Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 1

Please readAuthentic Matthew and Discuss!

Only one Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew can be found in the world today

Headline text

. See- Epiphanius
They too accept the Gospel of Matthew, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7)

Jerome says

• "In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew. . ." (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2)
• "In the Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel of the Apostles, or, as it is generally maintained, the Gospel of Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea). . ." (Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2)
• "Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it." (Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3)

Therefore the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew. However Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible was written much later by an unknown person who edited Mark , "Q" and "M" together --melissa (two edits knitted together by Wetman without dropping any text)

No, Jerome is not a 100% reliable source for historic fact. In fact, its much much less reliable.

Theology of Matthew

There doesn't seem to be much about the actual theology of Matthew and what the book says in the article. Would people agree that the entry needs some coverage of this, or not? --MHazell 23:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, (See GHeb Fragments above)-Fr.Bryan

How close to the text could it stay? Could it be a report rather than an essay? (broad hints eh) --Wetman 23:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article! (hint taken) Fr.Bryan

Authentic Matthew's theology was Jewish in nature. If one reads the GHeb fragments above, one sees why the Church found it less than helpful. The Gospel of Matthew in the Bible has moved from its Jewish roots.

Well, I think that's debatable. Matthew is certainly the most Jewish of the four canonical gospels, to the exclusion of everyone else in places. And whether or not 'Authentic Matthew' (if such a document existed) was Jewish in nature isn't really the point. What this entry needs, in my view, is an NPOV examination of the theology of canonical Matthew - which involves dealing almost exclusively with the final form of the text, rather than any hypothetical documents/sources behind Matthew. --MHazell 11:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What this entry needs, in my view, is an NPOV examination of the theology of canonical Matthew - which involves dealing almost exclusively with the final form of the text, rather than any hypothetical documents/sources behind Matthew.

In other words, you want us to disregard the past two hundred years of biblical scholarship and treat Matthew ahistorically. Why would we do this? --Goethean 17:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, the 'other words' aren't what I actually wrote, are they? Sometimes I lament most biblical scholarship - whatever happened to looking at the (canonical) text of Matthew itself? All these theories about sources and authors etc., and we've ended up with a Wikipedia entry (as well as a good proportion of scholarship) that tells us almost nothing about the content of Matthew! Actually, to be fair, the synchronic approach to texts is where biblical studies has ended up in recent years, so like it or not, the 'final forms' of texts are (finally!) here to stay. One does not need to junk the last 200 years of scholarship, but it desperately needs reformulating. We need an awareness of history, but historical-criticism and source-criticism alone are just not good enough. That's my point, and I'll gladly admit my bias towards synchronic approaches to scripture. --MHazell 23:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As requested, I have now added a subsection Gospel of Matthew#Theology of canonical ''Matthew''. Text is needed, but keep in mind that it has to be a report on the theology that Church writers (including Protestants) have actually derived from Matthew',' not a personal essay on what we think. --Wetman 01:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But newly-added statements like " Actually, a radical Jewish sect was transforming itself into a new religion, which grew into Christianity" aren't going to help. The transformation, which happened over the course of the second century, was not happening in the pages of Matthew. The accomodation with Rome, which involved systematically marginalizing the Jewish Christians in Judea, was the lifework of Paul, not of the author of Matthew. The tactic is employed to move the church back into the first century: a familiar enough ambition but not good history. Why is there so much subterfuge about the earliest church? Is there really so much to suppress? so much to gloss over? so much to filter through official Catholic interpretation? How can Wikipedia stay straight with such pressures?... --Wetman 13:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Early Church had many diverse competing views.

The Early Church had many diverse competing views. On one extreme were the 'Judaisers'. They were established by James the Just and believed that Judaism was the one true religion, and that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. The Ebionites and other groups of Judiasers used only the Gospel of the Hebrews and rejected even Paul’s writings. They kept all the Hebrew rituals, did not believe in the Virgin Birth or the Holy Trinity, yet maintained that Jesus was one with God.

On the other extreme was Marcion. He and his followers were vehemently anti-Jewish in their beliefs. They rejected the Gospel of the Hebrews and all the other Gospels with the exception of a ‘revised’ Gospel of Luke.

Marcion argued that Christianity should be solely based on the Gospel of Love. The Old Testament writings should be totally ignored. He went so far as to say that Jesus’ mission was to overthrow Demiurge -- the fickle, cruel, despotic God of the Old Testament -- and replace Him with the Supreme God of Love whom Jesus came to reveal. This position, he said, was supported by the ten Epistles of St. Paul that Marcion also accepted. His writing had a profound effect upon the development of Christianity and the canon.

A third major group in the Early Church were the Gnostics. Gnosticism has as a basis ‘gnosis’, the secret, revealed knowledge of God. If the Gospel of the Hebrews was the basis of the Judaisers, and the Gospel of Luke the foundation of Marcion, then the Gospel of Thomas was the Gnostic Gospel.

The Apostle Thomas did not write the Gospel of Thomas, and Eusebius in his catalogue of Early Church writings put this work in his ‘spurious’ category of rejected works.

Higher Criticism has shown the Gospel of Thomas was originally composed in Greek and was a secondary Christian source based on the Gospel of the Hebrews and Gnostic writings. It is comprised of a list of quotations from Jesus, and in many ways resembles ‘Q’.

No. (a) Demiurge=gnosticism. the demiurge is an entirely gnostic concept and only occurs in gnostics. Therefore if marcion believed in the demiurge he was gnostic, leaving only 2 groups rather than 3. And you have forgotten the Paul/Gentile group. (b) Eusebius is not a reliable witness. There is absolutely no way of knowing whether the apostle Thomas did or did not write the Gospel of Thomas from the extant texts, trying to draw one or other conclusion in this matter is making an assumption about (i) the other works and (ii) thomas. (c) The Gospel of Thomas has NOT been shown by higher criticism to be a secondary source. In fact, quite the opposite - it is far more likely that a gospel such as Hebrews, or Matthew, took the Gospel of Thomas, and Mark, mixed them together and fleshed it out, than it is that someone went to all the effort of stripping out the sayings from one of those gospels and made them totally abstract rather than retaining small parts of the gospel such as "he said this in bethany when ... happened".

Unlike the Gnostics, Marcion did not believe that there was any special or secret salvific knowledge while he did believe in a church organization and hierarchy (as long as it was a Marcionic organization and hierarchy); therefore, his belief in the demiurge is insufficient to put him in the same camp with the Gnostics. Rather, it only shows that he had an idea in common with them. Consequently, the statement that "the demiurge is an entirely gnostic concept and only occurs in gnostics" is not correct. Milesnfowler 17:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The Emperor Constantine

The Emperor Constantine wanted these divisions within Christianity ended. During his time many works, from the Gospel of the Hebrews to the Gospel of Thomas, vanished.

Yet it is hard to erase history. The Gospel of the Hebrews can be found in the writings of the Church Fathers, while the Gospel of Thomas was discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi.

From the time of Jesus to Constantine, there was much debate among the early Christians. Studying the writings of the early scholars and knowing of their biases can help to see the Jesus of History more clearly.--Melissa

No. They were still around in the 6th century when the Gelasian decree was drawn up declaring them heresy.

Constantine himself took little part in the setting of the canon, leaving that to others. There are several critical moments in the development of the canon, beginning as early as the second century (the Moriturian canon, for example) and continuing over hundreds of years. One of those critical moments came in 367 with the decree of Athanasius who had known Constantine (however, Constantine was long dead by this time). Athanasius set forth the 27 books of the New Testament, and while similar lists had been made before, this was the first time the list exactly matched the modern list. (Even so, the earliest known whole New Testaments include books not on Athanasius's list.) Any work not on this approved list was condemned. It is commonly guessed that it was Athanasius's decree that provoked the hiding of the Nag Hammadi library by monks from the monastery of St. Pachomius; this conclusion is due to evidence that these books were last repaired in the fourth century before Athanasius's decree. But this is not to say that earlier and later moments in the development of a canon were not also important; it is just that every time Church Fathers proscribed heretical texts, we see evidence that some Christians continued to read them. For example, the Gospel of Peter was repeatedly proscribed beginning in the second century; yet there is evidence that it was still being read by some in the eighth century or later. Milesnfowler 17:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That "M Source",Streeter

In a revision of 06:12, 19 Feb 2005, User:Fr.Bryan added the seemingly knowing remark "Some believe the author also used the M document." I surmise that this is a hypothetical document similar to the "Q Gospel" invented to explain some characteristics of Matthew not otherwise accounted for. I can find no reference to an "M Document" however. Presenting such an obscure hypothesis without a word of disambiguation is not very reader-friendly. Now that we are all fully aware of how ignorant we are, might we have some illumination here, and a brief entry at the redlink? --Wetman 20:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nope, never heard of it. --Goethean 20:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone else read of an "M Document" source? --Wetman 20:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, there's nothing on Google, except for about 15 mirrors of User:Fr.Bryan's comment. --goethean 21:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have heard of M. It is an extension of the two-source hypothesis. Basically, M=the bits not in Q or Mark. Likewise L exists for luke. It is essentially whatever the source for things like the infancy stories was. Whether it existed as a text or just as oral heresay, or was just made up totally, is a different matter, but essentially it is extending the principle. M is widely known in the theory, it isn't a wierd thing, its just a bit pointless as its like saying "that source that isn't Q or Mark, and has the random bits matthew adds" - it hasn't got much to distinguish it, unlike Q, which is unusual in being mostly just sayings, and it was only used by Matthew, so isn't that significant. If you check out google, there is hardly anything about the "Acts of Thecla and Paul", but it is known to exist.

Well, the statement stands above, though I've removed it from the article now. To judge from his talk page the original contributor seems to have been disaffected with Wikipedia. --Wetman 00:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People talk about an M that's a hypothetical source for what's unique to Matthew, just as they talk about an L that's behind what's unique to Luke. Sometimes people refer to the "Four-Document Hypothesis"--Mark, Q, L, and M--rather than the "Two-Document Hypothesis"--Mark and Q. Josh Cherry 01:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's your redlink. That's your cue. A new article subject. Then the "people" you're referring to are following Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Four Gospels : A Study of Origins (1924), which— I understand— multiplied the hypothetical sources, inventing a separate "source" for every unique passage. So that's the "M Document" eh. Isn't that somewhat obscure, not to have a little disambiguating context? But perhaps you'd set the statement into enough context to make sense to the ordinary Wikipedia reader and return it to the article... --Wetman 04:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the topic is obscure. Any New Testament scholar would know what you meant by "M", and it's covered in introductory texts, various one-volume references, and articles is the likes of Bible Review. But this article sure didn't help. I'm not the person to write Four-Document Hypothesis, but I'll see about mentioning M here with some context. Josh Cherry 12:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The text now reads "Some believe that a third source, referred to as M and also hypothetical, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke." Some believe that good sentences never begin "Some believe." In this case, is it Streeter 1924 behind that smokescreen? There's a fundamental misconception at work: hypothetical source documents are only required when two texts inexplicably repeat identical material, and when neither seems to depend on the other. Material unique to a document requires no preceding document: compare the principle in logic called Occam's Razor. An "M Document" simply as mentioned violates normal critical principles. Something must be muddled here: no one would have printed this as it presently stands. --Wetman 04:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Easy there, my aquatic friend. I'm not sure why people talk about M and L sources since the authors of Matthew and Luke could presumably have composed, from scratch, the portions of their gospels that are unique. But they do. It's mainstream scholarship. I'm just reporting that. Josh Cherry 05:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In which case, M and L would be "the bits Matthew and Luke made up, respectively", and still useful to distinguish and study.

Those original bits are not presumed to come from pre-existing documents in the real world. Shakespeare had sources for Hamlet. The rest of Hamlet is not attributed to an "H Document" because one does not unnecessarily multiply causes. This just can't be what was intended, because it wouldn't have got to print without someone noticing that it violated ordinary logic and basic scholarly principles. We must have a crossed wire somewhere. --Wetman 23:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I hope this will be helpful-Melissa

The Priority of Mark: The Four Source Hypothesis

Scholars kept trying to refine the theories to explain more of both the similarities and differences in the Synoptics. That search led B. Streeter (1924) to modify the Two Source Hypothesis by expanding the number of posited sources. He rejected the idea of an early form of Mark, and saw Matthew and Luke using the canonical Mark as a source. Yet, for the material unique to each of those two Gospels, he also posited a separate source that he labeled M for Matthew and L for Luke. In other words, Matthew had access not only to Mark but also to his own M source, while Luke also had access to Mark but also to his own L source. Both Matthew and Luke depended on Mark, but were written independently of each other. He agreed with the earlier Two Document theory that both Matthew and Luke had access to a sayings collection (logia or Q) unavailable to Mark, but also posited that the L and Q sources were combined first into an early version of Luke that was later combined with the material from Mark to produce the canonical Luke.

This became known as the Four Source Hypothesis. The four original sources were Mark, L, M, and Q, with Matthew using Mark, M, and Q while Luke used Mark, L, and Q. Through the remainder of the 20th century there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis, such as Parker (1953) who posited an early version of Matthew (proto-Matthew) as the primary source of both Matthew and Mark, and a Q source used by Matthew and Luke, with Mark also providing material for Luke.

I've already stated the case, but perhaps it didn't fully sink in: "There's a fundamental misconception at work: hypothetical source documents are only required when two texts inexplicably repeat identical material, and when neither seems to depend on the other. Material unique to a document requires no preceding document: compare the principle in logic called Occam's Razor." These are axiomatic when dealing with texts and sources. Without applying these principles of logic, an imagined source can be "posited" behind every unique phrase: do you see the difference? No matter either way. --Wetman 09:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The text provided by Melissa is helpful for knowing and understanding what actual scholars argue and believe about this, and how the term "M" is used. Hence it is relevant to what the article should report. Your "case" is your personal take on it, and not so relevant to the article. Perhaps you believe that you have refuted Streeter with your invocation of Occam's Razor, but until you've convinced the world of Biblical scholarship of their "fundamental misconception", that doesn't matter for the article. I think that if you reread what you wrote you will see that it is presented in a patronizing manner, as though anyone who would continue to talk about what scholars like Streeter said after seeing you throw Occam's Razor around would have to be mentally deficient. Josh Cherry 13:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure the average Wikipedia reader has understood my general point about unnecessary multiplication of source documents. Perhaps some reader who has more fully digested and understood Streeter's thesis will be able to present it in a way that does it better justice. --Wetman 06:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that 'M' doesn't make logical sense, the writings of F.F. Bruce also mention that it exists, so it is a theory that was picked up on and given prominence whether or not it was deserved. People don't get published and famous unless they can find something to write about. Bbagot 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC) bbagot

Source doesn't necessarily mean document - as I understand it 'M' refers to whatever source or sources were used separate from 'Q'. Rich Farmbrough 18:11 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Searched the net again, and hope this will be helpful--Melissa

12. R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (NY: Doubleday, 1977) and The Death of the Messiah (NY: Doubleday, 1994). For Brown’s discernment of a three-part "format" in the infancy account of birth, flight, and return, see Birth, pp. 110-113. For Brown’s characterization of the social setting as "ethos" see Death, p. 1345; for his definition of popular narrative, Death, p. 1304, n. 41; for his description of "folklorist" features in Matthew, see Death, pp. 60-62. Brown sees a connection between this ethos and the later gospel of Peter; for his discussion of the gospel of Peter in relation to this, Death, p. 1345. Although we cannot address it here, this stratum also contains the anti-Pharisaic sentiments in the Gospel. The special material of Matthew is, of course, usually termed the M source. Senior, among others, would attribute this "special material" to the evangelist himself. If we accept Brown’s source theory, we have a situation in which the intertextual narrative struggle is positioned between the Mark Source and the M Source.

Just to retain the duly critical outlook concerning R. Brown's scholarship see e.g. Peter D. Howard, The Tragedy in the Work of Father Raymond Brown, S.S. (1999?) [1]; Dave Armstrong, The Modernist, Secularist Historicism of Raymond Brown and Brian Tierney [2]

Portress 08:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

---

The article as it stands makes somewhat obscure references to "Streeter" and "Parker (1953)" without much to indicate who Streeter and Parker are. It's possible to get a vague sense of Streeter and Parker from this talk page, but a casual reader shouldn't have to look here. Perhaps someone more up on Biblical scholarship than I am could expand or clarify these references? --Josiah Rowe 12:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Since no one else seems to have stepped up to the plate, I expanded the references to Burnett Hillman Streeter and Pierson Parker, based on this and this. Now, perhaps a real Biblical scholar (that is, not me) can create pages for those redlinks? It'd be greatly appreciated. —Josiah Rowe 02:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The M hypothesis should not be referred to as an M Document. It is sometimes referred to as an M Source, but the understanding is that Matthew himself might be that source, which is why it is called M. Scholars often call it the M material, which is more neutral. Milesnfowler 17:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Title: suggest to restore "according to"

The Greek – in the case of all four Gospel accounts – has kata, Latin secondo, both meaning according to. In other words [The] Good News according to .... There is a lively discussion as to the genre of the Gospels, hence their precise title, while not original but very early all the same, may be considered significant. (It is easy to see, why one often encounters of, even in scholarly writings ... it is 9 characters and 1 space shorter, and rolls better off the tongue.)Portress 03:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

As you suggest, the applied titles are simply a convention. A Wikipedia reader who enters Gospel According to Matthew is already redirected to the page. The link "What links here" at the left of the article page will show you the links that would need to be fixed, before you moved on the the other gospels, in order to maintain consistency. Then you'd be renaming the Gospel according to Thomas too? And Gospel of Peter? The "according to" is a rather specific assertion, which doesn't always hold up to critical analysis. --Wetman 04:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wetman, No – what I did suggest was that the often encountered English "shortcut"-references to the canonical Gospel accounts are sheer laziness. A mistake does not eventually become correct because many keep on repeating it! Secondly, the redirection needs to be from "Gospel of Matthew" to "The Gospel according to Matthew", unless Wikipedia wants to look stupid (sorry, that's me assuming that Wikipedia intends to give preference to accuracy over sloppiness and that all its contributors share this lofty aim). Thirdly, I note that you object to kata as being a "specific assertion"; but may I recommend that you take up that argument with the near-contemporary koine speakers responsible for the earliest "inscriptions"/titles (and perhaps also with the early koine-to-Latin translators who rendered kata with secondo). Unless you want to argue that the titles of the canonical Gospel accounts were composed in English? – As regards your question concerning the apocryphal gospels, I have not seen them in the original language and therefore cannot comment on the accurate English rendering of their titles/superscriptions. – What pray is the purpose of these your comments other than wasting time and computer space? Why accuse me of the desire to "rename"? And must I explain to you the difference between "the message according to Wetman" and "the message of Wetman"? And do I need to impress upon you the need for the integrity of a scholarly reliable translation, and that exegesis is an entirely separate task? Portress 00:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?

Is detailed commentary on each verse in Matthew encyclopedic? Perhaps this is something for Wikisource rather than here? -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point--Melissa

If commentary is placed elsewhere, it would be in wikibooks, not wikisource. Wikisource is for the texts only. --Peter Kirby 22:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Not good enough

In the statement It should also be noted that the prominent liberal theologian Dr. John Robinson, concluded that Matthew's Gospel was written as early as 40 A.D we are told that Dr Robinson was prominent, that he was "liberal" and we are given his dates. We are told that it should be noted, but we are not told how he came to his conclusions. This mark of authoritarian training also disfigures Soviet science. --Wetman 06:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Even worse, the statement mischaracterizes Robinson's views. Stephen C. Carlson 01:20, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Controversial assersion

Some critics charge that some of the passages in this book are anti-Semitic, and that these passages have shaped the way that many Christians viewed Jews, especially in the Middle Ages. On the other hand, the Old Testament prophets had strong words to the Jews in terms of correction. A majority of the phrases spoken by Jesus in this gospel were worded against the major Jewish parties of the time, primarily citing them for hypocrisy and a misunderstanding of the Jewish religion. Actually, a radical Jewish sect was transforming itself into a new religion, which grew into Christianity.

The above is quite a statement. It is one thing to claim that the book is itself anti-Semitic, and another to say that it has been interpreted to fuel anti-Semitism. Since scholarly consensus is that the book of Matthew has a Jewish perspective, at least more than any other of the gospels, this is quite a statement indeed, and needs to be backed up with reputable sources if made.--Gandalf2000 15:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

authorship

The line "However, most modern scholars are content to let it remain anonymous." is completely inapropriate. These types of generalizations do not belong without measurable evidence. This line should be deleted.--Heesung 16:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how the original sentence was "completely inapropriate", but I am totally open for rewording. However, I am not fine with leaving out the position that a) the gospel is anonymous and b) most critical scholars do not think the author was an apostle. I have added a paragraph with references to earlychristianwrittings.com's entry on Matthew. I'm clearly open to suggests or revisions. But I wanted to drop in on the talk page before more reverts go on.--Andrew c 22:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

An anoymous contributor changed CE to AD. CE may stand for either Common Era or Christian Era, but AD is unambiguously an abbreviation of the Latin Anno Domini which means "Year of our lord". I believe CE is more NPOV than AD, and that changing another's wording is questionable ethically. A Georgian (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Whoa whoa, reference 10. Bart Ehrman does NOT believe that the Gospel According to Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew. And just because church fathers like Papias said so doesn't make it true. The majority of scholars believe that all four canonical gospels were written anonymously or pseudonymously by highly educated Greek scribes. Look at the dates of composition. These weren't people who knew Jesus. This is at least two generations later. Matt2h (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Common Verses

I just noticed changes (by 66.30.25.205) in the common verse count in the section Authorship. can anyone validate this change?--Heesung 18:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming Scholars

Some of the scholars being cited, including Herman N. Ridderbos and Francis Write Beare, are somewhat obscure and seem to be merely cited for fairly non-controversial positions also held by most other scholars. So we really need to mention their names? (Streeter, on the other hand, was one responsible for hypothesizing M.) Stephen C. Carlson 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely that "most modern scholars are content to let it remain anonymous." However, Heesung removed the previous wording. Without the last paragraph, you get the impression that critical scholars support the view of the Church Fathers. So I added the last paragraph, and attempted to avoid weasel words while also citing sources. Feel free to edit it as you wish, removing the names and citations. I just wanted to make sure that the 'fairly non-controvesial position held by most other scholars' was presented in the section on authorship.--Andrew c 16:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dating

I feel like the dating section is not NPOV balanced. We should present all sides, but make it clear what the majority scholarly position is, and don't give undue weight to minority positions. Right now, there is no real discussion on WHY people date the gospels to particular dates, and too much pre-70, not enough 80-100. I was hoping others could help flesh out this section, because my sources at the time are limited (namely earlychristianwritings.com).--Andrew c 03:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Inasmuch as dating depends at least partly on matters also discussed under "Authorship" I feel that the evidence for the Markan priority hypothesis would not be amiss here; however, there is a link on this page to the Markan Priority article, so perhaps we would be redundant to discuss that on this page as well. Perhaps a summary of key points of Markan priority under authorship as groundwork for subsequent comments regarding dating under this section? Milesnfowler 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Matthew

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Matthew has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Andrew c 14:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

So we're going to go with the "Detailed Contents" organization instead, is that the idea? Seems fine to me, although we're probably going to have to get pretty detailed in some of the descriptions. Kc8ukw 23:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Matthew in Koine Greek was most widely spelt with two θ, and not one τ and one θ. Chris Weimer 02:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't necessarily agree with "most widely", I agree with your changes. Here is some more info I found on the web:

THE TITLE The Textus Receptus has "The Holy Gospel according to Matthew" (το κατα Ματθαιον αγιον Ευαγγελιον), though the Elzevirs omit "holy," not agreeing here with Stephanus, Griesbach, and Scholz. Only minuscules (cursive Greek manuscripts) and all late have the adjective. Other minuscules and nine uncials including W (the Washington Codex of the fifth century), C of the fifth century (the palimpsest manuscript) and Delta of the ninth together with most Latin manuscripts have simply "Gospel according to Matthew" (Ευαγγελιον κατα Ματθαιον). But Aleph and B the two oldest and best Greek uncials of the fourth century have only "According to Matthew" (Κατα Μαθθαιον) (note double th) and the Greek uncial D of the fifth or sixth century follows Aleph and B as do some of the earliest Old Latin manuscripts and the Curetonian Syriac. It is clear, therefore, that the earliest form of the title was simply "According to Matthew."[3]

--Andrew c 04:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The name Ματθαίος that appears in some ancient scripts also as Μαθθαίος is a translation to greek from the aramaic name Ματταύ (sorry I don't know the spelling in aramaic). Sometimes it is also written in greek as Ματταθίας and Ματθίας which is the short form. In aramaic it litterally means "gift from God" therefore the direct translation to greek can also be Θεόδωρος (Theodoros) or Θεοδώρητος (Theodoritos). cite: Παγκόσμιο Βιογραφικό Λεξικό (1987). Article: Ματθαίος

The spelling Ματθαίος is traditionally used in Encyclopedias and other referencing sources. --Marinos

All the modern references, including the celebrated UBS 4, all have Μαθθαίον. It's the original spelling, and it ought to be kept that way. (As far as "widely" I'm talking about the earliest attestations, not modern corruptions). And the spelling in Aramaic (in Hebrew characters) is מתי. Chris Weimer 00:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What version would the New Testaments read in modern Greece, for instance, have? If that's Ματθαίος then we should include both names, I should think. john k 01:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

κατά Ματθαίον is mostly used but I agree we should keep both spellings Marinos 14:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Note Andrew's comment above - the received text uses tau, rather than theta. The received text is at least as important as whatever the earliest form may have been. john k 01:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Some other stuff

I've taken the liberty of removing the words "some other stuff" from the detailed description, and adding the word approximate. It seems as though it was an author's attempt at going about the chapter by chapter thing by listing other pages that described each chapter. I think that a fine soultion to the debate, but if you can't find an article describing, let's say "Jesus calms a storm" (between sermon on mound and calling of Levi), don't put in a place holder of (...some other stuff...). You can look back in the history to see what can be added, but the place holder is very unencyclopedic, expecally for one of the big four books of the bible. Same goes for Luke.--Rayc 04:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Summary

Is it just me, or is the Summary section extremely informal and oddly formatted? Was this on purpose? I ask so I don't make changes to something that was already discussed. Kc8ukw 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I reverted these additions because they are non-encyclopedic. If you think you can salvage these additions, feel free to. A plot summary section could be helpful to this article, but I felt that anon's additions were not. I hope I wasn't too bold. It appears as if the same editor did the same thing to the Mark article.--Andrew c 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dating

I believe we are giving undue weight to the minority view. I think we need to expland the section on the later dating, and perhaps make the minority view a bit more concise. Any volunteers?-Andrew c

Recent chanced by Bbagot

Here is the dif. I'll make a note to my objection point by point, so please reference the dif.

• "Some believe" vs. "Scholars agree". "some" is weasely. On top of that, name a single scholar who claims the Gospels were all independently written without either relying on each other or similar documents at some point.

I will rewrite this to be more clear. bbagot

I do not believe your rewrite helped. What is problematic about "scholars agree"? Can you cite a scholar who doesn't hold the position that Matthew used other sources?--Andrew c 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A scholar who doesn't hold the aforementioned position.. Wilson, A. "Matthew's Messiah". ISBN 1904064086 red660 —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You're asking me to disprove a negative. The claim of extra sources should be present, baring that, the default position if Matthew is written first is no extra sources are necessary, especially if early dates are sighted. Zahn and Belser both believe Matthew was written first, and in a Hebrew version now lost. Patrizi believes Matthew was written in the late 30's, Aberle 37, and Belser in 41 to 42. Unless by sources you mean he talked with the other Apostles, then no, there are scholars who do not believe in a need beyond Matthew's eyewitness testimony. Bbagot 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

That is a good point that some people believe Matthew was written first without sources. However, the "scholars" you cite are all from the Catholic encyclopedia that is voer 100 years old (however, you did cite scholars, as I asked, so there was nothing about disproving a negative). I feel that this issue could be solved with a compromise: "Most scholars suggest". It uses weasel words, but that is to avoid saying the view is unanimous. It tones down "speculate" to "suggest", and it introduces who holds this view where "many" is clearly unacceptable.--Andrew c 15:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume we are both in agreement that there are other scholars? You seemed to be questioning if there were any at all, a position that I found surprising. Bbagot 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

• This was the view of the early church. What was, the Augustinian hypothesis and Griesbach hypothesis? Furthermore, this section is not about the early church view, it is about the scholarly view. There is no need for this commentary. There is another section already on the early church view.

I see no section devoted to the early church view. Under the section authorship, where this occurs, the view of the early church is very relevant. As for your comment on the Augustianian and Griesbach hypothesis, they are in parentheses, therefore it can be deduced that the statement following is in regards to the preceding sentence. bbagot

I apologize, I got confused with a couple other articles that have a more expanded section on the early church's view. The first paragraph of this section deals with the church's view, and this information should probably go there. However, the way you phrased it in the current version is acceptable, but it wouldn't hurt to expand on the Church Father's view in the first paragraph of this section.

All that said, you added the "Another view". Is this part WP:V? What is the name of this view? Can you cite some scholars who hold this view?--Andrew c 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. We all make mistakes from time to time. The article is not broken down into a section for church view and non-church view, but rather by subject. It matches the subject where it has been placed. That other view I've mentioned was the default position of the church before Q was hypothetically put forth as a possibility and before questions arose as to Mark being the earlier gospel. It is still talked about and considered in higher Christian study. I am not aware of the formal name and hopefully over time someone will add that information. Bbagot 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

Ah, the Farrer Hypothesis. I've added information in regards to this. I have removed the sentence about "other sources" in regards to Mt. priority. Some theories do include other sources like proto-Matthew and an Ur-Gospel. --Andrew c 15:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Based upon your desire to record majority and minority views, why not leave what I said and add an extra point about a minority opinion believing in a proto-Matthew or Ur-Gospel? Personally I don't care about majority or minority designations unless a view has almost no support at all (I've seen plenty of other articles in Wikipedia that discuss the issues without declaring which is the majority) but if it is an issue to you and you wish to have continuity, then that would seem to be the course of action. Bbagot 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) bbagot

At some point I also have to question just what a "scholar" is. I see a breakdown occurring between Christian and secular scholars. What I'm seeing so far is an underlying view that only secular scholars count, or at the very least liberal Christian ones. Bbagot 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

• in part because the destruction of Jerusalem is never mentioned summarizing the dating to this one point belittles scholarship on both sides. Furthermore, the whole issue is over whether Matthew 24's "prophecy" could have been written before the temple destruction. So if this "prophecy" was written with knowledge of the temple's destruction, it is inaccurate to state that the destruction of Jerusalem is never mentioned.

The actual destruction is not mentioned, only the prophecy pointing to its future occurrence. Like it or not, that is a major point for those who believe in a pre-destruction view, which is where it was discussed. The belief, according to this viewpoint, is that if the Gospel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, then there would have been mention of its fulfillment. bbagot

Well if this issue is over prophecy vs. actual knowledge of an event, we should perhaps word this phrase "in part because the mention of the destruction of Jerusalem is believed to be a prophecy". Another question, why do we have a reason explaining "in part" why for the early date, but not for the later date? Giving more information "why" for one POV and not the other seems to favor that one.--Andrew c 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, the text doesn't state there has been a destruction of Jerusalem, only that at some future point the stones in the temple will be torn down. There is no follow up stating that this event ever occurred. I've added information that is usually sited for the early dating view in a place where it was lacking. I did so in a concise and largely unobtrusive form that explains a viewpoint germain to the article. I see no difficulty with this decision. Bbagot 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

It mentions a destruciton of the temple. Whether this reference is The Destruction of The Temple in 70 is at the heart of this issue. The destruction of the temple is clearly referenced. Some people believe that this is a prophecy, and other people believe it was written after the temple's destruction. It is 100% false to say that a temple destruction is not mentioned. And you didn't address why it isn't POV to explain why one view is held but not another. There is already a whole big paragraph on the earlier date, and not a word on the later date. This is not NPOV because the majority view isn't give due weight. Your addition even further tipped the balance in the wrong direction. --Andrew c 15:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's a prophecy of a future occurrence. It does not come to pass within the pages of Matthew. To rewrite this will take a new section describing these views if you truly believe the fraction of a sentence added is misleading. I see it being consistent with the early view, which is what is being discussed and referenced, since it is a direct belief held by the proponents of that view. I still don't see what is "wrong" with that. I chose to add information to one view because I saw it was left out. I was not aware I was then expected to make a similar addition to the late view for balance. The entire section is rather small, so I don't see your concern with one side monopolizing it. Bbagot 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

The majority view, at least in our country, favors an early date. A subset of the population has a different majority, although how that subset is determined is unclear. Bbagot 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

• "Some" vs. "A minority" Once again, weasel words are being introduced. Is there any reason to dispute Aramaic primacy as anything but a minority view? please consider these things, and respond to them if anyone feels strongly about keeping the changes in the article. Thank you.--Andrew c 01:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Most contemporary scholars..." is referenced earlier in the section describing the opposite viewpoint. That isn't changed by the usage of "some scholars" below. The constant use of "most" (or majority) and "minority" then needing to be restated seems condescending. bbagot 10:42 PM 5/17/2006

I believe this section, before your edits, followed a similar treatment used in the Jesus article in regards to the Jesus-Myth. Please see the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph at Jesus. Unless you have information otherwise, it is not condescending to state that among scholars, Aramaic Priority is a minority view. There is nothing wrong with stating alternate POVs. In fact, it is part of being NPOV. But the other side of the coin is to represent each view point according to who holds these view, and to what extent it is prevelent. Your edits seems to hide the fact that this view is not populous.--Andrew c 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As stated, "Most contemporary scholars" is already referenced above. It is already understood that alternate viewpoints discussed within the same paragraph will be minority. There is no hiding. The word some is actually more expressive in this case than merely minority as some shows the view is held by more than one scholar whereas minority alone gives no further indication. Bbagot 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

I have to disagree that "a minority" is implied and that "some" is more expressive. Could there be a middle ground or another word phrase used like "a small number of scholars"?--Andrew c 15:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's logical flow. A majority being specified for a view up front carries through to the other views listed in the same section. Try putting in actual values and see if that changes your understanding: 7 out of 10 scholars believe Matthew was originally written in Greek. Some scholars believe it was written in Aramaic... (See?) The use of "small" alone is troubling. Consider the following and see if you agree: Most people in America are Christian. A small number are non-Christian... Would you have any problem with that? I would. Nevertheless, I'll see what I can do to reword the section in a manner that works. Bbagot 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

Recent changes

More changes, more content.

1. while there is no reference to the actual occurrence. I do not know what you are trying to say here. Well, I have a feeling I do know what you are trying to say here. Regardless, this statement is unclear and needs to be more descriptive. Are you trying to say that the gospel only covers events during the life and death of Jesus, so any even that happens (lets say) 40 years in the future isn't directly covered by the plot?
2. You have expanded the reasoning for the an early date even more. Keep in mind that the majority view is a later date. We are already giving the minority view undue weight. Look at the size of the 2nd paragraph in that section. Next, you are adding information to the wrong section. There is an introductary paragraph (that didn't have any explanations of views before you edited it). Then you came along and added the temple destruction bit for the earlier view. I complained about undude weight and you added the bit about the temple destruction for the later view. Now you are adding even more support for the earlier view in this first introductory paragraph, while ignoring that the whole next paragraph goes on to explain the earlier view (minus the last sentence).
3. Smaller. I think its funny you altered the Luke article to say "A small number of scholars" in regards to the claim the author of Luke was female, but are resisting "small" in regards to Aramaic premacy. I think part of the issue is that Aramaic primacy is different from Matthean primacy. Where the latter is a smaller subsection of the former. Regardless, smaller doesn't really sound that gramatically sound to me. What is your exact issue with "small" (seeing as that you don't object to its use outright)?

Perhaps, you may want to try bringing up some proposals here on talk, and trying to get some consensus before implimenting them? Just an idea.--Andrew c 21:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Much of what you are questioning is already answered above. Why not just continue that thread and add questions as needed instead of starting new?

1. It isn't directly reported. Imagine a scene from the 1930's where a person predicts that within a generation we'll send a man to the moon and his prediction is written down and recorded. Is that the same thing as the moonshot occurring years in the future?

2. What criteria do you use to determine the majority view? I find this to be one of the areas that is the most unclear. I also reject the idea that we need to try to match the number of lines to our individual concepts of the percentage of people that we feel hold that view. In my opinion a neutral point of view is one that reports the factual positions of both sides without concern for needing to fit in a box of not going over a certain percentage of the article. I write about what I know. I do not consider myself negligent because I did not fill in information for an alternate viewpoint with at least as many lines or more. Frankly, I don't see this occurring in other areas of Wikipedia either.

3. I believe the view that Luke was written by a woman is far less prevelent than the view that Matthew was first written in Aramaic. I wrote according to that belief. If you had other information then that would be addressed. If the total number of people holding the view really is a small number, then the use of the word small is ok. I'll copy and paste what I wrote above that shows an inappropriate use of the word small as you were wishing it to be used as a foil to the majority opinion... The use of "small" alone is troubling. Consider the following and see if you agree: Most people in America are Christian. A small number are non-Christian... Would you have any problem with that? I would.

Bbagot 06:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

1. I still think it is worded properly and reads fine without it. Could you maybe suggest a different wording?

2.I also reject the idea that we need to try to match the number of lines to our individual concepts of the percentage of people that we feel hold that view. No one is trying to be a pencil pusher, but there is the major issue of "undue weight", which a major part of the NPOV policy. In my opinion a neutral point of view is one that reports the factual positions of both sides without concern for needing to fit in a box of not going over a certain percentage of the article. We should present the factual positions of both sides. We shouldn't present an argument and rebuttal section. We should also explain who hold what view, how prevelent it is, and cite as many sources as necessary. It is not NPOV to present a view that goes against scholarly consensus in more depth and detail than the scholarly consensus itself. I did not fill in information for an alternate viewpoint... I write about what I know. Here is a good wikipedia exercise, try writing for the other side every once and awhile. Try editing articles that aren't controversial (that don't have 'sides'). These exercises not only contribute to wikipedia positively, but also help build good editing practices.

3. I do not have a problem with your hypothetical wording comparison. I think "smaller" sounds awkward. I proposed "a small number of" because you objected to "a minority of". Maybe the issue isn't the wording, but how many scholars actually hold this position (I think it is a minority position, but you don't like putting categories on words like this, so you were content with "some"). I'm not sure how we can resolve this.--Andrew c 17:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we have almost reached a happy medium in regards to the new additions. Here are the remaining issues. You removed the fuller citation and longer quote by Beare. I am not exactly sure why you did that, so I have re-added the blanked content. while there is no reference to this event being fulfilled. still sounds strange to me. I feel the article reads fine without it. There is no extra information given, and it seems to be POV pushing. I may still misunderstand your intention about this clause, so can we try to work it out on talk, or present different wordings before editing it back into the article? Please? You used the phrase "appears to be" for the early view, and " they believe" for the later view. I have changed the latter to reflect the format of the former, so favoritism doesn't creep into the article. You removed the sentence His writings have been hotly contested. in regards to redating the papyrus. While this may not be the best wording, it needs to be made clear that no one accepts this earlier dating. Saying it is contested is more neutral than saying no one accepts it. Finally, in regards to Aramaic primacy. "The vast majority of contemporary scholars... A minority of scholars" vs. "Most contemporary scholars... A smaller number of scholars". I still do not like the word "smaller" (nor "some"). Is there any other sugestions to make this work? Anyway, I would also appreciate any other imput on these issues from other editors as well!--Andrew c 15:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the fuller part of Beare's quote that went into commentary. His belief that Matthew was the product of a 2nd or 3rd generation Christian writer is notable conclusion, the followup about the name being kept only for conveniance is commentary. It's a witty quote, but doesn't add anything. I would hope you would agree that we should keep this out. We seemed to be agreement in Luke on this issue. I've expanded the conservative view of the destruction of the temple. It's necessary in some form to get the point across. The dating view on why Matthew is pre the destruction of Jerusalem is not supported just by Jesus making a prophecy. It's supported by that in tandem with no mention being made of the prophecy being fullfilled. I haven't looked at the word phrases "appears to be" and "they believe". If there is an inconsistency in similar circumstances then I have no difficulty with making it consistent. I haven't looked into the other small word changes. I'll read the article again tomorrow and see. Bbagot 16:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

I agree that the Cadbury quote on Luke wasn't encyclopedic because it was "witty" and not that informative. However, the Beare quote seems appropriate. I do not see how it is "witty" or "commentary". I have read similar explanations in other introductory, college level textbooks. It answers the question "well if you are saying the Gospel is anonymous, why then are you calling it 'Matthew'?" Here is a quote from Ehrman I'll continue to call them by their traditional names, even though we don't know their real identity. I'm going to add a "citation needed" tag to the claim about the temple, even though I asked you kindly not to add that part back to the article so we could work out a different phrasing on talk, but I guess you missed that request. And then I want to work on an overhaul for that section that would reflect more the format of Luke's dating section. Also, any comment about the "hotly contested" part you removed?--Andrew c 21:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

see also Gospel of the Hebrews

The reason for putting a see also at the top to the Gospel of the Hebrews, is because what little evidence we have suggests that the Gospel of the Hebrews is more likely to be by Matthew than is the one primarily discussed here. Bejnar 15:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue is, how many people are going to enter in the search box "Gospel of Matthew" when the page they were looking for was the "Gospel of the Hebrews"? Furthermore, your claim is not a unanimous view, and in fact, is a rather controversial POV. This sort of controversy should (and is) mentioned in the article, and there is a link to the other page, but I feel that this does not qualify for a disambiguation "see also" at the top of the page. You may want to review WP policy on these topics.--Andrew c 16:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Good one. It's sounding good, but this gospel looks great! Gospels have poems. --Tekkin58^{Talk to me here} 13:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Verse articles, to all who are interested

It appears that Rich Farmbrough has created blank (redirected) articles for all the verses of Matthew. While this isn't problematic in itself (though it seems pointless), Rich has also started wikilinking to redirects (which I thought was to be avoided in the first place) as opposed to using one of the bibleverse templates. Because this issue has come up in the past, I am announcing it to those who are concerned either for or against these moves. I'd like to hear anyones imput on this matter. Thanks!--Andrew c 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Hello Andrew. Work has been very busy, but I am passing through again. I hope you have been well. I feel the additions made at the end of July were input to make the conservative view look bad, without actually saying anything. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been an understanding of who exactly are the scholars or a meeting of all of them together giving them questionaires as to their views. What is missing, and should by all means be expounded upon if desired, is the why part. There is a section further below discussing other viewpoints. That would be a good place to expound.

The second section is out of place. The two-source hypothesis is discussed again only a couple of lines after the insertion. If expounding is called for, that would be the area. Bbagot 06:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede that the 2-source hypothesis sentence is redundent with the information covered in the next paragraph, but I think a sentence talking about modern critical scholarship should be included in the first paragraph. Here are some quotes:

"We do not know the author of Matthew's Gospel. That the original composition of the Matthew's Gospel was in Greek and that it depended upon earlier Greek gospel sources, makes it highly unlikely that Jesus' disciple Levi/Matthew wrote the Gospel which bears his name. However, the name Matthew may have been connected with the tradition of sayings and their written composition which the author used, i.e., with the Synoptic Sayings Source." Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels, (1990).

"We do not know the name of [the Gospel of Matthew's] author: the title found in our English verions ("The Gospel according to Matthew") was added long after the document's original composition. It is true that according to an old tradition the author was none other than Matthew, the tax collector named in Matt 9:9. This tradition, however, arose some decades after the Gospel itself had been published, and scholars today have reasons to doubt its accuracy." Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament," (2004).

"Thus either Papias was wrong/confused in attributed a gospel (sayings) in Hebrew/Aramaic to Matthew, or he was right but the Hebrew/Aramaic composition he described was not the work we know in Greek as canonical Matt." Brown, Raymond. Introduction to the New Testament, (1997).

"The New Testament writers were not merely collectors of material. even though, apart from Paul, their true names are no longer known, they are all authors in the proper sence, with a message for a particular individual." ... "Modern critical scholarship has cast doubt on the traditional authorship of all the New Testament writings, with the exception of seven Pauline letters... All the other books may be either anonymous or pseudonymous." Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity, (1993).

Accordingly, I will revise the deleted sentence and re-insert it. Hope this helps.--Andrew c 14:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried making some alterations. Although I don't agree the same information should basically be restated more than once within the same section, I've kept the original concept but in a form that comes across as less biting.Bbagot 01:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at different articles in wikipedia, the more I question why this article needs to quantify opinion when there are obviously large numbers of people who hold variations of different views on both sides. While such antagonistic phrases as "the vast majority" have been removed, how do we determine the majority opinion of "scholars"? It appears to be a rarity in Encylopedic articles to make a strong point over determining majority viewpoint. Bbagot 18:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the recent changes. I modified the first paragraph of the Authorship section to be a little clearer.--Hurtstotalktoyou 18:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep he was the saint of the Gospel of Mark!!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.192.40.129 (talk • contribs) 17 September 2006.

Undue weight and Matthean priority

This was recently added:

Other notable for the historical primacy of Matthew on the basis of Matthew's lack of a significant baptismal pericope after the baptism of Jesus (cf Mark 10), the lack of Pauline language, an assumption that his readers are thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament, a lack of explicit awareness of any other Christian documents or preaching, and an emphasis on fulfillment in each of the five discourses that indicates the author sees his book as the cap on the Old Testament rather than as part of the corpus of a new body of Christian scriptures [ref]Scaer, David P. Discourses in Matthew. St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2004[/ref].

The problem is this is giving undue weight to Matthean priority. The majority of biblical scholars accept Markan priority. By padding the article with arguments supporting Matthean priority (even sourced arguments), we end up violating NPOV. Maybe, we could combine this content with the existing content? Maybe picking and choosing which points are most important, and making the whole section more concise. Therefore we can incorporate some of this cited information, without giving undue weight.--Andrew c 00:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have specific statistics regarding the number of biblical scholars who favour Marcan priority vs those who favor Matthean priority? Even if this were true, there should be at least some discussion of the reasons why this view is held so that it won't simply degenerate into saying "The majority believe x, so x must be true." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.79.210 (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd links

In the "Detailed Contents" section, some of the links lead to verses in Mark as oppossed to Matthew. Is there a reason for this? See "Beward of Yeast" for an example. Why does that link to Mark?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.52.196.164 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 November 2006.

Because, for example, there is no Beware of Yeast nor is there a Matthew 16, and there doesn't appear to be any real reason to create these pages, since the Markan parallel, Mark 8, already exists, which not only covers the passage in Mark but also the differences in Luke and Matthew. 75.0.10.218 08:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Loaded terms

By removing the "loaded terms" conservative and liberal, we know have a case of weasel words. We have "some scholars say x, while others say y". Perhaps these terms are loaded, but the type of scholars need to be qualified somehow. Perhaps we could make it clear that the early dating is a minority view, and the later dating is the mainstream view?--Andrew c 05:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

They are not weasel words in this case I think. They are not trying to insert anything that is not explicit. In this case there are several opinions and they are presented in the article. Adding "liberal" and "conservative" loads the statements with uncited meaning. If we had a good cite for "liberal scholars as defined by X believe Y" and the same for conservative then that would be fine. As it is those terms appear to be solely your definition (I am not meaning to provoke by that statement either). --Rtrev 19:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic view

The Islamic view section was recently blanked by an anonymous editor. Here is the previous section:

Islamic view

Muslims refer to different parts of the Gospel with different views, some positive, some negative:

• 12:38–40: These verses are regarded as unfulfilled prophecies, arguing that according to the Bible, he simply spent one day and two nights "in the heart of the earth".[ref]http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsite/shamoun-false.html[/ref]
  

• 21:43: "Another nation" is considered to refer to Ishmaelites rather than the Israelites.

This section was poorly sourced with a self-published geocities site, so on that front I support removing the content. However, I feel including other worldviews in this article IS important, and feel that an Islamic view section could be beneficial if well sourced.-Andrew c 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Greek for according to Matthew

What does the first line give the Greek for "according to Matthew". I thought the Greek text nowhere contains these words. It looks like this phrase is trying to suggest the Gospel itself claims to be written by someone called Matthew. E4mmacro 11:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

External (sales) links

Under the headings "External Links -> Online translations of the Gospel of Matthew", the "Scholars Translation" link doesn't actually lead to an online translation. Instead it goes to an online order form. I checked the URL at archive.org to see if there was an archive of an online translation formerly at that URL, but I didn't see one. So this seems to be either some error, or else an advertising link. Is this translation notable in some way, such that we should retain some reference to it, or just delete the link? -- 209.6.22.99 (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Matthew and Q

Scholarship has shown that our current Gospel of Matthew is probably dependent on Mark and the Sayings Gospel Q. Tradition says that Matthew was the first gospel written and modern scholarship says that it was Mark. The original Gospel of Matthew described by tradition is a sayings gospel written in Hebrew or Aramaic. This sounds a lot like Q. Maybe the original Gospel of Matthew was Q. Mark was next written independently. The editor of our current Gospel of Matthew combined Q with Mark plus birth and resurrection additions. The writer of Luke did something similar. That would explain the traditional priority of Matthew. Barney Hill (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Q seems to have been written in Greek. Leadwind (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Q seems to have been written in any language one wishes, since it is merely a hypothesis. There are no Q documents, and no mention of Q except in modern conjecture. The main evidences for Marcan priority and Q are inadequate. Since they are merely modern conjectures with no actual historical support, they should be dealt with based on the weights of the reasoning behind them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.79.210 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well on wikipedia, what you are suggesting is original research. We cannot discount sources based on your personal assessment of them. We can only simply follow our sources. We have to look at them and decide "how prevalent if the Q hypothesis" and then explain that and give each view due weight. If you don't like the most common, mainstream hypothesis, that's fine. But we can't change what the vast majority of scholars think based on what you don't personally like. I hope you understand, it isn't personal. It's just wikipedia isn't the place to publish original thought, or advocate pet theories or what have you. It's only here to summarize what's already out there. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

---

The truth is that "scholarship" has NOT in any way "shown that Matthew is probably dependent on Mark and the Sayings Gospel Q". Although some of those scholars (such as Ehrman) write AS IF that is an irrefutable fact that is "recognized" by the majority of experts, that is in truth only an assumption that is supported by not a single shred of real evidence.

The truth is that the only "reason" for thinking that there must have been a "Sayings Gospel Q" is because some of those experts had already staked their reputations on the idea that all of the earliest Christian writings were composed in Greek, and on the idea that Mark's Gentile gospel was first. Thus, when faced with passages that are common to both Matthew and Mark, and it is Matthew's version that is more "Jewish" in nature, or there are some other indications that Matthew's version of that passage preceded Mark... since those scholars had already "hung their hats" on the idea that Mark was first, they then had to invent another source to account for that.

The short answer is that the whole idea of a "Q" gospel is simply unnecessary. Why invent some mysterious early Jewish gospel to account for all of those "Jewish" sayings and parables, when it is already well-known that Matthew's gospel was (and is) just such a gospel, and when it is evident in practically every passage that Matthew's version preceded Mark!!!

If you are going to say something to the effect that something had been "shown by scholarship to be true", you should cite some of that scholarship. If you can find anything that proves that those Church fathers were wrong in maintaining that the very first gospel was that "Hebrew Gospel" that was authored by Matthew, I would like to know what that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.242.101 (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

summarizing contents

The page needs at least a brief description of what Matthew says. Leadwind (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

External Link

Is "A textual commentary on the Gospel of Matthew Detailed text-critical discussion of the 300 most important variants of the Greek text (PDF, 438 pages)" in the external link sufficiently scholarly?

Also, is it necessary to have all those links to translations of Matthew? Isn't it repetitive? --WKPEditor (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, WKPE. You've been really busy, so I've seen you a lot, but I think this is Hello. Glad to have you. Could you tell us what the criteria are for external links? In my practice and experience, external links are pretty loose. I'd let the PDF stand. It's self-published, but it looks pretty good. As for the translations, how about you just pick the site with the best variety (not necessarily most translations) and delete the rest? Leadwind (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Leadwind. It seems that you too have worked hard on the article :) --WKPEditor (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose replacing all the links to translations with Matthew 1–28. I think the PDF should stay, as should the link to earlychristianwritings. I'll be bold, but if someone disagrees feel free to revert and discuss.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! --WKPEditor (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Harris references, page number

Could someone please provide the page numbers to the Harris references. Thanks --WKPEditor (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's my textbook you're asking about. Most of this material is from the chapter called Matthew, pp 272-285. The rest is from the the introductory material on the gospels, pp. 266-268. Or from the glossary, one of the book's highlights. Can I divide up the references into those two or three categories? That way I can still use ref-name and keep the references section tight. Plus, getting the exact page or pages for every reference would be a lot of trouble. Leadwind (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! This categorization helps a lot. --WKPEditor (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I've been AFK. But you all deserve page numbers, and I've added them. Leadwind (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

cited, cut material

This cited paragraph was replaced by a much longer treatment. I'm going to see whether all the information was preserved. Leadwind (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Matthew's genealogy links Jesus to major Old Testament figures, culminating with Abraham, father of the Jews. Characteristically, the writer inserts quotations from scripture and demonstrates that Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament scripture. Wise men from Persia or Babylon acknowledge the [[Child Jesus|infant Jesus]] as king. Herod's [[Massacre of the Innocents|massacre of the innocents]] and [[Flight into Egypt|the flight into Egypt]] liken Jesus to Moses.<ref name ="Harris"/>

Thanks for checking. The sentence "Characteristically, the writer inserts quotations from scripture and demonstrates that Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament scripture" is maybe more general and could be added earlier rather than to the infancy and genealogy section. How about Gospel_of_Matthew#Characteristics?--WKPEditor (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Matthew 27:45-53

The historicity of this passage (or rather the lack of it) deserves mention I would have thought. Jooler (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First Impressions

It strikes me odd that the first thing one encounters in this article is the statement "For the film, see The Gospel According to St. Matthew (film)." Shouldn't this be handled in disambigulation or something? A Georgian (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed typo and moved to bottom of page which is the proper place for new comments. JodyB _talk 13:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

When a user types "Gospel of Matthew" he is brought here rather than to a disambiguation page which is really what you want. This article is thought to be more likely the intended target of a reader. The line at the top is there for those readers who may be looking for the film. It really is the best way to handle it. But we do appreciate your thoughts. JodyB _talk 13:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

POV edits

I really wish the anon would stop making problematic edits, but instead come and discuss the concerns here on the talk page so perhaps we can reach a compromise. Changing "most scholars" to "many influential scholars" and "nearly universally agreed among scholars" to "scholars are divided" is changing the weight we give to various views. We have to keep in mind that these statements are sourced. So if we change the phrasing, we are basically lying by implying our sources are saying something they are not. The anon needs to add.ress why our sources are specifically problematic, and provide conflicting sources that established the weight it actually as divided as suggested. On top of that, citing JP Holding and tektonics.org has some serious WP:RS issues. I'd love to discuss this further, but it takes two parties to discuss. You may want to read WP:BRD for more info about editing and basic dispute resolution. Hope this helps. I don't mean to discourage editing, but basic policies need to be followed, and we can't go around changing what our already cited sources are saying willy nilly ;) Hope you understand. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's somewhat understandable, but it's unnecessary to continually revert everything, including things which have proper citations. Not many sources are cited for late date estimates or Marcan priority; there are many (even contemporary) Bible scholars who support early dates for the gospels, such as Bruce Metzger and Craig Blomberg, and perhaps Goodacre as well -- and those are just a couple from what I remember reading and more recently checked (and I believe that I even cited the two first ones of them in previous edits). The article as it is appears quite biased because the reasons for non-Matthean authorship are mentioned without any indication that there are reasonable critiques for each of them, except for the last one. The reason why I change the wording is because from what I have read, it seems inaccurate. What should we do, then? Find every Biblical scholar (ie, ones with degrees in Biblical or at least historical fields related to the first few centuries AD) we can who cites a likely date for gospel authorship, and put all the early daters on one side and the late daters on the other, and say, 55% say such-and-such while 45% say such-and such? Then do something similar for Marcan priority and Q? Maybe that's what's necessary, because the current fashion in the article is to cite a few scholars and suggest that they hold the majority view, whereas there are easily as many scholars who hold the so-called minority view who are not mentioned in the article. Holding's site uses references that are at basically the same level/scholarly depth as www.earlychristianwritings.com, even if his tone is decidedly different. --Jeremy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.79.210 (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of us selectively choosing sources. This is a case of our sources saying "The majority of scholars accept Markan priority." Do we have a conflicting source that say "The majority of scholars accept Matthean priority" or something else? I don't have Stephen Harris' book right now, so I cannot quote our citation directly. But I can quote from books that I do have: "Mark is generally thought to be the oldest surviving written gospel." Robert J. Miller, ed. The Complete Gospels p. 10. "I accept the standard view in NT research today: Mark, using various collections of oral and possibly written tradition, composed his Gospel somewhere around A.D. 70. Both Matthew and Luke, working independently of each other, composed larger Gospels in the 70-100 period (most likely between 80 and 90) by combining and editing Mark, a collection of Jesus' saying that scholars arbitrarily label Q, and special traditions peculiar to Matthew and Luke. This is known as the two- source hypothesis. Though it is the most commonly used today, it is not universally accepted." John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew vol. 1 p. 43-44. "In one form of another this [the two source] hypothesis has been accepted by most scholars." Helmut Koester Ancient Christian Gospels p. 129. and finally "Scholars have propounded a number of theories over the years to solve the synoptic Problem. Many of the theories are extraordinarily complex and entirely implausible. For an introduction to the problem, we do not need to concern ourselves with all of these solutions. We will instead focus on the one that most scholars have come to accept as least problematic. This explanation is sometimes call the "four-source hypothesis". According to this hypothesis, Mark was the first Gospel to be written. It was used by both Matthew and Luke. In addition, both of these other Gospels had access to another source, called Q...." Bart D. Ehrman. The New Testament. p. 84. Finally, I'd like to point out that we have an article on the synoptic problem, and we don't need to go into all the theories and details here. While we shouldn't over simplify, nor ignore prominent minor views, we should also consider Wikipedia:Summary style. This isn't exactly the place to discuss the merits and flaws of Markan priority in detail. Anyway, if you have some specific problems with the article, or proposals to make changes, feel free to get into specifics here so we can start hashing that stuff out. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Split the views

There are clearly two sides of thought on the dating and authorship of the book of Matthew.

To be fair, neither side should claim superiority over the other (by using words such as most, or universally accepted), but rather both sides of this issue should be stated equally.

Perhaps the two views should be split into sections (being the modern view and the traditional view) so that the reader may read the article, note the sources and choose which of the views they wish to believe.

I believe my suggestion would greatly improve this article, making it more acceptable and inoffensive to both the traditionalist and the more critical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightpaths (talk • contribs) 01:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You do not understand WP:NPOV, especially the part having to do with WP:WEIGHT. Please read these guidelines. We have a duty to present ALL notable sides in a dispute. But we must make sure we present each side with due weight given how common or uncommon the view is. I went into details above defending the idea that "most" scholars accept Markan Priority and the 2-source hypothesis. This isn't a newspaper report where both sides of an issue are presented equally. If we have verifiable sources stating that there is a majority view, we have to present it as such. By making a minority view equal with a majority one, we are giving undue weight to the minority view. This is basic wikipedia policy. I'm not sure I can help you if you take issue with that (you may want to discuss your concerns on that specific policy page instead). But perhaps you have conflicting sources that go against what we already cite in the article and which I supplemented above.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey anonymous editor. Thanks for working with us on the talk page. But I'm with Andrew here. New editors, especially those supporting minority views, often suggest that the proper article lays out both sides of an issue, no matter how solid the consensus is. WP policy, on the other hand, says we should present each viewpoint in proportion to its notability.

In addition, the validity of the 2-source hypothesis is not a topic for the Matthew page. That worthy topic belongs on the 2-source page. I reverted the stuff about two-source but restored the paragraph on Matthew the money-minded tax collector, because even though I disagree with it, it's about Matthew and has a source. Leadwind (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The traditional view isn't a minority view in religious circles. I'm not asking that we post every view, just the two major ones-- that the conservative and liberal views are treated fairly. Popular views are not necessarily correct, which is why I believe in fairness in this case.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.79.210 (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

deleting Argyle

I'm going to remove 40YO citations from an unknown source. Author was apparently a Baptist minister. Google and you get "Aubrey William Argyle, baptist minister, 5/6/1981 aged 70." Leadwind (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

lead should summarize the topic

If you look back at the history of this page, you'll see that the lede was five paragraphs long. Somewhere along the ling, the material summarizing the topic was segregated into a "description" section. An article shouldn't have a "description" or a "summary" section. The whole article describes the topic, and the lead summarizes it. Leadwind (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know when the lead got cut down to one paragraph, but here's a version from the fall that shows the multi-paragraph lede that had been around for some time ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&oldid=248141545 link). Leadwind (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Date of composition

In December I added, after the sentence

The argument has been made that since Jesus refers to the destruction of Jerusalem (e.g. Matthew 22:7) this gospel must have been written after the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Romans in 70 CE.

the following two sentences in the section concerning the date of composition:

On the other hand, the gospel has Jesus proclaim that a series of calamatous events, culminating in the Son of Man coming in glory, would occur before his generation would pass away (Matt. 24:34-5). If the author were dishonest and writing after 70 CE (as implied by the argument just mentioned), he would not have included this prophecy.

This was deleted 10 days later by user:Andrew c with the comment "rm original research. also, we don't need one sentence paragraphs".

I object to the the use of the term "research" for what I wrote. I've noticed that people often delete any sort of logical argument (presumably one that leads to a conclusion they don't agree with) by calling it "original research". But I realize that putting it back in will just lead to him deleting it again.

Does anyone have a reference for this argument? I'm afraid it's the sort of thing that neither conservative Christians nor their adversaries would write!

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

While I think that idea might have some validity, Wikipedia can only refer to facts that have been published by reliable sources. For it to be on Wikipedia, it doesn't just have to be true (or logically sound) it has to be verifiable. If you would like to include these sentences, I would make sure to obtain reliable references and cite them when you add them to the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Jerome's Opinion

Can some one please tell me where Jerome specifically states that the Gospel of Matthew is not authentic. In my reading of him, he clearly states the exact opposite. However, he does state, going by Papias I am sure (as every else did) that Matthew first wrote the Gospel IN the Hebrew language. This does not deny the authenticity of Matthew at all by Jerome. Therefore I think the latest edits are incorrect and misleading. SAE (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

perhaps editors are confusing thw gospel of matthew beign referred to as hebrew gospel with what we today call the gospel to the hebrews. Ishmaelblues (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Working Together to Fix the Lead

I see that User:Ret.Prof has reverted my restoration of the lead, citing ~~REDUNDANT No need to say things Twice. I'm not sure Ret. Prof understands what a lead is. The entire purpose is to be redundant. It is to give a brief summary of the article. If someone wants to read about a topic, but doesn't have time to read the whole article, they should get the gist of the article by reading the lead. It is supposed to be a summary of the entire text.

The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.

I do not believe the current, super short lead fulfills it's purpose. I'd be curious to see if anyone else supports such a short lead, and why Ret. Prof made the edits in the first place. I could be missing something. But I really do not believe "saying things twice" is a valid rationale for deleting the lead, because that is the purpose.

After saying all that, I can see that the lead that was reverted was 6 paragraphs, and arguably a bit too long and too detailed. I'd be glad to work out a compromise that is longer than Ret. Prof's, but shorter than previous version. Paragraphs 3,4, and 6 could be mixed (and shortened), and 2 and 5 could also be mixed, leaving us with 3 paragraphs total. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Working out a compromise lenght sounds good. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, Re the lead, you stated "The entire purpose is to be redundant." I do not agree. A good lead introduces an article in a way that stimulates interest and summarizes the important aspects of the subject of the article. It should be concise, explaining why the subject is interesting. Not an easy task! Give a it shot and you can count on my support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Although this discussion is nearly a year old, I would respectfully like not to let this last comment stand without correction. WP:LEDE currently says: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. … While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." Cynwolfe (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Organization in the Gospel

A relatively simple sentence has been turned into: Some commentators see the Gospel of Matthew as arranged into five sermons: the Sermon on the Mount (ch 5-7), the Mission Discourse (ch 10), the Collection of Parables (ch 13), Instructions for the Community (ch 18) and, finally, Teaching for the Future (ch 24-25). Others dispute that even some of these individual "sermons" are groups of different messages given at different times to different audiences. If this really is a point of contention, perhaps it shouldn't go in the lead. I thought it was simply describing the organization of the gospel. We present it in a matter of fact manner under the "overview" header, with no note of the controversy. Do we discuss the controversy elsewhere in the article? As it stands, we shouldn't add unsourced "he said, she said" content into the lead, that isn't explained further in the article. If it isn't a commonly agreed upon point regarding the 5 sermons, let's just axe it from the lead (and add contrary sources to the overview section). Who are these others who dispute the organization into 5 sermons?

I was curious, so I pulled out Koester (since I had it sitting next to my desk) to read "the speeches constitute the focus of Jesus' ministry... Matthew has created five large discourses:" He normally footnotes disputes and sources that give more detail, yet this section lacks any of that, so it doesn't appear to be something controversial to Koester. Similarly, Miller, Funk and the JS also identify the 5 discourses/sermons. On the other hand, I couldn't find Ehrman mentioning them, but his focus was a bit more broad. So I'm curious to know who disputes this organization into 5? -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe if we used the word "discourse" instead of sermon, it wouldn't necessarily imply that they were different messages given at different times to different audiences. It seems like an otherwise uncontroversial, and generally accepted, method of organizing/categorizing Matthew's presentation of Jesus' teachings/speeches. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I favor moving this out of the lead.

The word "passages" would be better stilll to indicate that they weren't necessarily different messages given at different times to different audiences.

I will look for the reference that I read the dispute of 5 sermons in, at least if you think it would still be needed. Maybe we don't need it if we only say "passages". ^{Carlaude:Talk} 21:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe if we made it clear who was doing the organizing "Scholars organize the teachings of Jesus into 5 section/discourses", so we aren't implying "Jesus gave 5 separate sermons in relayed in the Gospel of Matthew". I think if this is a common method of organization, it may be helpful to summarize it in the lead. I like it. But I am also not familiar with the controversy, and if it isn't appropriate to use (as it's pushing a POV or whatever), I'd be ok (reluctantly) with removing it ;) Anyway, looking forward to hearing about your sources. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"You cannot say it is the most common just because 3 or 4 scholars hold it as their view."

I'd like to respond to this comment. I think when you are citing basic college level textbooks on the subject, and those authors state what the scholarly consensus is, then I think it is OK to present scholarly consensus as they describe. Especially when we have such diverse scholars as Raymond Brown, Bart Ehrman, Jill-Amy Levine all in agreement (plus I just looked up Guthrie "Most scholars, however, reject apostolic Authorship" p. 53 of New Testament Introduction). I mean Gurthrie himself accepts apostolic Authorship, but can recognize the scholarly consensus. I don't think we need to shy away from this. These scholars are all in agreement in describing scholarly opinion, not their personal opinions.

I also think mentioning the Greek is important, especially because in lieu of minority Aramaic primacy and Hebrew Matthew theories, which we do discuss later in the article.-Andrew c ^[talk] 05:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok that is fine.

It was not clear to me the soures were clearly stating what "most scholars" hold. Can you add this or another direct quote to a reference? Thanks.

Can the mentioning of the Greek be done in a separate sentance? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the longer versions of the lead has a sentence or two describing the various aspects of composition. I just recently came across a sentence in Brown where he describes the most common position regarding that stuff in one sentence, which what I added a few days ago. However, that quote has been removed and the content split up into a couple sentences again. Maybe introducing the quote wasn't the best idea, but when I read it I thought "wow, this covers all the main points, and is just one sentence long" and felt is was perfect and concise for the lead. But I'll keep working on it, and hopefully others will also help out and improve my edits. We'll get something workable soon for sure! -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand now why you included the quote-- but not why you did not put quotation marks. Can you find the quote from a few days ago and then we can retain it inside the reference note? Do you follow?

Lead Section

The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarise the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should be short, containing no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

This is easier said than done, therefore I welcome improvements to my attempt to to accomplish the aforementioned. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusion

"Usually referred to simply as Matthew," has no citation and can be be confusing to the lay person. Matthew, should mean Matthew and the Gospel of Matthew should mean the Gospel of Matthew. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement, vigorous and serious

I'm referring to the changes to the last clause of the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the lead (which previously stated: although others disagree variously on those points.) It appears, though I'd hate to put words in anyone's mouth, that Ret.Prof believe we should include a statement regarding the severity of the disagreement. I went to our cited sources, and Amy-Jill Levine does not mention anything to necessarily support or imply these changes, but I don't have access to Graham N. Stanton. Part of my issue is that these adjectives are a bit colorful/emotional, and I prefer a more dry tone as it seems less sensationalist, and more objective/neutral to me. As stated, I'm also concerned whether we are following our sources or not. It seems a little odd to me to cite Brown stating what most scholars thing, and then follow it by saying there is vigorous and serious disagreement, because it undermines Brown's claim of a majority or consensus view. Seems like a contradiction, but perhaps our issue is not in trying to make these changes, but in citing Brown in the first place, if there really is such serious and vigorous disagreement.

Next, I have concerns regarding the grammatical structure. Both of the changes, the first of which I reverted, and the second of which is still live, introduced an inferior phrasing, "there is". Instead of saying "there is", we should be saying the subject of the clause. Who is doing the disagreeing. The previous wording, while not necessarily ideal, stated "others" i.e. other scholars, which paralleled the "most scholars" of the first clause's subject. Introducing "there is" changes the second clause so it doesn't parallel the formation of the first. So I would prefer a version that maybe specifically stated who was doing the disagreement, or at least didn't gloss over it with the ambiguous "there is".-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I tend to agree with you. I do not like any of the "wordings" so far. Maybe some fresh eyes would help. In other words I know what I do not like, but I am having difficulty making it better. I am going to take a break from Matthew for a couple of weeks. All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you think needs to be conveyed in the sentence, which currently isn't being conveyed? I don't like that we just say "others", and I wish we could be more specific, but Amy-Jill doesn't go into details. She has a large paragraph describing what is usual of "most biblical scholars", and a smaller one saying "some scholars do not agree". So, what sort of content would you like to add or remove from that sentence? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have sort of written myself into a corner. I do not like how this sentence reads.

However most scholars today believe that "canonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a non eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q." although others disagree variously on those points.

It is awkward but I can live with it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC) P. S. I have no trouble with content.

no idea where or if this should be in article

Matthew 27:52-53 states after Christ's resurrection many saints came out of their graves. This, as far as I know, is unique to this gospel. It should get a mention in this article. Nitpyck (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs a clarifying re-write

Carsten Peter Thiede redated the Magdalen papyrus, which bears a fragment from the Gospel of Matthew, to the late 1st century on palaeographical grounds, and thus the Gospel of Matthew was written by an eye-witness to Jesus.

How does the fact that the Magdalen papyrus was written around the year 100 prove Matthew was written by an eye witness?

It doesn't; it's a non sequitor

Good point. Most scholars do not believe that Matthew even wrote the Gospel of Matthew. However a substantial minority now agree with Thiede and therefore the logical non sequitor stands. see Thiede, Carsten Peter (EngTrans. D'Ancona), Eyewitness to Jesus: amazing new manuscript evidence about the origin of the Gospels, Doubleday, 1996, ISBN 0385480512 for a more detailed explanation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Consistency in miracles, parables, etc.

Help will be appreciated from those who are well versed in Gospel episodes. Please see:

• Talk:Miracles_of_Jesus#Consistency_and_harmony
• Talk:Parables_of_Jesus#Consistency_and_harmony
• List_of_key_episodes_in_the_Canonical_Gospels

The 3rd item includes a list of key episodes in the 4 Canonical Gospels. Suggestions about possible errors or omissions will be appreciated. Please leave messages on one of those 3 talk pages, and not here, in order to focus the discussion. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Composition: Incorrect synopsis of the Augustinian Hypothesis

"Traditionally, (see Augustinian hypothesis), Matthew was seen as the first Gospel written, that Luke then expanded on Matthew, and that Mark is the conflation of both Matthew and Luke.[13][14]"

That statement is simply incorrect (and contradictory to the Wiki article on the Augustinian Hypothesis). You have reversed the positions of Mark and Luke.

I might also note that I put this in a new section titled "Composition" because that is the heading used in the article itself. But if anyone has nothing better to do, there are at least two other sections on this discussion page (such as "authorship" and "Matthew vs. Q" that should be combined into one section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.242.101 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither source mentions the Augustinian hypothesis, and it appears only Levine mentions minority views that depart from two-source/Q. She doesn't mention the traditional view, but instead is discussing what some scholars think. I don't think either reference can really be used to support what our text in the article says. It isn't representative of a "traditional" view or the Augustinian hypothesis. I think we need different sources, or we need to remove the sentence outright. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

---

I don't know of any source (or proposed solution to the synoptic problem) that states that Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke. My point was that regardless of whether or not one might consider the Augustinian hypothesis to be representative of "tradition" - that hypothesis states that Matthew was first, then Mark expanded/currupted Matthew, then Luke conflated/harmonized both Mark and Matthew. (That is essentially what the wiki article on that hypothesis says.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.170.98 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Making changes

I am making the authorship sections more balanced. It seems that my cited changes are being removed because some people you just don't like themRomanHistorian (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As a Christian, I like your editing, but many of your edits show a Christian POV. Remember at Wikipedia we must fairly reflect the scholarship in reliable sources. Keep up the good work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it HIGHLY ironic that RomanHistorian wrote in an edit summary You can't just delete cited claims because you don't like them., but then deleted "The consensus view of the contemporary New Testament scholars is that the Gospel of Matthew was originally composed in Greek not Hebrew or Aramaic, and that the apostle Matthew did not write the Gospel that bears his name." The funny thing is, Carson/Moo on pg. 66 call the anonymous circulation prior to c. 125 view a "consensus" as well, one that has been challenged by Hengel, but something that "most scholars" assume. Therefore, I feel you are giving Carson undue weight, especially in the context of your deletion of Ehrman and Brown. Balance, on Wikipedia, does not mean to present all sides as equal, but instead to give each view "due weight". I don't think someone that has recently challenged the mainstream consensus deserves the weight you have given it.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess if I am going to make changes, I have to delete something.

It did originally circulate anonymously, which is a different issue entirely from who the original author was. The view "Matthew didn't write it" isn't held by most scholars. There are wide variations, including the possibility of Matthew being behind it though not writing it. My problem was simply that the article made it sound like scholars mostly agree Matthew didn't write it, making it something akin to a forgery, when scholars don't actually agree on that. And those who disagree with this view are not a small minority either.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian, my POV is similar to yours. However, Andrew is right. In 2010, the scholarship strongly supports the Gospel of Matthew being written after the time of Matthew by an unknown redactor. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Then find sources to elaborate on your point and cite them. The books I am using are not fringe publications. They do mention the scholarly debate and uncertainty, but also that there isn't (and probably never will be) a uniform consensus. I don't deny that many share your view, but many don't too.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You make a lot of bold, yet unsourced assertions in your 17:40 comment. And I'd be curious to see the sources behind the claims. The point is, we are already citing Ehrman and Brown who are making claims regarding the consensus or majority views. I'd be glad to transcribe the relevant passages for you. I've briefly looked at Carson/Moo, and they do not appear to be making any such claims about the majority position (outside of what I already stated above). It would be helpful if you added page numbers, instead of whole chapter citations, for specific claims. If you want to transcribe some of your sources briefly here where they are making statements concerning the majority view, or lack there of, it would be appreciated. If we do have two equally scholarly and reliable sources making opposite claims, we need to find a way to present both views. Or if one view isn't as reliable/scholarly as the other, we need to take that into consideration as well. Your request to find sources to elaborate on your point and cite them seems a bit odd, because the article was already sourced, and you happened to remove some of those citations in your edits. From what I've read, most scholars accept the view that Matthew was not written by the apostle. Clearly some scholars disagree, but I don't think both views are on equal grounds, and thus weight concerns should be taken into consideration when attempting to present the views in the article. We should avoid presenting the view of a single scholar as more representative of the whole than what it is. I'd be glad to collect and quote the sources I have immediate access to, and even research this some more, but before I go through all that (since we are already citing at least 3 individuals putting forth such a claim), I'd like to see evidence to the contrary that they are wrong, or that significant opposing views exist regarding what "most scholars" hold in terms of apostolic authorship. (Shall I also note that Donald Guthrie, an older, more traditional or "conservative" scholar, and someone who argues in favor of Matthaean authorship, in his New Testament Introduction pg. 49 says "Most modern scholars dispense with the traditional view".)-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by my "17:40" comment but I can add a reference if you point it out specifically. As for page numbers, that is difficult since I am using a Kindle version of this book. I apologize if I improperly removed referenced claims (though that seems to be the standard treatment for my additions). If you think they are better remaining in place go ahead and re-add them. I removed them because I was trying to change the article to present both sides. Stylistically, this required me to remove some of what existed before. Also, I agree that most scholars today disagree with the traditional view. This includes, among other things, Matthew having written his gospel before Mark and from his own memory, which few agree with today because of the two-source hypothesis. That, as well as the original anonymity of the gospel, are different issues from the question of authorship.

I do agree that the view that Matthew directly wrote it himself is probably the minority position, and I believe that is what Carson and Moo's view is. However, from the view of the opinion of Carson and Moo and the other scholars they cite, there seems to be a lot of diversity on this issue. You could say that one end of the spectrum is that Matthew wrote it himself, while at the other end it was an outright forgery (written by someone unrelated to Matthew, later assigned authorship by Matthew to give it authority). What bothered me before was that the article more or less claimed that most viewed it as something akin to an outright forgery. I don't think this is true, and this is not what I get from Carson and Moo (along with some of the other books I have read). I don't mind saying that most scholars today doubt Matthew wrote it himself, although I think the article should elaborate more on the diversity of opinion. It should mention that, while most think this, many (even those who doubt Matthew wrote it directly) hold that Matthew was behind the non-Markan/non-Q material to varying degrees, while many others hold it to be closer to an outright forgery. That’s what I was trying to do before, and why I kept the old claims while balancing those against the conservative claims. Maybe there is a better way to do that.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, 17:40 refers to the timestamp on your comment. When you sign comments on talk pages, it leaves your user name and date/time. 17:40 is 24h time, so I was referring to the comment you made which is timestamped 17:40. Next, it appears we are reaching a common ground, so it is a bit offensive to see that after you made this comment, you simply reverted back to your version, even though you acknowledged here disagreement, and made no efforts to address my concerns. It is hard for me to work with other editors who are acting in bad faith (edit warring is a type of disruptive editing, so how am I supposed to react to it, and stay civil?) Let's go over the diff. Just looking at your first edit, it changed a majority view, which you even acknowledge to instead present two views as equals, thus WP:UNDUE. You reinstated Scholarly opinion is currently divided on the question of authorship... by the 20th century the issue became highly contested and without consensus., yet you wrote above I do agree that the view that Matthew directly wrote it himself is probably the minority position... I don't mind saying that most scholars today doubt Matthew wrote it himself. See where I am going? If we both are agreeing to one thing and finding common ground on the talk page, why re-instate the controversial material that neither one of us seems to support right in the middle of discussion? I think the lead is OK, because after giving the majority view, we state "However, other scholars disagree variously on these points." I think the body of the article is the place to explain these differences. We do so to an extent already, but it may not hurt to add more from Carson, if we present it in an appropriate manner. Finally, I'm glad that you got the impression from Carson/Moo that there is diversity, and open discussion among scholars on these issues, but it would help if you gave me page numbers or brief quotes. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree with the changes you made. I have a couple of changes I would like to be made. In Gospel_of_Matthew#Church_Fathers, why is there a "verification needed" notice on the Carson note on Papias? Is there doubt as to whether Carson says this? Also, this point from Carson refutes the view that most scholars believe Papias was refering to another gospel, which is the claim cited by Ehrman. Yet the last sentence in Gospel_of_Matthew#Matthew_the_Evangelist makes the same claim that Carson refuted on Papias, and also cites Ehrman. I think a similar point from Carson's work should be made here as it was made above. Finally, in the second paragraph of Gospel_of_Matthew#Composition, I think a point should be made that a minority of scholars (such as Carson and Moo) do believe Matthew wrote his gospel. Even if this view is held by less than 50% of all scholars (which I am sure it is), I assure you it is not a fringe view, and wikipedia policy says non-fringe minority views should be given due weight.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Lee Strobel vs. Blomberg

Can we cite Blomberg directly? I don't believe it is appropriate to be citing a popular, evangelical work, such as Strobel's, in the context of this, especially when it comes to matters of more scholarly ventures such as higher criticism. At the very least, we should all agree that we can "do better than that". I also don't think we need to go into details of specific arguments against the mainstream in the lead, as we can easily discuss those details in the body of the article, which explains my deletion from the lead. Also, watch out for things like attributing something to Bart Ehrman, which is a direct quote taken from Raymond Brown. (the Ehrman and Levine references are there to support the clause, even though Brown says it is the "common position", not his personal position. We could easily remove those other two references, and just keep Brown, but I guess someone felt it was important to show that what Brown was considering the "common position", other scholars agree). -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I will try to find something written by him directly, although I am not sure if I can or not. I agree we should be able to do better, although I don't think there is a question that Strobel was relaying his opinion accurately and in context. I also made another change on the intro. How does that work?RomanHistorian (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Attribution can be a very important thing on Wikipedia. If presenting the isolated opinion of a scholar, we must attribute it to the person making the claim. That said, I feel like RomanHistorian is misusing attribution, but maybe not on purpose or anyhting like that. If a known and respected scholar is making a claim about scholarship in general, not a personal opinion, it is wrong to then make it seem like it is just this one scholar who believes such and such. Similarly, if we have a scholar relaying something that would appear to be a "fact", we don't need generally don't need to attribute those claims to individuals. Take for instance this sentence: According to Bart Ehrman, the synoptic problem increasingly caused 18th Century scholars to question the traditional view of composition. This makes it seem like Ehrman is making some opinionated claim, which is disputed. This is something that can easily be verified by just browsing the literature, and is basic knowledge about the origins of critical biblical scholarship (it didn't appear out of thin air, and is connected to the 18th century "Age of Reason"). Right? Am I missing something (it's possible :) As for the changes in the lead, it's ok, but again, I'm not sure we need to single out Brown, or if we do, should we not also mention Ehrman and Levine who we are also citing? I can live with it for sure.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I will try not to make that mistake in the future, but feel free to adjust if I do. On your last question, I think we should name whoever it is that is behind the quote. I could find many other good sources that agree with Blomberg, but for the sake of simplicity we have to summarize what the views are.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes

Someone keeps adding changes that aren't supported by the sources he cites. The source lists a few quotes from some books, none of which say that "most" scholars doubt the traditional authorship. Quote the part of the source that says this, as this is what the edits are. Otherwise the prior version, which mentioned the scholars who are cited in the source, is adequate for that source.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I did. Look at it again. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this link "[4]. Bock, speaking of the traditional (apostolic) authorship accounts for the NT in general though the gospels specifically, says "Many scholars think we know who wrote all of these works or most of them." He calls the dismissal of the traditional accounts among scholars "contested" and says that while "conservative and moderate" scholars hold for an indirect apostolic link for Mark and Luke, concerning the apostolic link for Matthew and John, scholars differ in that the links are "direct as conservatives claim or more indirect as moderates claim". He says outright rejection of direct or indirect apostolic authorship is limited to liberal scholars." The website claim (a tertiary source) directly disagrees with the claim of the scholar (a secondary source, and thus preferred by Wikipedia policy). The article should reflect this ambiguity.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I did look at that page, so I know that it not only has Bock's opinion but also admits that a number of other specifically named scholars dismiss it. This is once again a case of a fringe view being given undue weight. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

An indirect link is not the same as the apostle actually writing the gospel. So one could say that liberal and moderate believe in either no connection to the apostle or an indirect connection and that belief in actual authorship of the gospel is limited to conservative scholars. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds about right, thanks. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan reverted (again) an edit I made (here). This one reflected the nuance of opinion on the topic. Without the edit, the article is overly black-and-white and suggests a uniform opinion with only a few dissenting scholars holding to an entirely different view. I think it should be restored, and dismissing Bock's statement on what scholars think (not what Bock himself thinks) is improper. His being "biased" (everyone is) is only relevant to what he himself says about authorship (not what he says about the view of "most scholars"). He is a well regarded scholar, who certainly is not sloppy and is certainly trustworthy for a view on the range of scholarly opinion. I know I can't convince you of this so hopefully someone else will restore this assertion of nuance.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

By virtue of not being a reliable source, we cannot count on Bock to accurately summarize the views of others. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable and well-cited source. You don't like Bock because he is conservative. Conservative doesn't mean he is sloppy or misrepresenting the views of other scholars. This should be a fact that is obvious on its face, and it is a bit ridiculous that you revert sources because you think they are too protestant/conservative.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of liking Bock or not: I don't even know him. The issue is whether he's a historian or an apologist; the latter often express fringe views about history, but we are obligated not to include them. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Flaherty's objection has morphed from "fringe" to "unreliable"; what is it obut Bock that makes him unreliable? A Georgian (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, there has been no change in my stance, only in your comprehension of it. In specific, you have not drawn the causal connection between holding fringe views and therefore not being reliable. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ask him. Figuring out Flaherty's modus operandi is impossible for me. He seems to discount the views of most protestants (often their protestantism is the reason itself he attacks them as fringe). He has done this before with other well-regarded protestant scholars. Even worse for him than protestant, apparently, is evangelical. There is no good reason for him to have gotten rid of that change I made, and even the other editor above seems to agree on this point. Wikipedia policy condemns the deletion of cited claims unless they are wacko conspiracy theories. Bock is well regarded and his publisher is well regarded. Dylan should instead have added another cited claim to "balance" out what he didn’t' like. I am guessing that he doesn't disagree with the claim of Bock so much as he disagrees with including anything said by Bock or any other strong protestant. Just look at the author's Wikipedia page (Darrell Bock). He is well regarded. He is not, however, an atheist or a Catholic, nor a nominal protestant, so Dylan discounts him as fringe. I think you should restore the edit. If I do he will simply revert me again. I can back you up on restoring it, as we move towards a consensus. I would sympathize with Dylan's view if I was claiming that Bock's views are representative of most scholars, but that is not what the edit I made said.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing against Protestants. In fact, some of my best friends are Protestant. I do, however, object to theologically conservative views which push fringe beliefs that mainstream historians reject. Or, to be even more specific, I object to those ideas being passed off as mainstream when they are most definitely not. Remember, just because a view is common among theologians in certain sects doesn't mean it's taken seriously by historians, or that it should be. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought I would revert it, but I assume Flaherty follows this talk subject, and I'd like to see his response to my question; maybe he can demonstrate that Bock is not RS. A Georgian (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know what basis you would justify the reversion on. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

On the basis that the scholar is respected and well cited, making an objective statement about the scholarly community, and that there is no reason to remove his comment simply because he happens to be more conservative. This case has already been stated. A Georgian wants you to tell him why he should not be included.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I respect lots of people, but that doesn't make them historians. Look at his CV and see for yourself. Why should we accept this apologist as a reliable source? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me give you a hint. This is the publisher's web site. Does that look like an academic publisher or a Christian apologetic sausage factory? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article on the publisher (Thomas Nelson (publisher)) it seems that they are the sixth largest publisher in the world, and the largest Christian-specializing publisher in the world. It seems your problem is that you don't like the theological bent of Bock or his publisher, and think he is incapable of being truthful because of it. I have seen this argument several other places on Wikipedia: someone wants to ban all books from a publisher on a religion article because they think that a publisher that is Christian-specializing is by definition biased and unreliable. Each time this argument has been overruled, even by skeptics. There is no reason to assume that a Christian-specializing publisher is unreliable, and certainly no reason to exclude their books from being sources on religion articles.

As for Bock, I see a lot of reasons from that link why he is a reliable source. It says that "He is the author of over twenty books and is a New York Times Best Selling author... He is an Editor at Large for Christianity Today and is a Past President of the Evangelical Theological Society," his specialties are "Gospel Studies, Luke-Acts, Historical Jesus, Hermeneutics" and he is a Professor of New Testament Studies as one of the major evangelical seminaries. I see no reason to assume he is lying or misleading, and every reason to view his writings as accurate and truthful. Actually after looking at that website you linked to, I think his personal opinion on the matter should be included here (though I won't push for that). At the least, he is a very well published and well regarded scholar, and is certainly knowledgeable about the state of scholarship. The distinction here is Bock's opinion on authorship (which is subjective) versus his statement on what the scholarly view is (which is more-or-less objective).RomanHistorian (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they were small, I said they were non-academic. Do you dispute this?

As for Christianity Today, this is the same Evangelical-run magazine that published that factually inaccurate disavowal of the Insane Clown Posse. Remember?

If he's such a reliable source, you should be able to offer something academic to show that his scholarly writing supports your claim. His apologetic writing just won't cut it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I definitely dispute that. Look at his bio on the DTS website. He has published at least 89 articles in scholarly journals. He was even the president of the Evangelical Theological Society! You can't get more academic than that. His being a scholar whom you term an "apologist" is not a reason for reverting his statement.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman, those scholarly articles were peer-reviewed; what you quoted isn't. I recommend you simply follow Leadwind's advice on this. It's a reasonable compromise. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman, if you're going to use an explicitly Christian source, just label it that way. That's fair. Leadwind (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

restore mainstream scholarship to central role

Like other gospel articles, this one has had its scholarship undermined and replaced with sectarian apology presented as mainstream scholarship. We've been patient with the new editors, but it's time to fix the page. Leadwind (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your edits per se, but what you term the "minority" view should be reflected as such. I also think the view of an indirect link (the author being a disciple of Matthew) should be reflected. RomanHistorian (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please readAuthentic Matthew and Discuss!

Only one Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew can be found in the world today

. See- Epiphanius
They too accept the Gospel of Matthew, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7)

Jerome says

• "In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew. . ." (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2)
• "In the Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel of the Apostles, or, as it is generally maintained, the Gospel of Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea). . ." (Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2)
• "Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it." (Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3)

Therefore the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew. However Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible was written much later by an unknown person who edited Mark , "Q" and "M" together --melissa (two edits knitted together by Wetman without dropping any text)

No, Jerome is not a 100% reliable source for historic fact. In fact, its much much less reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.177.21 (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)