Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites

Now that arbitration has ended, it's time to put it behind us and move forward. Imo, the article is reasonably complete and stable as it stands. Therefore, I will be making occasional updates to the content as new academic views are published. In particular, there is a renewed interest in the history of gospel harmonies that may be reflected here as the GEbi is discussed in the context of the harmonizing traditions of the second and third centuries. Ignocrates (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree with In Ictu Oculi that we should avoid "fringe theories" about this topic. The fact that the Gospel of the Ebionites was "composed in Greek many years after the time of the Disciples makes it unlikely there is any connection with Hypothetical Hebrew Gospel. Indeed the Ebionite theologies of vegetarianism, Adoptionist Christology, etc pretty much precludes this possibility. I would strongly suggest we steer clear of any major changes to this article. Now that arbitration has ended, I would propose we let Ignocrates smooth out any rough edges. I have little to add. All in all good work! Happy New Year! Ret.Prof (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are no "fringe theories" in this article I am aware of, per WP:FRINGE; however, WP:WEIGHT is always subject to interpretation. I welcome any suggestions for ways to further refine and improve the article content. Ignocrates (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can't do anything about this, since it would be original research, but their ordering is clearly wrong:

30.13.2-4 is quoted in one chunk so breaking it up makes little sense to begin with; furthermore 30.13.2 introduces Jesus, while 30.13.7 has Jesus without an introduction, so placing 13.7 after 13.3 is illogical; finally Epiphanius say that 30.13.7 comes "a good deal" after 30.13.6 yet Vielhauer and Strecker only fill this gap with one line (30.13.4) even if that requires them to both break up a quote and disregard logical internal continuity.

Evidently Epiphanius meant the beginning of this gospel to be something closer to this:

It came to pass in the days of Herod, King of Judaea under the high priest Caiaphas, that John came and baptized with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan; he is said to be from the tribe of Aaron and a son of Zacharias the priest and of Elizabeth and all went out to him. (13.6) 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 Iscariot; 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'. And it came to pass when John baptized, that the Pharisees came to him and were baptized, and all Jerusalem also. He had a garment of camels' hair, and a leather girdle about his loins. And his meat was wild honey, which tasted like manna, formed like cakes of oil. (13.2b–4) The people having been baptized, Jesus came also, and was baptized by John. And as he came out of the water the heavens opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit descending under the form of a dove, and entering into him. And a voice was heard from heaven: 'Thou art my beloved Son, and in thee am I well pleased'. And again: 'This day have I begotten thee'. And suddenly shone a great light in that place. And John seeing him, said, 'Who art thou, Lord'? Then a voice was heard from heaven: 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased'. Thereat John fell at his feet and said: 'I pray thee, Lord, baptize me'. But he would not, saying 'Suffer it, for so it behoveth that all should be accomplished'. (13.7-8)

The only problem here is that it disagree with the order of events in the canonical gospels by placing the Call of the first Disciples before the Baptism of Jesus, but this changes comes naturally from this gospel having the Apostles collectively be the narrators. (Also note the possibility that there might be even more text between 13.6 and 13.7 that Epiphanius did not quote.) --Painocus (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gospel of the Ebionites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015065755/http://www.scribd.com/doc/127513361/Hans-Joachim-Schoeps-Jewish-Christianity-Factional-Disputes-in-the-Early-Church-Fortress-Press-1969 to https://www.scribd.com/doc/127513361/Hans-Joachim-Schoeps-Jewish-Christianity-Factional-Disputes-in-the-Early-Church-Fortress-Press-1969

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply