. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 16:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add in here Gospel of the Ebionites mention of mainstream scholarship Schneemelcher etc, Martin Dibelius, Anchor Bible Dictionary, that the GE of Epiphanius was composed in Greek, per p167 Schneemelcher Vol.1 In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed we seem to be talking at cross purposes.Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Primary sources include video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, original philosophical works, archeological artifacts, ancient works, religious scripture, etc. In our case the primary source is the Gospel of the Ebionites. The difficulty of course is that were no longer have a copy of it. According to Schneemelcher, etc this is because it has been lost, while Edwards etc argue it is because it never existed, hence our conflict. Until the primary source is discovered and studied we will be able to say little with certainty and this will be an area of continued scholarly debate.
Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed. They rely on the primary source for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about it. Our policy is that Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source. The secondary sources would include Epiphanius, Jerome etc.
Here the secondary sources appear to be in agreement. Matthew wrote a Hebrew Gospel that was used by the Ebionites. The Ebionites used no other Gospel. I am aware of no secondary source that contradicts this fact.
Tertiary sources are publications that mainly summarize secondary sources. Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics. Here is where we have the scholarly debate.
Starting with Andrews Norton (1846), Schneemelcher etc have argued that the Ebionites actually composed a gospel called the Gospel of the Ebionites.
Nicholson, Edwards etc argue that the Ebionites only used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. They argue that the Gospel of the Ebionites is a scholarly neologism with no historical evidence to support it. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I restored the Gospel of the Hebrews section, properly sourced it, and made a few changes to the text (hopefully improvements). As I mentioned previously on the talk page, all of the Church Fathers prior to Epiphanius and including Jerome refer back to this gospel. I covered off on them in two sentences, using inline primary quotations and sources in the reference section. Ovadyah ( talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
One possibility for how to handle the conflicting Epiphanius material in Panarion 30 would be to put all of his references to the Gospel of the Hebrews, including reports based on the earlier Church Fathers and possibly some quotations he derived from the GoH, into this section. That would free up the main section to discuss what scholars typically think of as the Gospel of the Ebionites. Another way to organize the material would be to leave out all the testimony of Epiphanius from this section, the way it is now, and cover the conflicting gospel references in a separate main section. Ovadyah ( talk) 21:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This is getting interesting, so I decided to dig a little deeper into the structure of the Panarion 30. Skarsaune claims that 30.3.7 connected directly to 30.15.1 in the original version, and that 30.4-12 and 30.13-14 are large inserts which were added later (p.457). Chapters 30.4-12 are the Count Joseph story and 30.13-14 are the so-called Ebionite Gospel. Chapter 30.15 begins the Pseudo-Clementine material that Epiphanius refers to in 30.15.1 as the Journeys of Peter.
The report in 30.3.7 about the gospel used by the Ebionites is in agreement with Jerome and the earlier Church Fathers as follows:
They also accept the Gospel according to Matthew. For they too use only this like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus. They call it, however, "according to the Hebrews" which name is correct since Matthew is the only one in the New Testament who issued the Gospel and the proclamation in Hebrew and with Hebrew letters.
— Panarion 30.3.7 (p.457)
Skarsaune claims this account is a conflation of information provided by Papias, Irenaeus, and Eusebius on the Gospel used by the Ebionites. Ovadyah ( talk) 02:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Skarsaune (p.458) mentions in footnotes that Schmidtke thought 30.14.15 might be an addendum to the material Epiphanius excerpted from the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites, and his paraphrase may have come from Origen's Commentary on John 2.12 about the Gospel of the Hebrews, possibly along with a quotation from that gospel. Skarsaune summarizes the point, so I reproduce the translation from Glen Alan Koch as follows:
Again, they deny that he is a man, indeed, from the word which the savior spoke in response to that which was reported to him, "'Behold your mother and your brethren stand outside'. 'Who is my mother and my bretheren?' And stretching forth his hand upon the disciples he said, 'These are my brethren and my mother and sister, those who do the will of my father'".
— Panarion 30.14.15
The verse in Origen's commentary translates as follows:
But if any should admit the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where the savior himself says: "Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit...
— Comm. Jo. 2.12
However, Skarsaune is not convinced of Schmidtke's argument. If I can indulge in a little OR, by best guess is that Epiphanius may be alluding to Comm. Jo. 2.12 above, but the verse in 30.14.15 is probably still from the gospel harmony in 30.13-14 the Gospel of the Hebrews based on an analysis of the parallel passages
here. You will need a browser that can read Symbol font to view it properly.
Ovadyah (
talk)
04:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I changed my mind about the quotation above based on internal considerations. The commentary and quotations in 30.14.15 and 30.16.4-5 are parallel passages. They both come at the end of a section and both are used to contrast a preceding comment about adoptionist Christology. Epiphanius attributes the quotation in 30.16.4-5 to the Gospel of the Hebrews as follows:
And they say that he was not engendered from God the Father, but created, as one of the archangels, but being greater than they are, and that he is Lord even of angels and of all things created by the Almighty, and that he came also to declare, as the gospel among them called according to the Hebrews has: "I came to abolish sacrifices, and if you do not cease to sacrifice, the wrath will not cease from you."
— Panarion 30.16.4-5
Both of these taken together suggest they may have come from the same polemical commentary. Note that the commentary doesn't seem to align very well with either quotation. Ovadyah ( talk) 21:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This discussion will go a lot faster if we can reach a consensus on how to group the disparate gospel references within Panarion 30. The analysis shows that there are three internal contradictions regarding the gospel(s) the Ebionites used within Panarion 30, based on Skarsaune. I can dig out the refs from Koch too if needed.
1) Chp 1.1 to 3.7 is a historical review of the previous Church Fathers plus Epiphanius' comments on that material. The only section relevant for our purposes is 3.7, which agrees with the Gospel of the Hebrews.
2) Chp 13.1 to 14.5 is the new material added in the final draft that contains the gospel harmony in Greek plus Epiphanius' comments on that material. The first four gospel quotations almost surely come from this material. The quotation in 14.5 possibly does too, but it might be from the GoH. It's clear that Epiphanius associates it with a docetic Christology.
3) Chp 15.1 to the end uses the Journeys of Peter as a base text with other material added, possibly from the an alternative Acts of the Apostles and the Book of Elxsai. The emphasis of this whole section is on Peter and the True Prophet. The material relevant for out purposes are the last two gospel quotations in chapter 16 and 22 along with numerous comments by Epiphanius about how the Ebionites corrupted their text. Epiphanius says explicitly that the quotation in chapter 16 comes from the Gospel of the Hebrews. There is a paraphrase of the quotation in Homilies 3.51.2, so Epiphanius probably found the quotation in materials he received from Origen. The Christology is completely consistent with what we know from other sources citing the GoH, where Jesus is said to be the first-born of creation. The last quotation in Chp 22 is the trickiest to identify but most consistent with the Journeys of Peter.
I'm going to take a short wiki-break and then get to the specifics of the proposals. Ovadyah ( talk) 15:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Almost no one thinks GoH = GoE, so move all sources relevant to GoH, including parts of Panarion 30, to the GoH section and refer readers to the main GoH article. Then proceed to lay out the conjectures of the secondary sources regarding the origin of the remaining primary source material in Panarion 30.
Begin with the historical perspective of what Epiphanius believed to be true, taking all primary sources into consideration together. Follow this with the speculations of modern scholars beginning with the predominant conjecture, the so-called "standard model", if one exists, followed by newer or more controversial conjectures. I believe the most recent consensus is that there is none, so don't be shy about reporting ideas from the "fertile imaginations" of modern scholars (Panarion 30 being the source of the manure). It will make the article messier but more NPOV.
How about beginning a discussion with these two proposals, and feel free to add more proposals. Attention to detail on the talk page will head off bigger edit wars later. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 15:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This scholarly debate is very similar to the Synoptic Problem, where the 2 Source (or 4 Source) theory has been around for 100 years and is kind of the "standard model". Along comes the Farrar/Goulder/Goodacre theory to challenge the conventional wisdom, which they argue is a simpler explanation (but not without its own problems). By analogy, lay out the 3G theory first with the main advocates. Then bring in the 2G challenger, and let the sources argue for themselves why their solution is simpler (parsimonious) without an appreciable loss of explanatory power. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
So......... I'll say to all what I think would be best for these pages is that you and I both walk away from all 4 pages. Seeing as my edits are deleted anyway, and seeing as the 2 other editors who have arrived both look able and willing to add mainstream sources and remove OR, NPOV and OVERWEIGHT, that would be great. And I can get on editing articles about classical music etc. How about that? Sound good? Let's just walk away? In ictu oculi ( talk) 20:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Ovadyah, yes Klijn considers the mainstream 3x GE/GN/GHeb division proven beyond all doubt - a very strong statement from an academic. It was footnote I included in one of the 4x pages before RetProf deleted everything on Saturday, I cannot remember now which one of the 4x pages. Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 21:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You are making an old guy do some work - which is fine. I have researched the topic and can now address the concerns you raised here and earlier in the discussion. Matthaei authenticum is not just an invention of 1 or more Wikipedia editors. It is to be found in many English scholarly works. Google Link Although term is Latin, English speaking scholars often use Latin when writing. Using Latin is a sort of scholarly tradition. The term Matthaei authenticum has been translated as meaning the authentic gospel Matthew, authentic Matthew, true Matthew, original Matthew etc. Google Link. According to most scholars the gospel that the Nazarenes and Ebionites used was called Matthaei authenticum by "most" people in the the early Church.
As far as Wikipedia is concerned the first editor to use the term Matthaei authenticum was Peter Kirby (2005?) but it would wrong to argue that he invented the term. If the early Church fathers are right and the gospel that the Ebionites and Nazarenes used is truly Matthew's authentic gospel, then this has implications, not only for the Canonical Gospel of Matthew but the whole Synoptic tradition. This is the reason for the heated debate among scholars and why care must be taken to write this article from a NPOV. A final note is that I tend to lean toward using the Latin name as there are several English translations of the term which often causes confusion. I hope this addresses the concern you raised. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to do a little tidying up. If any of the editors actively working on the article has a problem, I will self-revert and then be happy to discuss. Please don't revert my edits without discussion. Let's avoid unnecessary trips to ANI. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's most of the easy stuff. Much more work to be done. Ovadyah ( talk) 21:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I reordered the sections putting the description of the Ebionites as a sect first. I like the concept of three short sentences describing who they were, but the wording sounds rather OR. One or two encyclopedic references covering the same points are needed here to provide reliable sources and tighten up the wording. I also collapsed the single sentence about Epiphanius into the main body and reworded it. Ovadyah ( talk) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
An important point I'm trying to get across about Panarion 30 is that Epiphanius intended it to be contradictory. Epiphanius is often described as ignorant, confused, mistaken, etc., but that is from the perspective of modern scholars trying to recreate a gospel from their "fertile imaginations". Epiphanius' intent here was straightforward - the Church has the one right-belief, heresy many false ones. He deliberately combined disparate materials, which he uses to point out over and over how the Ebionites are internally inconsistent in their doctrines. I need to find a better reliable source that describes the aims of Epiphanius. That is a key to understanding his use of sources. Ovadyah ( talk) 00:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I have updated the reference for Schneemelcher and Robert McLachlan Wilson along with a URL link. Ovadyah ( talk) 05:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The Ebionites did have other Christian texts as part of their canon, however. which? They appear to have accepted Matthew's Hebrew Gospel in Aramaic but with Hebrew Letters. It appears likely that this gospel was different from the Gospel of Matthew now in the canon."
I removed the first part of the paragraph (shown here), since it relates to the Gospel of the Hebrews (which I already covered) rather than the Gospel harmony described by Epiphanius. I incorporated the rest along with the Ehrman reference. Ovadyah ( talk) 01:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
During the time of the Early Church most scholars who? referred to Matthew's Hebrew Gospel [1] as Matthaei Authenticum ( Authentic Gospel of Matthew) to distinguish it from the Canonical Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible. verification needed
Although many believed that Canonical Matthew was merely a Greek translation of Authentic Matthew it was Jerome who first pointed out that this was not likely. In a letter to Pope Damasus in 383, he pointed out that there were major discrepancies between the two. [2]
These small paragraphs are largely redundant and don't have anything to do with the gospel harmony described by Epiphanius. Ovadyah ( talk) 03:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
A partial list of mainly 19th Century sources would include:
Archived from Controversy section of the article. Replace with one or two current reliable sources to support the content. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Bart D. Ehrman (2003). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press. p. 96 pp. 101-102 Google Link Ovadyah ( talk) 00:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica: Ebionites Ovadyah ( talk) 15:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I moved James Edwards' hypothesis about a Hebrew gospel underlying the L-source of the Gospel of Luke to the talk page for now.
There is continuing debate among Biblical scholars regarding the composition of the Synoptic Gospels. As part of that discussion some scholars have written concerning the relation of Jewish-Christian Gospels to the Synoptic Gospels. [3]
This may have something to do with a common vorlage underlying GN/GH and Luke, but it doesn't seem relevant to the GE gospel harmony. Ovadyah ( talk) 20:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I will continue to use the previous "Cleanup" section to document any changes to the current material. I want to use this new section to "sketch" some thoughts on the direction of the main section of the article. Ovadyah ( talk) 15:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer that the article not begin and end with a list of seven quotations extracted from Panarion 30, organized into a list devoid of any context, and called a gospel. Several scholars have done just that, so we are obligated to report it, but I want to take it further by considering the intentions of Epiphanius in writing Panarion 30 and the characteristics of the specific group of "Ebionites" he has personal knowledge of on Cyprus.
I have already reported on Finley's recent Ph.D. thesis regarding the "attitude" of Epiphanius toward the Ebionites in Panarion 30. Finley goes even further by stating that he believes Epiphanius grouped together all of the low Christologies he knew of, only some of which were an accurate reflection of previous accounts and his personal knowledge of the Ebionites, as a polemic against the Arians of his time. It was common practice in the 4th century, and later, to insult Christians suspected of having a lower Christology than orthodoxy by referring to them as "Ebionites". I may add more about this to the article eventually, but in any case, it's important for understanding why Epiphanius selected the materials he used for Panarion 30.
Skarsaune reports that he believes Epiphanius only inferred Ebionites had been living on Cyprus, based on the Gospel harmony he found there, which he attributed to the Ebionites. Chapters 13 and 14 of Panarion 30, where most of the quotations are located, are believed to be a late insertion of material from this Gospel harmony. Epiphanius refers to Cyprus as one of the "roots" of the Ebionites along with the Trans-Jordan region and others. However, his description of the Ebionites sounds much more like Samaritans (they used the Pentateuch only) than Jews, probably based on materials that originated from the Circuits of Peter. Petri Luomanen concludes Epiphanius was probably referring to a sect of Hellenistic-Samaritan Jewish-Christians that were independent of the Judaic sect we associate with the term Ebionites based on the testimony of the earlier Church Fathers. So, it is extremely important to the context that we understand which "Ebionites" are in view in this so-called Gospel of the Ebionites. I may add a short paragraph under the Ebionite section explaining this difference. Ovadyah ( talk) 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I checked the stichometry of the first three verses. There are 944 Greek letters with no spaces (yes, I counted them twice). Allowing for nomina sacra for Jesus, God, and Lord, that might reduce the number of letters to 932. At 30 letters per line (a typical line length for a papyrus codex), that would result in 32 lines on the first page. That is a typical number of lines for a bible codex. The reason I checked was to verify there is no way that the fourth verse could fit on the same page. I think the "fourth verse" is actually a dedication on the title page of the codex by Matthew speaking in the first person. That's why Epiphanius discusses it first, right after the title. Ovadyah ( talk) 20:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to divide the main body into sections following a brief introduction. The sections I will include for now are Name, Provenance and Date, and Composition. I may include additional sections such as Christology, Vegetarianism, One Gospel Text or Many?, and Relationship to Authentic Matthew. Some of these will attempt to document ongoing controversies in this field of study. Ovadyah ( talk) 16:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to add a section after Composition called Christologies, and I added a new section for Controversies. The Controversies section will have multiple subsections such as Vegetarianism or Proof from Prophesy?, One Gospel Text or Many?, Is the Gospel of the Ebionites an Ebionite Gospel? The point of the Controversies section is to attempt to capture hot topics now under discussion by scholars in one place. Ovadyah ( talk) 21:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The Christology and Vegetarianism sections have been added to the article. The Controversies section could still use some work, but the article is now reasonably complete (ie. a C-class article as opposed to a Start-class). I double-checked all the references and everything seems to be complete. The Lead section now needs to be rewritten to accurately reflect a summary of the main body of the article. Ovadyah ( talk) 15:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
since:
Can you please rectify the 3rd lede paragraph using the above? Thanks again for your work. Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Like this?
Cleaned up
Now
Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ovadyah. 1. Sorry, archive where? Here in Clean Up, above? 2. This is a further sterling set of edits. 3. There is another "Matthaei Authenticum" statement on the tail of the article implying that scholars used to use the term, which is not true. About to reword. In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 4. edited out " Andrews Norton (1846)" with "conventional name given at least as early as the French priest Richard Simon (1689)" and moved Norton 1846 and Pick 1908 to final biblio footnote. Also changed "modern scholarly neologism" to "scholarly convention" and broke following sentence with a stop/period. reworded to "in the Gospel used by them" which is what Epiphanius says and ref. I suspect that Richard Simon is far from the earliest but just put 1846 back to 1689. Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Epiphanius refers to the Gospel harmony "found among them" as "according to Matthew" and "the Hebrew [Gospel]" in 13.1-2. I'm going to move this content from the "Composition" section to the "Name" section. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
There was a man named Jesus, and he was about thirty years old; he has chosen us. And He came into Capernaum and entered into the house of Simon, surnamed Peter, and He opened His mouth and said, 'As I walked by the sea of Tiberias, I chose John and James, the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Thaddaeus and Simon Zelotes, and Judas Isariot; thee also, Matthew, when thou wast sitting at the receipt of custom, did I call and thou didst follow me. According to my intention ye shall be twelve apostles for a testimony unto Israel.'
— 13.2b-3
I am now convinced this quotation is a dedication on the title page of the Gospel harmony that served as the title. Unfortunately, I can't say so (OR), unless we find at least one reliable source that makes the same connection. Please check your sources and see what you can find. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I moved the GH section back to its original location early in the article. The point of locating it there was to direct readers that are more interested in the GH as an Ebionite Gospel to the main GH article. Ovadyah ( talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
We still need a citation for the third paragraph in the lead section. I will check to see if it was deleted accidentally. Ovadyah ( talk) 02:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Fine with the location back btw. Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Good point about the Davidic genealogy via Solomon in Matthew as opposed to via Nathan as per Luke. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 02:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Everything is now properly sourced with reliable sources, and all references to primary sources have been subordinated as inline comments of reliable secondary sources. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 14:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I am going to start rebuilding the Lead Section to accurately reflect a summary of the main content. As usual, I will copy anything I don't use over to the talk page so that nothing is lost. Ovadyah ( talk) 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This second paragraph of the Lead section is problematic and needs some thought. It doesn't summarize anything in the main body. Ovadyah ( talk) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The sentence provides a useful link to the Jewish-Christian Gospels gateway article. That part should be kept. Maybe it should be reworded like this: **The Gospel of the Ebionites is one of three Jewish-Christian Gospels, along with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans.** The rest is irrelevant, since we just said the GE consists of 7 quotations. It is also obvious that the GE is not a slight variation of the others. The confusion is whether the GH and the GN are slight variations of each other. I will give this some more thought. Ovadyah ( talk) 16:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I moved the controversy statement about the relationship between the three Jewish-Christian Gospels from the Lead section to the Controversies section to expand that section, and I replaced it with a more neutral descriptive statement about the Jewish-Christian Gospels to retain the wikis in the Lead section. That should fix the problem. Now I can expand the Lead section further with summary statements about the content in the main body. Ovadyah ( talk) 22:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The Lead section is now completed. Please check everything over one more time. Cheers. Ovadyah ( talk) 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It usually takes some time for editors to respond to a request for peer review. I'm going to apply the template to the top of the talk page to initiate the process, and meanwhile, we can make any final changes to improve the article for review by a wider group of editors. Ovadyah ( talk) 01:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I have addressed Llywrch's bullet points 3 and 4 by, (3) substituting Ehrman's Lost Christianities as a RS for the Encyclopedia Britannica, and (4) rewording the sentence about Shneemelcher to make it sound less dogmatic by removing "the standard critical edition". I think Llywrch makes a good point that if we believe it is the critical edition, we need to prove it somewhere, i.e. not just an editor's POV, or if there is more than one critical edition, we should list all the additions. In any case, this sounds like a disclaimer that belongs in the references rather than the article content. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Llywrch's bullet points 1 and 2 are about style and readability, (1) rewording the Lead section, and (2) condensing paragraphs or moving around the order. I will address these style questions after all changes to the article content are finished. Bullet points 5, 6, and 7, are about omissions from the article, potentially involving the addition of sourced content. I will address these next. Bullet point 8 was an oversight. Vegetarianism is already mentioned in the Lead section as well as the main body. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I addressed bullet point 1 by rearranging and condensing the four short paragraphs in Lead section down to two paragraphs. There's always room for improvement, but I think the changes substantially address the point that the Lead section appeared to be too fragmented. Ovadyah ( talk) 18:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed Llywrch's bullet point 7, discussing the uncertainty of the relationship between the GE and the other Jewish-Gospels and a hypothetical original Matthew. In ictu oculi, is this ok with you? Ovadyah ( talk) 03:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Llywrch asked an interesting question in bullet point 6 about the name of the Gospel, and I have been pondering it for a few days. Why did scholars name it the Gospel of the Ebionites rather than refer to it by the same title used by Epiphanius? That's a good question. I think the answer is, to avoid confusion with two other gospels that are more widely known, the canonical Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of the Hebrews, they named it after the writers of the Gospel instead. I inserted a sentence in the name section to explain this as follows (as hidden text for the moment):
This seems logical enough, but I have never read this explanation (or any other) in a reliable secondary source. Does anyone know of a source that explains the origin of the name? Ovadyah ( talk) 20:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Hi These 3 together as one ref would probably be sufficient?:
Except that the origin is not modern, it is at least as early as Grotius:
In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I am reproducing Llywrch's fifth bullet point here on the talk page for further discussion:
This is a deep question that can be approached on three levels, 1) Why was this text important to Epiphanius? This gets into his aims in using it as a source in Panarion 30, 2) Why is this text important to scholars? How does it fit into the larger picture of the study of J-C Gospels, and what does it tell us, if anything, about the Ebionites?, and 3) Why is this text important to the reader? Why should the reader care about an article on the GE? If we can comprehensively answer this series of "why" questions, this article will be a lot closer to professional quality. Ovadyah ( talk) 19:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I addressed some of the organization and style comments in bullet point 2 by collapsing the Gospel of the Hebrews section into the Relationship to other Gospels section at the bottom. I think this improves the flow of the article. I also collapsed the Name and Provenance and Date sub-sections into an introduction with no sub-heading (yet). Ovadyah ( talk) 20:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I have reorganized and simplified the sections as Llywrch suggested in bullet point 2 by moving the Ebionites section to a new Inferences about the Ebionites sub-section at the bottom. That allowed me to get rid of the Gospel of the Ebionites section header and replace it with a Background sub-header. The structure of the article is now much simpler and more readable. I believe that addresses all of Llywrch's points in peer review. Ovadyah ( talk) 22:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I still need to expand the new section on Inferences about the Ebionites. The material I copied over describes the Ebionites known to the Church Fathers that report on them except Epiphanius. I need to add another paragraph that describes characteristics of the "Ebionites" known to Epiphanius, and I probably need to add a third paragraph describing how our knowledge of the GE influences that characterization. Ovadyah ( talk) 22:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I expanded the section on the relationship between the "GE and other gospels" to the "GE and other texts" by adding some content on the similarities between the GE and the Ascents of James to the Lead section and the main body. Ovadyah ( talk) 16:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have finished my primary editing on the article. I now consider the article to be reasonably complete and the Lead section to stand on it's own. I will work to incorporate any additional suggestions that seem appropriate while peer review is still open. Ovadyah ( talk) 00:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)