Talk:Ebionites: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

	Ebionites is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia’s Main Page as Today’s featured article on July 9, 2007.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

I suggest that all contributors to the Ebionites article follow the example of the Gospel of the Ebionites article when it comes to notes, citations and sources from now on. So we have a lot of work to do. —-Loremaster (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have an article about a “group of Christians” that are devoid of any primary sources. I notice one contributor is obsessed with the “bloodline theory of Jesus Christ” as found in the book “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail” even though it had nothing to do with Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion, and Plantard distanced himself from the nonsense in late 1982 on a French radio programme. Also Plantard actively criticised the book from 1989 onwards. The subject matter has been dead in France for ages. Plantard was a spent force in 1989 when his latest manifestation of the Priory of Sion was responsible for the final demise of Pierre Plantard, who died in 2000. It’s only the British people that ever became obsessed with “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail”. Plantard himself had no interest in the “Jesus Bloodline” from the get-go because he was an old-fashioned French Roman Catholic, as can be gleaned from his works and writings. Octavius88 (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the Wikipedia article on the Ebionites clearly states in the introduction section: “Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about them derives from the polemics of their Gentile Christian opponents, specifically the Church Fathers.” This fact has never prevented numerous respected secular and religious encyclopedias of having entries on the subject of Ebionites.

As I suggested 4 years ago, the Ebionites article has an unclear citation style. We should all focus on improving it, which means, among other things, making proper use of primary sources (the Church Fathers and the Jewish-Christian gospels) when and where needed.

That being said, you are the one who is obsessed with flogging a dead horse since no one here currently believes in the Priory of Sion myth of Pierre Plantard nor the conspiracy theories of the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. I’ve been watching over the Priory of Sion article for years to ensure, among other things, that readers know that the Priory of Sion has been thoroughly debunked as a hoax.

However, what you seem to fail to understand is that the uncontroversial notion that James the Just is the biological brother (or half-brother) of Jesus is NOT related to unfounded speculation of a Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene. (For the record, I personally think that Jesus didn’t father any biological children due to a vow of celibacy because of his belief that marriage would cease to exist in the Kingdom of God on Earth, and his alleged promotion of eunuchs as role models.)

Bottom line: Please avoid engaging in unprovoked and absurd personal attacks against contributors to the Ebionites article. —Loremaster (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: You’ll be happy to know that the mention of ″relatives of Jesus″ (which could be misinterpreted as promoting the hypothesis of Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene) has now been deleted from the Ebionites article. —Loremaster (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe. His works on The Dead Sea Scrolls are rightfully rejected. He is a Muslim by faith. Octavius88 (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not suggesting that someone’s Muslim faith (or Jewish faith or liberal Christian faith or lack of faith) automatically prevents him or her from doing good scholarship on Christianity… That being said, although I’m not a fan of Robert Eisenman’s works, we cannot deny or suppress the fact that he is among the few modern scholars who have written on the subject of Ebionites. Furthemore, although one of Eisenman’s book is used as a source, the article does not discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls nor link them to the Ebionites. —Loremaster (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting consensus on changing the date format in this Article from Common Era (BCE and CE) to Anno Domini (BC and AD) to better match the subject matter and create uniformity with other articles pertaining to early Christianity like the articles on the Judaizers and the Gospel of John. This article is about a Christian sect in the early centuries of Christianity and as such I believe using Anno Domini would serve this article better than Common Era. Let me know what you guys think. Kyle Runge (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I strongly oppose this change. Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for dates and numbers (MOS:ERA) advises editors to retain the style already established in an article unless there is a strong, policy-based reason to alter it. The choice between CE and AD is not determined by subject matter and early Christian topics frequently use CE in accordance with current scholarly standards. Modern academic publications in religious studies generally prefer CE and BCE, including the leading critical works on Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. Uniformity across related articles is not required, and MOS:ERA explicitly discourages switching formats on the basis of preference or perceived thematic fit. The existing CE usage aligns with contemporary conventions and respects the guideline to avoid unnecessary style changes. My view is that the article should keep the current format. — Loremaster (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining existing styles states that it is perfectly acceptable to change style if consensus is reached in a talk page. I am struggling to see what would qualify as a strong, policy-based reason to alter a style if related articles and the subject matter aren’t considered. The fact that Wikipedia allows for change of style via consensus implies that it is acceptable to do so. Kyle Runge (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 11:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Kyle Runge seems to be confusing two issues. Of course it is perfectly acceptable to change the style of a Wikipedia article if consensus is reached on a talk page. What I was pointing out is the fallacy of arguing that there is a Wikipedia policy that requires the Ebionites article to imitate the style of other Wikipedia articles related to early Christianity. Regardless, so far, consensus in favor of the proposed change has not been reached here since Kyle Runge still has not provided what I consider to be a persuasive argument. My view is that the Ebionites article (and all Wikipedia articles on Christianity) should align with contemporary secular conventions and current scholarly standards. — Loremaster (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]