Talk:Gospel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Stand

In many Christian churches, all Christians present stand when a passage from one of the Gospels is read publically, and sit when a passage from a different part of the Bible is read.

In which churches is this true? Stephen C. Carlson 23:38 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

This occurs in my church, which is Lutheran, but im sure its true in just about every church.--YoungKeta 06:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you specifically which churches, but I think it's accurate. --Dante Alighieri 23:42 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism, for one: the Mass has three Readings the third of which is always from the Gospels and during which the congregation stands. --- Someone else 23:58 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Good to know. Is this true in any protestant churches? --Stephen C. Carlson 00:01 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

Yes. It is true of most liturgical churches (Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc.). In addition, nearly every lectionary (which is a book used in most denominations to tell the pastor which passages to preach on each week) includes three readings: Old Testament, Gospels and Epistles. Some include a fourth - Psalms. I don't know if there are any other configurations. --kpearce

The Orthodox stand for the entire service, not just the Gospel. Since, however, some (usually the aged and infirm) sometimes sit, just before the Deacon reads the Gospel, he announces loudly "Wisdom! Stand aright! Let us listen to the Holy Gospel!" In contemporary practice (especially in America, where pews are more common), the people sit during the Epistle reading which precedes the Gospel. Additionally, when a bishop is serving Liturgy, he will sit in his throne during the Epistle and stand for the Gospel. JHCC 21:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know this practice but I assume that this is the practice in other churches --jojo 14:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

---

The word is also used in this narrow sense in the writings of the Apostle Paul.

I made this comment and it was removed. I think it is necessary because without it the paragraph seems to imply that when Evangelicals use the term to refer specifically to "the actions of Christ which are necessary for salvation" they are misusing the word. Stating that Paul used it (or the Greek word so translated, rather) in this way gives that use some degree of legitimacy which it would otherwise be lacking. --kpearce

I agree that a fuller discussion of this point is necessary. In fact, this usage of gospel is not limited to Paul but found throughout the N.T. The usage of gospel to denote a particular genre of writing dates to the 2nd century. It is clear used to denote a genre in Justin Martyr (c. 150) and more ambiguously so earlier in Ignatius (c. 117). SCCarlson

---

I edited the dates before logging in, so my user name doesn't show, sorry. We probably all have our own views on this, but I tried to go for the dates that would be accepted as the mainstream consensus whilst also indicating that any date is speculative at best. --matruman 5th March 2004

---

I added a Wiki link to the Farrer theory page and to the World English Bible alongside the existing NIV links because it is a free bible while the NIV is not. Wiki links should IMO prefer free to non-free external links. (I have no association with any Bible site). Zeth

Concerning the phantom "Gospel of Hermes"

This reference, which has been at this article since 8 Dec 2001, and has been widely referenced on the Internet from Wikipedia, is a phantom. It refers to a theosophical tract published in India in 1949. Rather than merely suppress the redlink, I have made an entry briefly describing the situation. A few Internet references did follow Gospel of Hermes with a question mark. (Cf. Shepherd of Hermas.) We should have caught this at some point during the last three years and some months... --Wetman 08:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Authors

Some lines should be used to summarize the opinions on who the authors of the Gospels are. Is, say, the Gospel of MArk written by one person named Mark?

Other "gospels"

Aren't there other books that are not purport to be revealed, but are titled "gospel"? I'm thinking in The Gospel According to Jesus Christ by José Saramago.

Heraldry

If the heraldic gospel is what the winged lion is pawing on in the coat of arms of Venice (Pax tibi, Marce), we should insert a picture (we do have pictures of the Venetian coat, don't we?).

Authorship?

The way it's written, it seems to suggest that each gospel was written solely by the author it's named after. I've read that it's an accepted fact that each one has actually been edited countless times by several people. This fact has a small appearance in this article when it states that Marcion released his own version of Mark. I'm thinking that it would be helpful to elaborate on this fact.--67.177.36.200 14:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

While it may not quite be "accepted fact", it is certainly the majority academic position that the Gospels were written and/or edited by people other than the disciples for whom they are named. A little elaboration might be good, but there's no need to overstate the fact. Links ought to be provided to the appropriate articles for each Gospel, where each can be discussed properly. KHM03 19:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, upon further review, the article does a more than adequate job explaining the position of modern scholarship. KHM03 19:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You're thinking of Redaction Criticism (Redaktionsgeschichte).

Redactive Criticism would say that several editors have influenced an original autograph. It's taught as fact by some literary critics, but the different textual families of the New Testament demonstrate how little redaction went on after the second century. Hopquick 05:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Wikipedia wasn't invented yet :-) 69.109.218.163 21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Earliest known texts

What are the ages of the earliest known documents? (Not the purported original writing, but the oldest physical texts) ntennis 09:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not many very early manuscripts are preserved. They were written on papyrus and were often subject to rough handling. Probably the oldest that can be identified with confidence is a fragment of St. John's gospel, dated to about 125 AD. Since this is within a few decades of when both tradition and textual analysis say it was authored, it's astonishingly early. Even so, one scholar, Carsten Peter Thiede, dates several other extremely fragmentary manuscripts (including some from the Dead Sea Scrolls) to the mid-1st century, but his dating on paleographic grounds, and even his identification of the fragments as part of a Gospel, are not widely accepted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I think this deserves a mention in the article. ntennis 10:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the earliest manuscript kept?

p52 John Fragment

The early date for the John fragment [p52] is a paleographic date. What is the margin of error claimed? Is 125 c.e. the mean date or the upper or lower end of the range? ray elsom

It's the lower end. See Rylands Library Papyrus P52. I probably overstated the case above, but I can't remember what I was reading at the time that led me to say that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Suggestion of Merging the Article on "Good News (religion)" with "Gospel"

I suggest that the content matter of the two articles is significantly different. However, a link between the two is appropriate. Maintaining two different articles prevents confusion between "Good News" and the article about the Biblical and extra-biblical texts about the life of Jesus. - fh. 21 April 2006

I think merger is appropriate, in this sense:

• The summary of the Message attributed to Dodd, in that article, is appropriately short, and belongs here.
• The rest of that article is unencyclopedic, or almost so. (Some sections, for example, could belong to a lengthly article on Metaphor in the Bible, if they were given reliable secondary sources. Septentrionalis 20:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

In response to call for citation: The OED acknowledges that the Anglo-Saxon form, and all subsequent developments were unambiguously "god spel" ("message concerning God") and simply asserts "doubtless orig. 'go:d spel'" ("good news"). That is, they acknowledge the evidence and assert "that can't be right," circular reasoning from the a priori assumption that the term was a literal gloss on "eu(v)angelion."

There needs to be a citation from a source that mentions this. See Wikipedia:No original research. Find one and that can replace the call for citation. Rigadoun (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This section should include an etymology of the greek word which in the view of some high profile church leaders and theologians, while based on two greek words good and news, means more simply news. This is view is put forward quite well by D Broughton Knox in Selected Works Vol. III. This idea comes across plainly when it is considered that part of the gospel is that Jesus will return to condemn the world. I have this book at home and will include it with citation when I have some time. Borticus (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Christianity is not a language, so gospel does not mean good news in christianity. And one does not get the sense from our current intro "in christian THEOLOGY, gospel REFERS TO good news" because gospel is not a word christians use for all good news all the time; rather, "good news" is the translated root of gospel. In this case, we need to know only the language of origin, seemingly Old English, not the relevant religious tradition.

Q and Thomas

I made a couple of edits here which I hope are accepted. We can only assume that Q and Thomas would be similar so I added that. I also added a sentence that some scholars suggest Thomas could have copied from the synoptics, which were in circulation, instead of the other way around. I notice that we do not have any suggested date for the Gospel of Thomas in this article. Since its date is later than any of the four, shouldn't we include that date? I did not add that edit. JBEvans 14:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We note the anonymity of the "scholars" invoked in this case of wishful thinking. --Wetman 06:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit makes sense, but the form of Thomas isn't what's assumed (the text exists), it's the form of Q that is assumed (if it even existed at all). The problem with the date of Thomas is that some believe that it is earlier than the other four, and the only remains date considerably after the others. I removed the description "the very early sayings gospel" from this article because its date is uncertain; before it sounded like it was agreed to pre-date the canonical gospels. I think it makes sense now and leaves room for both explanations of Thomas (as Q or as copied from the existing canonical gospels). Rigadoun 16:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In the intro, we mention the Gospel of Thomas as the only example of a non-canonical "narrative of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus," but it is not a narrative at all. Shouldn't we change this? john k 02:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Written by an editor who hasn't read the Gospel of Peter either. Leaving the howlers in the article gives a reader a clearer estimate of the level of competence. --Wetman 12:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Gospel of Peter at least is a narrative of the death and resurrection of Jesus, right? john k 20:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation of The Gospel

I'd like to ask editors of this page for comment regarding my proposal on the discussion page of the gospel. Please post your replies on that discussion page rather than this one. Thanks. Projection70 20:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

requesting permission to link

www.manchildministry.com the real gospel of Jesus Christ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.157.116.98 (talk • contribs) 28 May 2006.

I'm sorry but I do not see how that link applies to this article. You may want to review wikipedia's external link policy WP:EL. Thanks for you suggestion though.--Andrew c 02:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that the very title of the external link conjures up images of NAMBLA and/or a Protestant attempt to slander Roman Catholicism. There's a chance that I'm wrong, but the aggression with which the link was provided shouts out that its something nasty. Clinkophonist 22:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RCC and canon

The RCC did not OFFICIALLY approve of a canon until the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Both the CoT page, and the Biblical canon page confirm this. Furthermore, your "cited" link a) does not mention Pope Siricius, b) does not mention the RCC (which arguably didn't even exist until the Great Schism in the 11th century.) c) does not say the decision of this council applied to all of Christendom (as the current wording seems to imply). I do not see how Simonapro (talk · contribs) can accuse my edits of being OR and lacking citation when over half of the claims made in the current version are not supported by the supplied citation. From Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities p. 246: "So the canon appears to be settled in North Africa, but the church in Rome still needs to be consulted on the matter. In some parts of the Church, it was settled somewhat differently... but for those within the orthodox tradition... the matter was for all practical purposes resolved". Doesn't sound like the RCC officially approved a canon by Ehrman's description. From Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament, p. 246: "Finally on 8 April 1546... the Council [of trent] issued a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) in which, for the first time in the history of the [Roman Catholic] Church, the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of fatih and confirmed by an anathema." and on p. 238, after a discussion of 3 different provicial Synods: "Yet it would be a mistake to represent the question of the canon as finally settled in all Christian communities by the beginning of the fifth century... Thus, despite the influence of Jerome an Augustine and the pronouncements of three provincial synods, more than once in the following centuries we come upon evidence of divergences in the canon, either by way of addition of subtraction." He goes on to list other canons and Synods that contained conflicting lists (see also p. 216.) So bearing all this in mind, I think it is safe to say that my edits actually made the recent additions more accurate. In this regard, I feel that the recent addition does not add to the article. These few regional meetings were the first recorded examples of a decision that coincided with our current canon, but these meetings were NOT the first of their kind (the Synod of Laodicea was before Carthage and decided on a different canon). And there were meetings after that decided on a different canon. And there were lists, and there were the writings of the Church fathers, who all weighed in on canon to some extent. So in addition to all this, I feel the recent addition is poor placed, and doesn't flow with the surrounding content. What does everyone thing?--Andrew c 17:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Let start with one topic at a time:

• Biblical Canon, which you cited here in the discussion, tells you that the 3rd Synod of Carthage in 397 canonized the books of the Bible. Run a word search for Carthage in that document. This official canon was used in the latin Vulgate, compiled after this council. You can read that after the passage about the 3rd Synod of Carthage. You will also read how the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, endorsed this canon. The Pope also intervened, when the translator wanted to change books, to keep the endorsed canon of the 3rd Synod of Carthage. This is an endorsed canon by a Pope, the Bishop of Rome. (Simonapro 17:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

What do you mean by "canonized"? These synods were NOT ecumenical councils. The wording "The Roman Catholic Church officially recognized" is false. I think I've made it clear why this is so: RCC didn't exist then, the synods were regional, not universal. The Bishop of Rome mentioned at Biblical canon is Damasus, not Siricius. His involvement is precarious which is why anytime it is mentioned on wikipedia, it is with wording such as "purporting", "according to Catholic tradition" and "allegedly". Here is a summary from the same source you cited. How about this, we change the wording to read: Some of the earliest regional meetings of bishops that recognized a canon that correpsonds with the modern Catholic canon are the Council of Rome, the Synod of Hippo (393), and two Synods of Carthage (397 and 419).--Andrew c 18:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with your change suggestion. Let's try to stick with one topic at a time. With regards to Biblical Canon, your reply did not address why the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, intervened with the production of the Vulgate when the translator, Jerome (who was attempting to establishing a canonic text), wanted to change books, to keep the endorsed canon of the 3rd Synod of Carthage. This is not a "purporting" incident or "allegedly". The Vulgate was universally used by the church universal after it was produced. What other biblical text other than the Vulgate was used by the church at this time? Name a regional church at this time period and the biblical text it used other than the Vulgate. (Simonapro 18:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

Umm... I feel we are getting rather off topic. This article is about the uses of the word "gospel", and more specifically the section we are dealing with is the origin of the 4 canonical Gospels. But since you asked "What other biblical text other than the vulgate was used by the church at this time"? I offer the Peshitta. Or just browse here. And why bring up the Vulgate, when some copies of the Vulgate included the Epistle to the Laodiceans and other non-canonical books not mentioned at these synods. As for you purporting that the Pope intervened with the production of the Vulgate, do you have a source for these alleged claims? What specifically is wrong (or factually inaccurate) about my proposal? Do you at least agree that the wording "The Roman Catholic Church officially recognized" needs to be changed?--Andrew c 21:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is explained to you in the documents you have cited on wikipedia. The Roman Catholic Church is led by Jesus Christ who gave supreme authority over all matters of faith and morals to the Bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope. The church, which this Pope heads, who is the Bishop of Rome, officially recognized the four gospels at the 3rd Synod of Carthage in 397[1]. In 397 the Pope was Pope Siricius, who approved a canon of the books of the bible (the books at the Synod of Carthage that he authorized) that where to be included in the production of the latin Vulgate, an early 5th century translation of the Bible made by St. Jerome on the orders of Pope Damasus I in 382. I am sorry that you don't want the words Roman Catholic Church to appear, but that is the name of the church that the Bishop of Rome belongs too, the same Bishop who authorized the 3rd Synod of Carthage in 397. It was the same office that authorized the Vulgate which contains those books. All of these people are Roman Catholics. (Simonapro 00:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

First of all, please read the page you keep citing. I see nowhere where it says "the Bishop of Rome officially recognized the four gospels at the 3rd Synod of carthage". If I am just reading the page wrong, please copy and paste the information. I have cited sources showing you that the Carthage Synods were NOT ecumenical, but simply regional meetings. Why on earth would the 397 records say "Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of Rome], and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon" if Rome had already "officially recognized" the canon?? PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE FACT TAGS without adding a citation. Next, RCC is not used to refer to the orthodox Church pre schism. The 2 sources I quoted did not use that terminology. It's not that I'm trying to censor RCC, it's just a matter of history and what our sources say. Find a reliable, scholarly citation that says the things you are trying to say. Please. This is part of wikipedia policy to be verifiable, and to cite reliable sources. Here is another source that again does not support any of the claims I have been contesting. Finally, your additions about the vulgate are poorly worded, and I do not understand how it relates to the topic "Gospel". Maybe you should be editing Biblical canon or another topic, because I don't see why information that should be covered there is being presented here.--Andrew c 00:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your question about Papel authority and the canon see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. (Simonapro 12:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

Problems still present:

• Your first citation is from a page called Catholic Evangelism which at best can only attest to the Catholic POV (i.e. its quesitonable regarding Wikipedia:Reliable sources). This source does not once mention "the Roman Catholic Church", and does not say anything about the 3rd synod of Carthage "officially recognizing" canon. In fact, it confirms a number of things that I have been saying, that the Synods were not ecumenical, but instead "regional or local" and that the "Decretal of Gelasius" is precarious or " may not be a settled fact". Once again, no mention of Siricius.
• Your 3rd citation does not mention Siricius. I do not understand your citations at all. If you are trying to back up a specific claim, make SURE the citation supports the claim. How can you cite something about Siricius when his name isn't even found in the page you are citing?
• Your 4th citation does not say Damasus ordered the vulgate.

Would you consider reading this? Here is the important part:

At the Council of Hippo, AD. 393 a list was drawn up giving the longer canon, and this was repeated, and confirmed at the 3rd and 4th Councils of Carthage, A.D. 397 and 418. At the end of the decree there is a footnote: 'Let this also be made known to our brother and fellow priest, the holy Boniface, bishop of Rome, or to other priests of those parts, for the confirmation of this canon; for we have learned from the Fathers that we should read these in Church' (EnchB 16--20). In A.D. 405 Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse, wrote to the Pope, Innocent I, asking him for a ruling on this question, perhaps worried by Jerome's statements. The Pope replied in his letter Consulenti Tibi (PL 20, 501) repeating the list drawn up by the Councils. These were the first official professions of belief concerning the Canon, although not involving the highest authority speaking ex cathedra. But they were enough to produce a virtual unanimity of view in the W during the 5th cent., though in the E, and in particular in Syria, general agreement was not reached until the 7th cent., when the E accepted the longer canon. (emp. mine)

--Andrew c 16:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Read the first citation again. It tells you that the Pope approved the canon. It says The regional or local Catholic Church Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage, 419 A.D., gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture, as we know it today. Although these were just local councils, Saint Augustine did insist that the list given by these councils be sent to Rome for approval. Pope Saint Siricius (384-399 A.D.) approved the canon just as his papal predecessor Pope Damasus 1 had done in a synod in 382 A.D. with a formal writing "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris. (The archeological findings and analysis pertaining to the Council of Rome, 382 A.D., and some of the Popes may not be a settled fact.) A friend of Saint Jerome, Saint Exuperius of Toulouse, a Gallican bishop, wrote to Pope Innocent I in a formal letter requesting the list of canonical books. The Pope replied in February of 405 A.D. with a letter (Consulenti Tibi) confirming and reaffirming the canon given at Hippo and Carthage. The decrees of the regional or local Catholic Church Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, around 400 A.D., were submitted to the "transmarine church" (Rome) and approved by the Popes and are considered official church teachings by official church councils or synods. Although these synods were merely local, and they in themselves did not have universal binding authority, their decrees were submitted to various Popes. After the Popes approved the decrees, they became part of the Ordinary and Infallible teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
• The 3rd citation is for the vulgate with respect to the "The Roman Church, the Synod under Damasus, and St. Jerome". It connects the Synods, the Vulgate, the Pope and the Roman Church together. It is not about Pope Siricius. Pope Siricius was the current Pope in 397 AD and his connection to this is in the first citation. More importantly is the line connecting the Vulgate with Carthage The Tridentine order has been retained in the official Vulgate and vernacular Catholic Bibles. The same is to be said of the titles, which as a rule are traditional ones, taken from the Canons of Florence and Carthage.
• The 4th citation is another citation for Papal authority with respect to the canon. Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. The African Church, always a staunch supporter of the contested books, found itself in entire accord with Rome on this question.

Whatever way anyone tries to cook it we have the Bishop of Rome, ordering the Synods to convene, with the reason of also proposing a biblical canon (because Jerome was translating the Vulgate), who then come up with the canon, that was used in this Latin Vulgate, that contains the same canon still maintained to this day by the Roman Catholic Church. I ordered the citations around again so there is less jumping from one to the other, but it still says the same thing. The Bible was authorized by the Bishop of Rome. It is called the Vulgate and it existed over a century before Trent. (Simonapro 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

I have made it clear where the citations do not support the claims. I have removed any information not covered in the citations. Even if you are interpreting the citations, that is considered WP:OR and has no place in wikipedia. I urge you not to restore any of the content without supplying a citations. If my edits are wrong in any regard, please explain why. If you want to readd information, please lets discuss it. I have removed any reference to Siricius, and replaced it with Innocent I, as the citation clearly say. I have removed "offically" and "Roman Catholic" for the same reason. I have removed references to Damasus ordering the vulgate, because the cite does not support that. I have added more than just the 3rd synod of carthage because the cite says there were 4 different councils that agreed on the same canon. I added the info on the concil of trent because it is in the citation. I honestly think my edits are straight forward, coming from the citations that you yourself provided (ignoring the research I have put into this discussion). This is a huge compromise and I hope that you are pleased with the outcome. If not, can we please discuss further changes. --Andrew c 18:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As the citations I provided on the talk page show, this matter, for all intents and purposes, was settled around the beginning of the 5th century for the western orthodox church, however, the matter was not settled in the east (still part of the Catholic Church, no?) for another 2 centuries, and Metzger cites a number of councils and canon lists that differ from the Western orthodox one. Instead of trying to explain all this in the article, I thought using the phrase "early Western church" made it clear that these decisions did not apply to all of Christendom (as both of our groups of sources agree on). And as I said, your citation that uses the phrase "Catholic Church" comes from a Catholic POV, so I'd imagine they'd want to downplay the conflict among early Christians. Can we agree on some wording that is more specific than just "Catholic Church"? --Andrew c 18:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is specific. You don't want Roman Catholic Church and now you don't want Catholic Church. In fact you don't want any Catholic in there (even though your cite says Catholic Church). This has been your direction all along as I pointed out above and you are wrong. All the information was covered in the citations above, some of which you have removed, namely the first citation which actually covered the whole lot. So you edited out the cite, but the cite was given. You also removed the term Roman Catholic Church after all. Even your own citation says Catholic Church. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. The other citation I gave also included use of the term Roman Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate says that The Vulgate Bible is an early 5th century translation of the Bible into Latin made by St. Jerome on the orders of Pope Damasus I in 382. It is still there even in your edit. I don't know why you added Trent, which really just said again what was said before at these other councils and at Florence. It just came 1000 years after. I do not understand why you want to compromise? The RCC canonized the Bible and all I did was list the historical record. Even Irenaeus of Lyons was an authorized Catholic Bishop. The problem is we can list people all day long who think they might know what books belong to the bible but the only one who could officially authorize the books of the Bible was the Pope. And as per the cites, the Pope(s) did just that. (Simonapro 18:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

I am not trying to censor the word "catholic", but I feel like I have explained why "Roman Catholic Church" is simply inaccurate, and why "Catholic Church" by itself is problematic. I asked if there was a way we could compromise, but I am sorry my edits have offended you. I'm just trying to make sure wikipedia is verifiable through reliable sources. The one link I ended up removing says very little about this. I do not understand your concern over it. Please read the link. It does not mention one single pope. It doesn't mention the RCC or the CC. It just has quotes from the synods, one saying that they wanted to get approval from Rome regarding the canon (why would they need approval from Rome if these councils were ecumenical). We can readd that citation if you want, but it says nothing that the others do not in regards to referencing the claims in this article.

The issue I have is you are only presenting a limited view of history. While a number of councils and authority figures in the early Church DID recognize a canon that is identical to the modern Catholic canon, there are similar synods and authority figures in the early Church who recognized a DIFFERENT canon. Please refer to the Metzger book I cited above. Please read any of the links I provided. As Richard Carrier puts it: "Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time, truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the Bible. It took over a century of the proliferation of numerous writings before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and holy, and even they were not unanimous. Every church had its favored books, and since there was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the 4th century, there were in fact many simultaneous literary traditions... Astonishingly, the story isn't even that simple: for the Catholic church centered in Rome never had any extensive control over the Eastern churches, which were in turn divided even among themselves, with Ethiopian and Coptic and Syrian and Byzantine and Armenian canons all riding side-by-side with each other and with the Western Catholic canon, which itself was never perfectly settled until the 15th century at the earliest, although it was essentially established by the middle of the 4th century."

Finally, lets discuss the "Catholic Church". I made it clear that there are sources that point out that there are versions of the Vulgate with a canon different from the 27-NT books. There are Synods and other canon lists before and AFTER Carthage that differ from the 27-NT book list. The eastern Church didn't settle on canon until 2 centuries after Carthage, and it was not made official RCC doctrine until the 16th century. In order to avoid mentioning all this in an article dealing with Gospels, not Biblical canon, I feel we need to be more specific in regards to who recognized this canon. I proposed "early Western church", but you objected because it could include 'heretical' sects. Why not say "early western orthodox Church", or even "early western Catholic church". We need to say western because things were different in the east as noted above and by my sources. We should probably also say early (and perhaps wikilink to early Christianiaty) to differentiate the post Great Schism Roman Catholic Church described in the RCC article. So there are two suggestions, one even included the C-word that you claim I am trying to censor. Do either work for you, or do you have any other suggestions?--Andrew c 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm that shows you that the synods where convoked by Pope Damasus. It says Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. The African Church, always a staunch supporter of the contested books, found itself in entire accord with Rome on this question.. They got approval and where convoked by whoever was Pope at the time. In short, by the authority of a Pope these councils did convene. They didn't just decided to gather by their own authority. It doesn't matter who cooks up their own canon, the importance is the Papel pronouncements on it. And there you have it. 1000 years before Trent, which was used in the production of the Vulgate. You also by-pass Council of Basel which again listed the books in 1431 that was the same list in Trent in 1556. There is nothing wrong the with term Catholic Church as that is exactly what your cite also says. Since we are talking about the Bishop of Rome, the only person who has the authority to pronounce the books of Bible, then we are dealing with the Catholic Church and not any other.(Simonapro 21:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

You didn't address any of my concerns regarding the use of "Catholic Church", but instead presented your revisionist history of the Roman Catholic Church. Please read the "Early History" section of the Pope article. Issues regarding papal authority were still being cleared up in the middle of the 5th century, and the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople were given "the same degree of primacy." But then we get into other issues. If we are simply presenting the history of one sect's canon, why single that one out? Shouldn't we, in order to be NPOV, talk about the Peshitta and the various eastern traditions, and maybe throw in a few 'heretical sect', eh? Which brings me back to the question that has always been on my mind. WHY ON EARTH is this information in the article on Gospel, instead of Biblical canon? Can't we just have a main or see also tag to redirect there and avoid repeating redundent content already covered elsewhere in wikipedia? It's important to note that Irenaeus was the first person to mention the 4 gospels. It's also significant to mention these 4 gospels ended up being in just about every denominations canon. But bogging down on the details inbetween, and focusing in on the western orthodox tradition seems out of place for this article (and POV).--Andrew c 22:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't present anything more than a citation of what you say didn't happen, and that is Papel authority over the mentioned Synods and biblical canon, as per my last post. That is really the bottom line and we have the historical record cited. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. If you are not the Bishop of Rome, then you are not the Pope. If you are not the Bishop of Rome then you have no Papel authority. Irenaeus is a Catholic Bishop. Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses names Eleutherus (ca. 174 - ca. 189) as current Bishop of Rome (Haer. 3.3.3). Since Irenaeus, a Catholic Bishop, who acknowledges the Pope (see his own article), the Bishop of Rome, is used in the article, my citations have done nothing outside of stick to this exact same 'sect' as you call it, that canonized four gospel books, along with other books, as the books of the bible, which where published in the Vulgate. All done with the authority of Popes, the Bishop of Rome. It was the first time the four gospel books where approved by a Pope and it has been consistant with the Roman Catholic Church ever since. (Simonapro 22:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

I apologize for accusing you of presenting revisionist history. I do not want to argue over church history. I want to discuss what should and shouldn't be in the article. I do not see a strong reason why the vulgate should be mentioned, and I feel we should be more general when discussing canonization. But aside from those issues, more specifically I would like to add the words "in the west" after "Catholic church". Do you have anything specific you want to add or change about the article? More generally, would you consider removing this section in lieu of a main or see also tag that directs readers to the main article on Biblical canon?--Andrew c 23:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuing on from Irenaeus, who was in the article, a Catholic Bishop, who acknowledges the Pope as per my last post, I have continued the historical record of the Bishops and the Popes who canonized the Bible, which was also the first time that the Christian Church officially endorsed the four canonical gospels. It was made official by a Pope. The gospels where canonized and that is why they are called the Canonical Gospels as per the title of that section of the article. The Bishop of Rome is the one who officially endorsed the four gospels. The Bishop of Rome is the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not see why the Roman Catholic Church had to be edited out because the Bishop of Rome says that this is the name of the church that the Bishop of Rome is affiliated with. More importantly is the inclusion of the Vulgate which was the first official Bible of this same Church and contained the canonized books of the Bible. I have added a link to the Biblical Canon. I have edited the Trent link because the books where canonized before Trent. There is no need to include Trent or the Council of Basel before it for that matter as they occur over 1000 years after the Bible had been canonized. Since the Vulgate, an official Bible, was produced the link to Bible Canon should cover all other develops that said the exact same thing as long as it was a statement made by the Pope.(Simonapro 11:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC))

As I've said, I'm not here to argue church history. If we are both sufficiently happy with the current wording, then I'll let it be. Some more reading [2]. --Andrew c 13:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that kind of reading is certainly one reason why the historical record needs to be maintained. That link suggests that anyone can cook up their own Bible canon. Since the Bishop of Rome convened councils to deal with the matter and then subsequently canonized the Bible for production as the Vulgate, anything other than this canon is simply not canonical but a private interpretation of what the canon should be. I think the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls have pretty much summed up that the Bishops and Popes got it right back at these early council meetings. (Simonapro 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC))

The point of wikipedia is not to tell The Truth, or settle religious debates. It is simply our jobs to report on every valid POV (even if they disagree with our own world views). I feel we have been butting heads because you are so passionate about this topic and possibly feel the traditional Catholic POV is the only valid or True POV. I'm glad that we have been able to work the kinks out to represent statements that are backed by sources. I only wish that more editors were contributing to these discussion.--Andrew c 20:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A review

I've had a read of this article. Here are my thoughts.

1. The lead is lacking in structure and wordy, particularly the first paragraph. It does not leave the reader with a clear understanding of what the Gospel is, or really which of the three listed uses of the term "Gospel" the article is going to be about.

2. It is not necessary to explain when the Catholic Church approved the four gospels. It would only be worth mentioning the Catholic Church if they had rejected the Gospels. The New Testament is the same for all Christians, not just the Catholic Church. If by Catholic Church, you mean "the worldwide church, all denominations", then this should be made clear. Most people associate "Catholic Church" with the RCC.

2b. The paragraph about Iraneus of Lyons seems to be given a large amount of space, considering the comparitively small mention of possibly more important events such as the Synod (Council?) of Hippo.

3. Some terms (higher criticism, Peshitta, docetism) should be defined in the text, the wikilinks notwithstanding, as the average reader could not be expected to understand what these terms mean.

4. The italicizing throughout the text is inconsistent and unnecessary.

5. I have been in many churches of different denominations and have never seen what is described in the first paragraph of "Liturgical Usage".

6. The entire "Liturgical Usage" section should be split up and moved into the articles concerning those particular denominations. If someone wants to know the liturgical use of the Gospels in the EOC or RCC, they are going to look up those denominations, not "Gospel".

7. The sentence in "Heraldry" is unnecessary IMO.

8. Under "See also" near the end, the "The Four Gospels" link links to a disambiguation page. It should link to the most appropriate page, or there should be a link for each appropriate article.

9. The neutrality of the first reference is questionable. Surely there are better, more historical references. BenC7 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

2. You have misunderstood what "Catholic Church" means (or ought to mean) in this context. It does not mean Roman Catholic Church exclusively despite the wikikink, but the church as opposed to Gnosticism and various other bodies that indeed had a different NT collection. If the problem is that the usage isn't clear here, that's what ought to be fixed. As I read that section, it has a highly Western-centric POV, but I haven't had time to search out the cites I'd need to fix it.

2b. Irenaeus of Lyons is typically considered the more important, since it's evidence for widespread acceptance of the four Gospels even prior to formal canonical approval. The actions of a synod like Hippo merely confirmed existing usage. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply to #6 and 5: I am okay with splitting off the section on liturgical usage, but I don't think the content should be moved to the overall pages for those liturgies, but we should keep a sort of comparative page at Gospel (reading) or Gospel (liturgy). The use in the Roman Catholic Church needs to be expanded, and Protestant and Oriental Orthodox usages need to be added. But I think it is useful to see at a glance how the gospel is used in various liturgies. Since part of the Mass is called the "Gospel," (see {{Mass}}), people may well look to Gospel to see information on the reading. But if it is linked to from here and Gospel (disambiguation), that shouldn't be a problem. As far as the issue in #5, that obviously needs to be clarified which churches in particular, but that is addressed at the top of this page, and a lot of denominations listed. For #7, perhaps that usage of the word (obviously distinct from here) belongs on Gospel (disambiguation). Rigadoun (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I propose creating an article Gospel (reading) adding a link to the disambig page, merging the "Uses in Roman Catholic liturgy" and the Template:Mass there, and greatly expanding the content to include non-catholic uses, etc. Any comments on this, or should we move ahead?--Andrew c 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there some reason why we wouldn't want to move existing content on non-Roman Catholic liturgical use to the new article? TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha, goes to show how careless I can be sometimes. I didn't notice the rest of the section right above the catholic use. So, the question not remains, have we reached the point where a spinout article is necessary to cover this other use of the word, or should we just leave everything as is. I'll be honest, my concern was raised due to the Chant template at the bottom of the page. I felt it was very strange to have a big template filling the bottom just because there are 2 sentences about that topic in this entire article (dealing with other topics). I compared it to having the Template:Godfather at the bottom of the Pope John Paul article because the 3rd movie is mentioned in one sentence in that article. I feel like the two topics (the physical books, and the "readings" from these books during mass/services) are different enough to warrent two different articles, but it may be better to have one longer inclusive article instead of two smaller, possibly incomplete articles. Tough call, so what do others think?--Andrew c 22:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the basic idea was a good one. There are many features surrounding the liturgical use of the Gospels that may be of only marginal interest to most readers, and are complex enough to be worth their own article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Documenting edits of 2006-28-11

Under the section on Origins I made some changes, available for review through the history function. I added more information about about the early-view stance of many Christians, and tried to neutralize some apparent (not necessarily confirmed, only apparent as the literal meaning of the word) bias.

Significantly I have removed this line of text:

"It is widely argued by Christians that the Gospels were based on an earlier oral tradition, thus explaining the dating gap between Jesus' death and their date of composition."

I've never encountered this hypothesis in any scholarly circle or document, nor, for that matter, within any circle period. Before including such a statement we need valid reference from reliable and trustworthy sources. It's also a position which I find, intellectually (not personally) offensive, in that the underlying grammatical structure, idiom, style, and even method of reasoning, of the greek betray a Hebrew (more than Aramaic) and Jewish writer. So much so that the expressions are often incomprehensible to anyone undeducated concerning Jewish history, culture, scriptures, and their methods and history of interpretation of their scriptures.

Another issue with this article is that it calls "Aramaic" as a possible source of a primary document from which the greek may have been translated. While this is a plausible scenario, the underlying structure of the Greek often reflects, as stated afore, Hebrew first: it is likely that such an original document would have been in Hebrew, in that Aramaic was a common tongue of the Jews, and even spoken by the Jews in Greece, and such was (is) a necessity to read sections of the old testament written in Aramaic; however the two languages are not the same. It is also noteworhty, that, in some places Hebrew had fallen into disuse, and Aramaic as well, and this is inferable from passages of the New Testament where Paul speaks (in Aramaic) to crowds of Jews who "began to listen very carefully," however this would not have been the case among areas such as Jerusalem and Galilee, especially in that Jewish education consisted of (among other things) memorizing the entire Tankakh (Old Testament) by the age of six-/eight-teen. Since the deciples of Jesus first evangelized the Jews in the Israeli-Syria area, it is very plausible the gospels I may have actually been compiled in Hebrew, though Aramaic, (or both, really), is not excluded from such a possibility.Infinitelink 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it surprising that you never encountered this before. Given the gap between the events described in the Gospels and their composition, there was necessarily a period of oral transmission. It seems to me that the alternative is that the Evangelists made up the Gospels out of whole cloth, which even from a critical standpoint seems untenable given the correlations between the Synoptics, John, and the Pauline Epistles. I could point to numerous examples of this belief in my tradition alone; this is only one of them. [3]. Roman Catholicism as well, from the Catechism [4] here and on the following page.

see below, and, the earliest documentation, not only of biblical, but also external, documentation, has put such theories to rest: and I'm not concerned with traditions, or discarded theories, by the way. The earliest fragments, as I mentioned, are in the 60s of the first century, and one I did not mention (because I did not have a source on hand) is in the forties dated about 44 A.D.. It will take a long time for the world to catch-up since data and evidence isn't usually widely known, so speculation continues while objectivity based on data is already possible. The problem arises when interests are involved in maintaining a theory, such as credibility, or personal ego for making them, and a lot of scholars, secular and religious, have staked their reputations, or based years of work, on theories, and so the old will die hard, being that it'll be resisted.Infinitelink 22:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it need be assumed that this oral transmission occurred entirely in Greek, and I'm not sure why you think the line Fquestion implies that it did. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes because you are giving undue weight to minority positions. Early dating is a very, very small position among mainstream scholarship, same for Aramaic primacy. This is an overview article, and is not the place to debate these minor theories. Mentioning them in passing is fine. Linking to more relevent pages, such as Aramaic primacy or the individual gospel pages is also great. But I feel that the recent changes took up too much space rationalizing marginal positions. (I do appreciate that you supplied citations in your edits, but maybe this content could be added to a more appropriate article instead?)--Andrew c 01:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reversed a removal of editing:

I fixed an opinionated removal of edits: we should write a fully comprehensive encyclopedic article, not just main/minority/middle-views. I will be putting a more detailed description under discussion. Secondly, what is referred to as "minority" view is actually quite large consisting of both religious and secular authorities alike; that's is why I took "the minority of" which is non-neutral, and changed it to "many," which is ambiguous and doesn't imply a position.

Furthermore, early evidences such as the Magdalene papyrus aren't insignificant: especially the state in which they're found: if there seems to be undo weight it is because the evidence it heavy, not the argument. To give an crude illustration of this, Gravity is not a hard fact but a theory, but we all feel the effect of it: I'd be labeled an idiot to say it's not real, because I'd be denyng the evidence: extremely early framents, of which there are over 5300 (including all the NT fragments) are heavy evidence for the early [supposedly "minority"] view. Religious implications or the possible effect on egos, or that it might discredit the infallibility of religious "tradition" is not important to me. This information has also been widely publicized by such publications as the times. Furthermore, why was the informations about the possibility of Hebrew and Aramaic gospels removed? This is one of the more significant possibilities to the textual archeology of the NT. In regards to positions on "oral transmission," denominational views not based on evidence are not acceptable evidence to merit removing information about real, hard, evidences. That a view is widely-accepted in a "tradition" is not important either. Specifically stating "one view referenced in Catholic literature" would be. First I put scholarship and research before anyone's opinionated tradition, and I am not sorry for this. It should be noted, in fact, that Jerome (yes the translator of the vulgate from the fourth century) is the one who spoke of a Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew, so it's the position you gave me to justify and support the oral view is untenable. I will see about re-introducing this view with your URLS just to stick to my own principle of keeping wikipedia quality by being comprehensive. Infinitelink 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

New Information:

I added quotes by Jerome and Irenaeus in regards to that scholars have suggested that the gospels could have been written in Mark. I also counter-balanced this by centering on Irenaeus's comment which betrays theological motivation rather than attention to record, because it is unlikely that anyone who has not strictly studied what is commonly called the "New Testament" would catch the contradiction between his statement and what is recorded, and therefore they would not catch the conflict of interests and that he likely discredited his own witness.Infinitelink 22:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Dumb Re-positioning fixed:

This statement:

These lend to the view that the gospels were put into writing shortly before the disciples and other eye witnesses would pass on. A similar phenomenon was seen in more modern times with the large number of Holocaust survivors recording their stories in the 1990's near the end of their natural life spans.

was for an entirely different subject than where I moved it, that no longer is extant in the article, for the moment. I was trying to keep materials so as not to too heavily change the article (and preserve former work if possible), but I realize now where I moved this doesn't even make sense (see history), so I apologize.Infinitelink 07:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. I am concerned over these edits because of this issue. You are trying to beef up a marginal position, giving it more time and attention than the majority, mainstream view, and thus giving it undue weight. The individual gospel articles don't even give this issue that much space. Please, keep the minority view a summary, and link to Augustinian hypothesis and aramaic primacy instead to avoid undue weight. For the first bulleted point section, please read the prefacing sentence "The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996". I have access to this book and have confirmed the information. He does not say "many" he says "some". He says "majority" for John being in stages. Please do not change the information found in Brown to reflect your own bias. This is sourced information, and you are putting words in Brown's mouth by changing it. Please, I am not trying to discourage you from editing. I strongly suggest, however, focusing more on the individual spinout articles. A top level article like this is supposed to simply summarize content. It is very concerning if minute detail is being added here, when it isn't even in the spinout articles first. Try to think holistically. This article is a parent article to a large number of other articles, and content and formatting should reflect that.--Andrew c 15:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If it will help I may be able to integrte the information in the Augustinian hypothesis article. Lostcaesar 16:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, I am going to move the recent edits here to talk so it is more accessible. I'm just really concerned about devoting 2 paragraphs on minor views, when the majority view isn't even covered in detail (but instead, covered in the individual Gospel articles). Redundency and undue weight are my concerns, so moving this information in spinout articles would be quite helpful.--Andrew c 17:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but these recent edits are also incorrect. P64 is dated c. 200, not pre-66. What is worse is the citation given to support this radical claim is from one self-claimed "Most Provocative Study" from a very strong Christian POV "Bringing the world into focus through the lens of Scripture". Please see WP:RS. And this fringe POV is presented as if it is a fact "The earliest known fragment of Matthew, is the "Magdalen Papyrus," (fragment P64) which pre-dates 66 A D". Then there are two exaples of argumentum a silentio. The Hebrew information includes the strange claim from some random internet site that the tomb of St. Peter was found in Jerusalem. The quotes from the Church fathers are interesting, but I think are too detailed for a parent level article. I believe this, if not similar information is already included in the appropriate spinout articles. I stand by my reverts, but am more than willing to discuss further.--Andrew c 17:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the info to the Augustinian hypothesis page, though I personally would like a better source for the P64 fragment than that website. I too am wholly uncomfortable with the buisness about Peter's tomb - sounds like propoganda more than scholarship. Lostcaesar 17:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

removed article content

There is a rational case to make for early composition. The earliest known fragment of Matthew, is the "Magdalen Papyrus," (fragment P64) which pre-dates 66 A D, and contains portions of Matthew 26:23, 31 on both sides of three fragments). This is significant because it is near the end of the book of Matthew (so unlikely in a stage of composition) so it is a respectable argument to assert an early date. According to The Times, London, it has provided physical evidence, 'that the Gospel according to Matthew is an eyewitness account written by contemporaries of Christ.'" ).

Furthermore, the Gospels make no mention of the persecution by Nero after 64 A.D., nor of the execution of James, the brother of Jesus (62 AD). Neither do they a mention the revolt by the Jews against the Roman Empire in 66 A.D. or of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. As one Chuck Missler writes, "These historic events would have been irresistible in making many of the arguments in the New Testament documents.").

[...]

However, in support of such a position, Jerome (the fourth century translator of the vulgate) asserted that Matthew did, in fact, write his gospel in Hebrew, and the early writer Irenaeus, wrote "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect...." Irenaeus's statement, however, may not be credible due to the last of it "...while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church" which itself contradicts the account that James lead the Church (Acts 15) and Paul's that James, Peter, and John were co-leaders in Jerusalem (Gal 1-2), the record that Peter preached the Gospel of circumcision in Palestine not Rome, and as we now know of the archeological discovery of Peter's tomb in Jerusalem, revealing Irenaeus's theological bias in this sentence which questions its historical subjectivity.

Hi, does anyone have any information on "The Gospel of the Holy Twelve," A.K.A "The Perfect Life" Thank You.

Links

I added a Link to the daily Gospel by email 140.247.248.105 20:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed that link. Please read WP:EL. I do not believe that link meets our criteria for inclusion. Furthermore, that page isn't about this article, its about Gospel (liturgy). Finally, when you are encouraging other users to sign up for an e-mail, it sounds a lot like spam.--Andrew c 20:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, the link is relevant. It links to a ministry of the church which provides the daily liturgical readings of the Gospel, solemnities and writings of the church fathers which comment on the current Gospel. Especially the latter function is therefore especially interesting and useful for priests preparing the homilies for the mass. It received official support by the Catholic Church through Archbishop John P. FOLEY, President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, and it contains the official Gospel readings. Given the fact that it adds not only the additional information mentioned but also additional functionality I think it is a valuable resource for everyone reading this article. There is a huge difference between a ministry of the Curch and Spam. I cannot see why this additional information should be withheld from the community. Wikipedia is as valuable as the variety of information it includes. In this spirit I suggest to keep the link and ask you to respect this edit. + Raphael100 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to edit war with you. I have not reverted again on the Mass (liturgy) page, but I have reverted again here because you did not address the most important point. That being that this article describes something completely different from what your link describes. We have an article for that meaning of the word "gospel". I hope you understand.--Andrew c 01:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Info request

Hi, does anyone have any information on "The Gospel of the Holy Twelve," A.K.A "The Perfect Life" Thank You.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.174.101.2 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 January 2007.

It's a fraudulent 19th Century work written to promote the views of the author, one Gideon Jasper Ouseley, as if they had been taught by Christ. Mainly this was vegetarianism, teetotaling, and so forth. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not when but where?

The question of "When" the 4 gospels were written has been beaten to death already, what about "Where" the 4 gospels were written? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.176.5.79 (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Gospel of Judas

Shouldn't this article mention anything about the Gospel of Judas and the other Gnostic gospels? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A mention in the "Non-canonical gospels" section seems to be called for. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote the gospel of Judas? - it was't Judas while Matthew, Mark (John Mark), Luke and John wrote their own gospels if from second - hand knowledge --jojo 14:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojonesey (talk • contribs)

I changed the description of Judas from apostle to disciple. Judas is regarded as an apostle anywhere in the NT. In fact he is regarded as accursed. Abelian (talk) 07:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Has gospel gone wild

Has Gospel gone wild critics say that some preachers use churches donations for personal use like bying clothes, plains and houses on the lary king show they interviewed all the big shot preachers asking if they do. creflo dollar says that he makes his own money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.172.68 (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

reliable sources

I'm adding information from some reliable sources. This article could use some more RS support. The references are a little thin for such a major topic. Leadwind (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Confession

There are also Christian groups which are called "Gospel Churches". Are they Pentecostal or Baptist?--84.168.240.149 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Gospel of Barnabus

Why is there is no mention of the Gospel of Barnabas in this article granted how big the article on the book is already there within Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.196.79 (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

3 areas that could be more fair

I think the article seems pretty fair, but I think there are at least three problematic spots.

1. Dating the gospels in the introduction and the dating section. The introduction tells us that the later dating is "probably" the right one. But later the article quotes the earlier NIV dating, which is also respected by a lot of people, especially of note, Christians. So why is one dating given such clear priority. Why not just state both veins of thought in an even way both times? Or give a broader range perhaps. The article says that "traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates" which makes it sound as though they are very arbitrary in their assertions. Then why not add that the writers of "higher criticism" consider all prophecy and biblical miracles not only as implausible but as impossible in their writing and they use their own assumption as a mechanism to ascribe dates to documents? That's my impression at least. Isn't that why Luke is dated after the Great Jewish Revolt? They make their lack of belief in the words of the Bible one of the main vehicles for calling into doubt those things written therein, basically just by doubting them. But there are very good reasons for doubting this type of criticism. Therefore those scholars should not be given undue place in the article in terms of dating and in other areas below.

2. The oral tradition section. This seems to be based on one critic and is a very extreme view. The implication here seems that the gospels were based only on distant hearsay and there is no proof for this, but its treated as fact.

3. The content section. This needs the most work. The article doesn't give a clear picture of the main purpose of the gospels: to provide salvation, nor does it explain who the messiah is in light of the Old and New Testaments. There's a lot more content to the gospels than whether or not they had similarities and differences (as though they shouldn't have both similarities and differences.) Also there's a whole lot in here that is innacurate. For instance the idea that Jesus is only the unique savior of humanity in the Gospel of John. Also Jesus is a heroic man of action in other gospels not just Mark. And in other similar ways these characterizations are unfair. I think I can help rewrite the content section. Asherdallas (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.201.190 (talk)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5