Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

The New Scholarship

Things have radically changed in the last 5 years! Mid 20th Century spurious intellectual arguments have now been replaced with the historical method. Edwards, Ehrman, Casey and Dunn all agree. For example:

Issue: Did Matthew compose an early Gospel in Hebrew?

Multiple Attestation

Historians prefer lots of written sources, the "closer in temporal proximity, the better". Ehrman 2010 p 41. In addition to Papias modern scholars have found at least eight early written attestations that state there was indeed a Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew in circulation during the formative years of Christianity:

Historical Evidence

See Below Irenaeus: Matthew composed a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church. Hippolytus: Matthew, having composed a Gospel in Hebrew script, published it in Jerusalem, and slept in Hierae of Parthia. The heretic Origen: The first Gospel was composed by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in Hebrew script. Ephem the Syrian: Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew script. Eusebius: They (the Apostles) were led to write only under the pressure of necessity. Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other nations, committed the Gospel according to himself to writing in his native dialect. Therefore he supplied the written word to make up for the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent. Epiphanius: Matthew composed his gospel in Hebrew script. Chrysostom: Of Matthew, it is reported, that the Jews who believed came to him. They asked him to leave in writing those same things, which he had preached to them orally. Therefore Matthew composed the Gospel in Hebrew script. Jerome: 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 (though by what author uncertain). Now this Hebrew original is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which Pamphilus the Martyr so diligently collated. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. It should be noted that wherever the Evangelist (whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord and Saviour) quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the language of the Septuagint but Hebrew Scriptures, from which he quotes these two sayings: "Out of Egypt have I called my Son" and, "hence he shall be called a Nazarene.”

This historical evidence is then evaluated with other with other criteria to determine which are the most reliable and which are the least. At the mediation we will have an intense debate based upon the reliable sources - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Just remember that neither Irenaeus, nor Hippolytus, nor the others count as present-day scholars who live by publish or perish. I suggest to drop every hint of WP:OR altogether, it will just damage your case. But you are of course free to make it easier for the other side in this dispute. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken re WP:OR. We will need to work this out at mediation. See above Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please...

Ret.Prof, given that this is all reposts and has been reposted many times in various versions, including twice just now, can you (or anyone) please collapse this into a box. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have redirected the debate to here. In ictu oculi, you are correct. This should be the only place where we post material re debate. Looking forward to David's research! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof - since you seem to only employ the intentionally disruptive WP:WALLOFTEXT tactic to overwhelm your opponents into giving up (here and elsewhere) in WP:RANDY fashion, I would ask you to consider the following: (1) if you want content changed, put a cogent, concise paragraph of your proposed text up for debate. Not wasting time with repeating the same with a wall of text (2) let others tear apart that proposed paragraph. If you want one or two or maybe three paragraphs inserted, stop blasting everyone with 50Kb of useless repeated text. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am trying to box the material. But I am having problems. My box keeps dropping to the bottom of the page. Can you help?- Ret.Prof (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'll fix it. Give me a second.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but I think I have succeeded!

• Yeah, I noticed you figured it out just after I replied.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way I think your advice is very helpful re the mediation. Boxes will be part of my opening statement. 25 pages would not help my cause! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I see this problem all the time with an editor who wants to add to a controversial topics or adding stuff to ledes. It would help your cause substantially if you said explicitly in this and similar cases: (1) I would like to add this content to the article (the proposed text with sources); and (2) a CONCISE statement of why you want to add it and why it needs to be added; and (3) this why I think the sources justify it being added. If it's too long, the source material should always be collapsible. Wall of text sucks. I don't have time to waste reading 100 pages worth of nonsense of stuff to change one paragraph. I have no dog in this fight at all, but if there are competing theories of origins, and some of them are controversial or unorthodox, it should be adequately discussed in with a lot of deference to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE, and talk pages should be utilized appropriately to propose new text and discuss/critique it. So, that being said...have at it! Just remember, brevity gets you further in these kind of disputes.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Good advice! Thanks. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I can appreciate where you're coming from, and speaking for myself, the approach is the cause of your problem in this fight. Having taught, I notice (especially in academia's ivory tower), smart people bitterly fight and argue with one another because we rarely are able to express ourselves briefly, and because the emphasis on specialization causes us to retreat to defenciveness of what we think we know at the expense of a balanced exploration. The battles are bitter because the stakes are so low. so, if you want a paragraph changed, or a brief discussion added (remember WP:SUMMARY), propose it, let others play with it, and remember the stakes--a brief, anonymous contribution on a free encyclopaedia that likely few people will read or care too much about after the infobox. No need to get a topic ban for being the equivalent of Kafka's Hunger Artist. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I hear an echo of David Lodge's Small World, Colonel! Well done.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Point taken! - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Tomorrow, I will visit the Hebrew Univ. Library in hopes of finding reputable secondary sources. Meanwhile, I will exercise my right on Wikipedia to post Primary Sources to help acquaint our readers with what is at hand, based on the leeway given in the WP guidelines for Primary Sources and will not infringe the prohibition by interpreting them one way or the other, nor violate thereby WP:OR. I shall not interject any personal bias, but only present the primary sources, since they are relevant to our discussion. Because of the vast array of opinions in contemporary literature regarding this subject - often divergent one from the other, it is always a good idea to bear in mind the primary sources upon whose axis our entire debate hinges. For example: Jerome wrote (Dialogus adversus Pelagianos, in: Migne, Patr. Lat. 23, Parisiis 1883, III, 2): "In the Gospel 'According to the Hebrews,' which was written in the Chaldaic and Syriac language but with Hebrew letters, and is used up to the present day by the Nazoraeans, I mean that according to the Apostles, or, as many maintain, according to Matthew, which Gospel is also available in the Library of Caesarea, the story runs: 'See, the mother of the Lord and his brother said to him: John the Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins, let us go to be baptized by him, etc."

Likewise did Jerome write elsewhere: "Matthew, also called Levi, an apostle after having been a publican, was the first to compose a gospel of Christ in Judea in Hebrew letters and words for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. But who afterwards translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilius the martyr so diligently collected." - Jerome (On Illustrious Men).

Primary sources

Eusebius also wrote in Papias' name: "Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each translated them as best he could." - Eusebius, (H.E. 3.39.16); while Irenaeus has testified: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews in their own language, etc.," - Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1 Epiphanius, who wrote about the Jews who call themselves Ebionites and Nazoraeans and who make use of the same Gospel, writes in Panarion (Medicine Chest), and which words are repeated in Anacephalaiosis 13.1: "The beginning of the Gospel among them reads: 'It happened in the days of Herod the king of Judea (at a time when Caiaphas was high priest) that a certain John came, baptizing the baptism of conversion in the river Jordan. Of him it is said that he was from the family of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elisabeth. And all went out to him. […] It happened that John baptized and the Pharisees went out to him and were baptized and all Jerusalem. And John was dressed in a mantle of camel's hair and a leather belt was round his waist. And his food was, it is said, wild honey, of which the taste was that of manna, like cakes in olive oil.” Eusebius in his Theophania - ed. MPG 24/ after 323), speaks somewhat about the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30: "Since the Gospel which has come to us in Hebrew letters directs its threat not against the one who has hidden [his talent] but against the one who lived in spendthrift – for he possessed three slaves, one who spent the fortune of his master with harlots and flute-girls, the second who multiplied his trade and the third who hid his talent; next the first was accepted, the second rebuked only, the third, however, was thrown into prison. I wonder whether the threat in Matthew which, according to the letter was spoken against the one who did nothing, applies not to him but to the first one who was eating and drinking with those who were drunken, by way of resumption." Jerome, speaking about Matthew 27:51, wrote in his Commentarius in Epistulam 120:8 the following testimony: "But in the Gospel which is written in Hebrew letters we read that not the curtain of the temple but the upper-threshold (Latin: superliminare temple) of the temple, being of marvelous size, fell down." also Jerome (Commentariorum in Mattheum Libri IV, ed. D. Hurst, ch. 27, 51) also writes: "In the gospel which we have already often mentioned, we read that the upper-threshold of the temple, of an enormous size, was broken and slit." Jerome, in Commentariorum in Mattheum Libri IV, ed. D. Hurst, ch. 23, 35, speaks about Matthew 23:34-35 and says: "In the gospel which the Nazoraeans use, we find that there is written, 'son of Ioiada' (Yehoiada) in place of the 'son of Barachia.' " (cf. II Chron. 24: 20-21) Jerome, in Commentariorum in Mattheum Libri IV, ch.12, vs.13, ed. D.Hurst), writes: "…In the Gospel which the Nazoraeans and the Ebionites use which we translated recently from Hebrew to Greek and which is called the authentic text of Matthew by a good many…"

There are actually many, many more citations, but this will give the mediators an idea of the dispute at hand. Perhaps for the above quotations, co-authors Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri, in The Gospel of Matthew, p. 18, write:

"The Audience of Matthew - Christian scholarship has historically maintained that Matthew's Gospel was written for a Palestinian Christian audience.[3] The Jewish outlook of the book seemed to point in this direction, as did an ancient tradition that Matthew had originally written his Gospel in a Semitic language, either Hebrew or Aramaic. Since few Gentiles would have been interested in a work dominated by Jewish concerns, and few communities outside the land of Israel could have read it in a Semitic language, every indication was that Matthew's Gospel was intended for the early believers in Palestine."Davidbena (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR is simply not allowed and it will damage your case beyond recovery. It may even be a violation of acceptable behavior for an editor of Wikipedia.

The recent commentary by Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri in the CCSS series (2010) provides a conservative Catholic take on Matthew, pitched at the level of the informed layperson or of clergy without access to the original languages.

— D. A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey, 2013, p. 2012

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, can you please tell me how I used "original research" when I simply quoted primary sources without saying what my view is regarding them? The last excerpt speaks for itself, and is actually a secondary source and brings down a reference to Irenaeus.Davidbena (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Carson's assessment is correct. No one, repeat, no one has access to the original languages (Aramaic) since it has been lost. However, Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri did have access to the Greek transcriptions from the Church Fathers, or else, English translations made from them. In this regard, they are like all other scholars.Davidbena (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

David. Just an analytic tip: Rearrange your quotes in chronological order, by author. (b) Compare what each author says to see if there are internal contradictions and then (c) compare what all authors say to note the contradictions between these various sources.

In short, your error, quite fundamental, is to cite many sources for one ostensible 'fact', without noticing that, for example, in the four quotations from Jerome his views change, and he contradicts his report, or makes claims that don't gell with the evidence.

This has nothing to do with wikipedia, but you insist on having your say. Scholars do textual analysis and historical criticism to avoid the simplistic approach you have adopted here. With it, they see the many incongruities in patristic reportage, even in the same authors, they are very very cautious about making the kind of homogenized reductionist monological conclusion your haste here draws.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Nishidani. I generally agree with your statement, however, here, the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans and the Gospel According to the Hebrews have often been misconstrued with being three separate gospels. By looking at how Jerome describes them, one can see that they are all one and the same. Since the Ebionites made use strictly of the "Gospel According to the Hebrews" (i.e. the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew), it later came to be known as the Gospel of the Ebionites.Davidbena (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

conservative scholars attempt to refute the biblical scholarship that is taught in every major university save the aforementioned conservative Christian schools.

— Robert Cargill, i stand with bart ehrman: a review of the ‘ehrman project’

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

David, thanks for bringing that book by Mitch and Sri (Gospel of Matthew, from Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture series) to our attention. But I see it says exactly what every other modern source says - the majority of scholars think Matthew was written by someone other than the apostle Matthew, for a mixed Christian/Jewish community around the area of Antioch in Syria (see pages 17-19). PiCo (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread - the book was mentioned by TGeorgescu, not Davidbena. PiCo (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Today, I spent the greater part of the day at the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem, browsing through many, many books, and I am now ready to report on my findings. Although there were literally hundreds of books which deal with our general topic, I selected only those authors who seemed to me to be the most authoritative on the subject of NT text criticism and the Gospel of Matthew. Even so, my time was limited and I could only read and do so much. I will first type the material that I've gathered onto a Word File, and then transfer it here for all to see.Davidbena (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

David, be sure to adhere to WP:COPYVIO. You may have to provide a list references along with brief quotations or summarize your findings to stay within the length limit. Ignocrates (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are my findings. NOTE: I have also copied down the authors’ footnotes and have placed them in brackets and parentheses:

Secondary sources

Bart D. Ehrman, in Lost Christianities – The Battle for the Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew, Oxford University Press 2003. On pp. 101-102, Dr. Ehrman writes: “The Ebionites did have other ‘Christian’ texts as part of their canon, however, not surprisingly, they appear to have accepted the Gospel of Matthew as their principal scriptural authority ([6]= Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.11.7). Their own version of Matthew, however, may have been a translation of the text into Aramaic. Jesus himself spoke Aramaic in Palestine, as did his earliest followers. It would make sense that a group of Jewish followers of Jesus that originated in Palestine would continue to cite his words, and stories about him, in his native tongue. It appears likely that this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In particular, the Matthew used by the Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus’ birth to a virgin – a notion that the Ebionite Christians rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthew’s Gospel as well. On p. 103 (ibid.) he writes: “The Gospel of the Ebionites was evidently written in Greek, etc.” Thomas P. Scheck (trans), in The Fathers of the Church – St. Jerome (Commentary on Matthew), The Catholic University of America Press, Washington DC 2008. In the Introduction, on pp. 18-19, he writes: “Jerome sees no reason to deny that the Gospel accounts are firmly rooted in reliable tradition. …Jerome believes that both internal and external evidence points to the first Gospel being written by the apostle Matthew, a former tax-collector, who is also named Levi. Jerome claims that Matthew ‘published a Gospel in Judea in the Hebrew language, chiefly for the sake of those from the Jews who had believed in Jesus and who were by no means observing the shadow of the Law, since the truth of the Gospel had succeeded it.’ In Vir. ill. 3 Jerome adds that afterwards Matthew’s Gospel was translated into Greek, but no one knows by whom. Jerome’s source here is Eusebius (HE 3.24, 39; 5.8; 6.25), who in turn based his remarks on ancient tradition recorded by Irenaeus, who received his information orally from disciples of the apostles. A strong case for Matthean authorship can still be made. In a very recent commentary on the Greek text of Matthew, J. Nollan dates the composition of the Gospel to the late 60s, which he describes as ‘well within the life span of the eyewitnesses and of many apostolic figures.’ ([65]= The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2005, p. 4). Gundry dates the Gospel to the same decade and identifies the author as the apostle Matthew, as does R.T. France.” A.F.J. Klijn, in An Introduction to the New Testament, E.J. Brill / Leiden 1980. On pp. 33-34, he writes: “The Synoptic Gospels – Matthew: Author – Tradition, with Papias as the earliest witness (see Appendix A) designates Matthew as the author. Matt. 9, 9 mentions a tax-gatherer called Matthew, who follows Jesus. The parallel text of Mark 2, 14, however, mentions a man called Levi, son of Alphaeus, while Luke 5,27 speaks of Levi the tax-gatherer. The lists of apostles also include a Matthew (Matt. 10, 3-4 / Luke 6, 14-16 / Mark 3, 17-19 / Acts I, 13). These also mention a son of Alphaeus called James. It is not possible to provide a satisfactory answer to the questions that arise from these variations. Why does Matt. change the name of Levi into Matthew? Is Matthew (or Levi) the tax-gatherer the same man as the disciple mentioned in the lists? What is the connection between James, son of Alphaeus, and Levi, son of Alphaeus? Whatever the true facts may have been, according to tradition the evangelist, the disciple and the tax-gatherer are one and the same person. According to the same tradition, this gospel was originally written in Hebrew, which is, however, certainly not true of the book now known as the gospel of Matthew. This fact places Matthew’s authorship in grave doubt. On the other hand we may safely assume that in the environment where this gospel was written Matthew the apostle was highly esteemed. Possibly he even had a personal influence in these circles. Although many questions concerning the author and the authorship of this gospel remain undecided, they are not really important for us at the present moment. For none of the other gospels bear less the personal imprint of their authors than does this one. We saw that the book was written for the church community, which really means that it also proceeded from this community, etc. etc.” “Place and time of origin [of canonical gospel]: …In view of the fact that the author made use of the gospel of Mark, we must assume the gospel of Matthew to have been written after AD 60…” William L. Petersen, in Tatian’s Diatessaron, E.J. Brill / Leiden 1994. On p. 17, he writes: “Despite the incontestable antiquity of the ‘Hebrew gospel’ used by the Ebionites, Epiphanius disparages it as a ‘falsified and distorted’ (νενοθευμένῳ καἰ ἠκρωτηριασμένῳ) gospel, used by heretics. ([31]= Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.13.2 – ed. Holl, p. 349). But it is impossible to call Justin a heretic, for he is a martyr and saint; yet he used – without comment, and apparently as his ‘standard text’ – a text of Jesus’ baptism which shares variants with this heretical ‘Hebrew gospel.’… While the antiquity of Justin’s reading is indisputable, …one can imagine several scenarios. In the first scenario, Justin’s reading might stem from a more ancient redaction of the Gospel of Matthew than P-75. P-75 would represent a later redaction of Matthew, from which this specific reading was removed. In such a situation, Justin would present us with the most ancient recoverable text of Matthew. In a second scenario, Justin and P-75 witness different recensions of the primitive Gospel of Matthew… In a third scenario, Justin knows the same form of Matthew as P-75, but interpolated into it early (but non-Matthean) traditions known to him from other sources.” Ibid. pp. 26-27, Petersen writes: “While normally not thought of as such, all of the canonical gospels ‘harmonize’ earlier materials. …If one subscribes to the ‘Four Source Theory’ of synoptic origins, then Matthew and Luke are ‘harmonies’ of Mar, ‘Q,’ and the evangelists’ own unique traditions…. If one subscribes to Matthean priority, the ‘Griesbach Hypothesis,’ then Matthew draws on material from early, unknown sources, while Luke used Matthew and other documents, and Mark made use of Matthew and Luke.” Ibid. p. 30, Petersen writes: “…It is obvious from Epiphanius’ citations that whatever the precise name of the source he was quoting, it was a harmony of the synoptic gospels.” A.F.J. Klijn, in An Introduction to the New Testament, E.J. Brill / Leiden 1980. On pp. 199-201 (Appendix A – Papias on Mark and Matthew), he writes: “…This Papias related about Mark. But about Matthew he says this: Matthew put together the words in the Hebrew language and each one translated these as best he could.” …Matthew wrote the λὁγια in Hebrew. ‘Each one’ rendered or translated these to the best of his ability. Here again it is not clear what is meant by ἡρμῄνευσεν. Since, however, the reference is to a foreign language, Hebrew, ‘translate’ seems to be preferable. The word λὁγια means ‘utterances.’ But since it is said in the preceding passage that Mark had ‘not made a connected whole τῶν λογίων of the Lord,’ we shall have to suppose that these words refer to ‘what the Lord had said and done’ in general. For this reason, it may be assumed that in the case of Matthew also the whole gospel is referred to. This view was also held by early Christian authors who state that the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (Irenaeus, adv. Haer III I; Origen in: Eusebius, H.E. VI 23; Eusebius, H.E. III 24 6-7; Augustine, De consensus evangelistarum I). The most plausible interpretation of this quotation would therefore seem to be: Mark translated Peter’s teachings, which were not given in chronological order, and wrote them down as he heard them; Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew and everyone translated this as best he could. With respect to the gospel of Mark there are no great difficulties attached to this question. The only thing is that it is not quite clear why and against whom this gospel has to be defended. Was some other gospel thought to give a better order? And which gospel would that be: Matthew or John? With respect to Matthew the quotation is incomprehensible. The language of the gospel of Matthew as we know it contains nothing that might lead us to suppose it was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic). Nor is it clear who the ‘each one’ was who translated the gospel. All sorts of attempts have been made to solve these problems. Some have thought, for instance, that the λὁγια which Matthew wrote, might have been a ‘word-source,’ perhaps identical with the common source used by Matthew and Luke, also called Q. This would mean, however, that the word λὁγια is used in two different meanings in the quotation. In that case we could assume that the reference is to a ‘proto-Matthew.’ But then it is still not clear to whom ‘each one’ refers. As it stands, it is not possible to supply an adequate interpretation for this passage. A recent attempt to explain the quotation is based on the assumption that it refers to the style of the gospels of Mark and Matthew. The words οὐ μέντοι τάξει would then mean that Mark has a disconnected style and Ἑβραῒδι διαλέκτῳ that Matthew has a Hebraic style. The concluding sentence should then be translated: ‘Each (Matthew and Mark) rendered them (the gospels) according to his ability.’ This interpretation does away with the problem of an original Hebrew or Aramaic gospel of Matthew. ([1]= cf. J. Kürzinger, ‘Das Papiaszeugnis und die Erstgestalt des Matthäus-evangelium,’ in Bibl. Zeitschr., n. F. 4 1960, p. 29-38.)” W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Edinburgh 1988, wrote in the Introduction of vol. I on the authorship of Matthew, in pp. 8-9: “…the first of our canonical gospels was widely ascribed to Matthew, the apostle of Jesus… The title of the gospel cannot, however, be taken as indisputable evidence. It was not in the autograph… Moreover, in the case of Matthew, the witness of Papias and others is such that many have dismissed it as negligible (e.g. Kümmel, Introduction, pp. 120-21). The main item of external evidence is a statement attributed by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (ca. 260-340), to Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor… ‘Now Matthew made an ordered arrangement of the oracles in the Hebrew (or: Aramaic) language, and each one translated (or: interpreted) it as he was able (H.E. 3.39)’ The view of Papias is reiterated by Irenaeus (ca. 130-200), Bishop of Lyons: ‘Matthew also among the Hebrews published a written gospel in their own dialect, when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church there (Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2, quoting Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.1.1). Irenaeus wrote around A.D. 180. The belief that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew also appears in a story recounted in Eusebius, H.E. 5.10.3. Here we read that Pantaenus, the teacher of Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215), ‘went to India, and the tradition is that he there found his own arrival anticipated by some who were acquainted with the gospel according to Matthew; for Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and left them the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters, and this writing was preserved until the time mentioned.’ Those church Fathers who, after Papias, connected the canonical Matthew, in a Semitic version, with the apostle are usually assumed to have relied upon his testimony, so their evidence is thought to be of no independent worth.” Ibid. p. 12, they write: “…But there are nagging questions about the too confident dismissal of Papias (cf. Luz 1, p. 77). To begin with, it is not easy to determine whether an ancient text, especially one so clearly bearing, as does Matthew, the marks of two cultures, is or is not a translation. Eusebius, ‘the father of church history,’ Origen (ca. 185-225), the prodigious exegete and editor of the Hexapla, Clement of Alexandria, the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria and the author of some very learned books, and Irenaeus, the great apologist – all no mean figures - , were Greeks. Presumably they knew the Greek language better than most, if not all, modern scholars; and they all, it would appear, took canonical Matthew to be the translation of a Semitic original. Is it then, out of the question that our gospel is indeed a translation, perhaps of a Semitic original enlarged by the later addition of Greek Mark and other materials? Especially since the dependence upon Papias of all subsequent patristic testimony concerning Matthew is not proved but, in the last resort, simply assumed or attested, should not the acceptance of Matthew as a translation by Greeks as eminent as Clement and Origen give pause? Some modern scholars, including T. Zahn, C.C. Torrey, B.C. Butler, and A. Debrunner have been of the same view as the Fathers mentioned. ”

CONCLUSION: Although I have not exhausted all sources at the Hebrew University Library in Jerusalem, still, by the little that I’ve seen, the consensus is clear that modern scholarship is divided concerning the original text of Matthew, whether it was first penned in Greek or in the Aramaic language. Wherefore, I think that it is only fitting that both views be cited in the existing articles, without showing preference for one view above the other, but maintaining neutrality over this issue.Davidbena (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you David. Could you put this in a collapsible box? You can use it in the mediation process. PiCo (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you'll have to explain first how I do that. Lol.Davidbena (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

None of those sources assert that the present Gospel of Matthew is translated from an Aramaic or Hebrew original. Ehrman suggests that the Ebionites may have had a document "somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon." Scheck is discussing the question of Matthean authorship, not the language. Klijn explicitly says "According to the same tradition, this gospel was originally written in Hebrew, which is, however, certainly not true of the book now known as the gospel of Matthew" and "The language of the gospel of Matthew as we know it contains nothing that might lead us to suppose it was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic)." He leaves the possibility that Q was (derived from) a translation from Aramaic, but also suggests that there may have been no original Hebrew or Aramaic document at all. Modern scholarship is not, in fact, "divided concerning the original text of Matthew, whether it was first penned in Greek or in the Aramaic language." -- 101.119.29.197 (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My point in bringing down all of the above sources was to show that scholarship is DIVIDED about the issue, or else UNCERTAIN about its case. Erhman's use of terminology such as, may have been, and evidently, shows that he is not fully certain about the Gospel's original status. Likewise, A.F.J. Klijn shifts from talking about certain primary source implications to mere speculation, using such words seems to be, and is based on the assumption, etc. without saying anything definitive about the text of Matthew other than the original or prototypical Aramaic Gospel of Matthew is not our canonical text of Matthew transcribed in Greek. Thomas P. Scheck, having very little to say about the subject, drifts from talking about Matthew's original Hebrew/Aramaic texts (based on Jerome), to talking about our current canonical Greek texts. Only W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison speak in unequivocal terms and bring down the two conflicting scholarly views.Davidbena (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are misquoting Ehrman. He is crystal clear that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek. Your speculation about what Ehrmans's may have been may have been is WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, Tgeorgescu. I quoted Dr. Ehrman verbatim: On p. 103 (ibid.) he writes: “The Gospel of the Ebionites was evidently written in Greek, etc.” The sense here is to "apparently." The matter has only been speculated by him, based on a lack of hard evidence of an original Hebrew/Aramaic MS. that antedates the earliest Greek MSS.Davidbena (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The scholarly consensus is that the Gospel of the Ebionites is a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels. Trying to use the GEbi to prove one of its sources, the Gospel of Matthew, was composed in Hebrew is circular reasoning. Also, Ehrman's use of evidently just means it is inferred based on the quotations of Epiphanius. Ignocrates (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ignocratus, the term "scholarly consensus" is misappropriated here, for the simple reason that the vast majority of scholars who have discussed this issue are not 100% certain of what language the original Gospel of Matthew was written in, and those who suggest that it was originally written in Greek have only laid forth conflicting hypotheses. Even the late Dr. William L. Petersen, in Tatian’s Diatessaron, E.J. Brill / Leiden 1994, p. 17, suggests that there was no justification in calling the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew a "forgery," and that, by one form of logic (based on Justin's use of a quote taken from that Gospel), it was indeed the proto text used in transmitting the Greek canonical text of Matthew.Davidbena (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My how the OR wheels keep turning. I'm quite familiar with Petersen's book. The statement on p.17 is an argument from silence, essentially that nothing can be proven where nothing exists. You are attempting to turn nothing into something. There is also a "scholarly consensus" that Justin Martyr was ignorant of Aramaic and Hebrew. This is another OR leap of transitive logic. Ignocrates (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with Original Research, Ignocrates. On the contrary, these words were justly stated in order to show what is obvious to all, namely, there are many hypotheses regarding the original composition of Matthew's Gospel, and this being just one of them. My view, from the beginning, has never changed. I have always supported mentioning both sides of the coin: acknowledging that scholars are in dispute as to its composition and authorship; some alleging that the Gospel of Matthew was compiled originally in Aramaic, and others alleging that it was compiled originally in Greek.Davidbena (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Interpreting primary sources is WP:OR. Interpreting primary sources quoted in secondary sources is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. All interpretation should be left to secondary sources, that's what the policies are saying. Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to interpret primary sources, nor quotations from primary sources rendered in secondary sources. This is a matter of having a basic understanding of how Wikipedia works. You should at least say which contemporary scholars say that our Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic/Hebrew. But since we saw how you abuse secondary sources and insist upon quotations they overtly debunk, you can't be even trusted to get this right. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, what you are saying is untrue. I have already supplied you with reliable secondary sources who say that our Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic/Hebrew. To name two just off hand (one a contemporary, and the other, from the last century): Standford Rives and T. Zahn. Sources that are more than 100 years old are not necessarily unreliable.Davidbena (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not saying that you have doctored his words, I was saying that the conclusion that he would be unsure about the Gospel of Matthew being written in Greek is unwarranted. You drew the conclusion that he would support a position that he has repeatedly and openly rejected in most clear terms. See e.g. http://ehrmanblog.org/was-the-author-of-matthew-matthew/ . Mainstream scholarship is not divided upon this issue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To fully understand Dr. Bart Ehrman's intent, one must bring together all of his words in one place. He has already made it absolutely clear that the reason he rejects the primary sources' claim of there having been a prototypical Matthew from which the canonical Greek texts were copied is because "we have no Hebrew/Aramaic texts," just as he explicitly implies in the video link which I posted earlier, "Is the Original New Testament Lost?" See link: [1]. Davidbena (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What's more, "Mainstream scholarship" may not be divided about this issue, but they - by their own admission - have presented their views largely based on mere speculation and/or uncertainty. When that is taken together with the conflicting views of scholarship, who hold that Matthew's Greek canonical text was derived from the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew used by the Ebionites, that, my friend, is tantamount to a solid scholarly dispute about the matter.Davidbena (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that Wikipedia editors don't do scholarship on their own, or second-guess the mainstream view, instead they cite the mainstream view as fact (when there is a mainstream view). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This is very simple. Ample precedents provide the guideline, David. I.e., you simply need to find a reputable scholarly text which states the following idea.

'With regard to the original language of Matthew's Gospel, mainstream scholarship is divided.'

If you can come up with an acceptable scholarly source which states your thesis, you have won your point. If you cannot, then no amount of scrabbling together of primary sources can secure your argument, without violating WP:OR. Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, in these final remarks, I have not infringed on any such rule as scholarship on their own, but have only presented the facts as they exist, and which everyone is able to see for himself. The evidence or lack thereof speaks for itself. As for User:Nishidani's remark, it suffices to say that the reputable secondary source written by co-authors W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison has duly given us the names of reputable scholars who disagree with Dr. Ehrman's theory. What is good for them is good for me.Davidbena (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish to reiterate here that the term "scholarly consensus" is often misappropriated, for the simple reason that the vast majority of scholars who have discussed this issue are not 100% certain of what language the original Gospel of Matthew was written in, and those who suggest that it was originally written in Greek have only laid forth conflicting hypotheses. Even the late Dr. William L. Petersen, in Tatian’s Diatessaron, E.J. Brill / Leiden 1994, p. 17, suggests that there was no justification in calling the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew a "forgery," and that, by one form of logic (based on Justin's use of a quote taken from that Gospel), it was indeed the proto text used in transmitting the Greek canonical text of Matthew.Davidbena (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope. You are making an inference from primary and secondary sources that is not permitted, in fact disallowed as a violation of WP:OR. The claim you make must find verbal warrant from an authoritative source. If you cannot find one, then no amount of mediation will alter the status of the conjecture as a personal 'inference' or 'summation' which any editor can revert. We had the same problem at Shakespeare Authorship Question for years, so every statement in the lead had to be justified by a scholarly RS which justified both phrasing and generalization. No editors are allowed exceptional rights here.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, what are you doing here!? Every article on Wikipedia is based on inferences from Primary and Secondary sources!!! I suggest that you talk about this issue in the WP:Teahouse. Editors there will certainly be able to tell you that when posting an article, the writer makes inferences from both Primary and Secondary sources. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that primary sources are used to render mere opinion (e.g. quotes from someone's speech or his/her own views about something), for rendering facts secondary sources are required. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Primary Sources

My understanding of our policy is as follows:

• WP POLICY states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia;" Also it is very important that we not go beyond what is stated in the source.
• A second way that a primary source may be used is if it is quoted in a secondary source.

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I suspect my position will be contested at mediation! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I note how you conveniently left out the words that immediately follow: "but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Primary sources can be used to state facts, like the current population of Toledo, Ohio. We are prohibited from analyzing and interpreting them as editors. No one has said primary sources can't be stated. The problem is that you continue to ascribe meaning to them through direct analysis, e.g., Jerome says "X", so that means "Y". This is the essence of original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. We must take care. Often it is simply easier to find the quote in secondary source. Cheers, looking forward to our upcoming debate at mediation! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

For example

Pantaenus the Philosopher Pantaenus went to India where the Christian community had collected Matthew's writings. Indeed, Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, had preached to Indian people, and left them Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew script, which they had preserved. After many good deeds, Pantaenus finally became the head of the School in Alexandria, and expounded the treasures of divine doctrine both orally and in writing.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.10.3

Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1981. Vol 19, p 303

Jerome Pantaenus (sent to India by Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria) found that Bartholomew, one of the Twelve Apostles, had preached the Advent of the Lord Jesus according to Matthew's Gospel composed in Hebrew script, which he brought back to Alexandria.

Jerome, On Illustrious Men 36.2,

Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 100, p 59

Jerome 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 (though by what author uncertain). Now this Hebrew original is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea.

Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3

Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 100, p 10

My understanding, based on these sources, we could say Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew was brought to Caesarea and Alexandria. BUT we could not say it was in wide circulation. For that we would need a secondary source. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No. You cannot say "Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew was brought to Caesarea and Alexandria". This is your OR analysis and conclusion based on the above primary sources. You can show the primary sources as you have done above. Nothing more. Ignocrates (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here we disagree! The good news is that all of the above are found in secondary sources! Mediation should be interesting. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You may have one thousand primary sources, all quoted in secondary sources. They are useless for your case as long as the secondary sources don't agree with their conclusions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I wouldn't say that disagreeing secondary sources are useless if they don't see eye-to-eye on Primary Sources. Take the creationist theory for an example. We can still publish secondary sources that disagree with each other, without being biased, but maintain a neutral posture when sources conflict.Davidbena (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Creationism is considered pseudoscience inside the whole Wikipedia, when compared to evolution. Wikipedia always states that the theory of evolution is proven beyond reasonable doubt, because that's the scientific consensus in biology. Being neutral does not mean treating creationism and evolution upon equal footing. Evolution is a scientific theory and a fact, creationism isn't scientific. See WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You may be correct here, about "creationism." I just happened to use it as an example. However, the point was this: secondary sources do not necessarily have to agree with their view of primary sources. In fact, in our debate, there is a wide spectrum of views - even in those secondary sources which purport that the Gospel of Matthew was penned in Greek.Davidbena (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have underlined the words "you" and "your" above for emphasis, since you are still unclear. Now you are arguing in effect "I can use these primary sources to make my case and everything will be fine, if these secondary sources would only agree with me". That would be fine, except that they don't. Anywhere. More circular reasoning. Ignocrates (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you have misread WP POLICY What you say is not there. The good news is that the quotes that give you concern are also in secondary sources. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

They are not of much use, seen that the secondary sources overtly reject them from being historically accurate. That's what scholars state. The rest of your argument is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here you are very much mistaken. The new scholarship has shifted dramatically! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If you believe that you should quote secondary sources which actually affirm that our Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. No amount of primary sources would do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, that is only true for some secondary sources, but definitely not for all. W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, pp. 12-13, cite a reliable secondary source (viz., George Kennedy, in Classical and Christian Source Criticism, p. 146) who builds upon the Primary Sources and holds that an Aramaic Matthew was earlier than Greek Mark. George Kennedy has written: "If a gospel had been written in Greek at a fairly early date and was reasonably well-known, and if subsequently someone undertook to translate an Aramaic gospel, rather fuller in content, into Greek, it would be in accordance with Greek conventions for the translator to have taken the language of the existing Greek gospel as his model, even to the extent of borrowing some of that familiar language to translate passages of Aramaic that were not literally identical to his text."Davidbena (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Another of your misprisions. We don't need speculations about a source in Aramaic which was "maybe possible", we need a source actually telling that it is a fact that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. Can you actually cite a recent secondary source which actually says this? If you can't, you have already lost the battle, mediation is over before it began. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Speculations? Until now, it is you, Tgeorgescu, that have relied only upon speculative sources. The only ones who do not rely upon speculation are those authors (T. Zann, C.C. Torrey, etc. etc.) whose books and research articles sustain the views of the Church Fathers and who have been mentioned by Davies and Allison.Davidbena (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it is not our task to second-guess mainstream scholars. I asked for a statement of fact from a recent, mainstream secondary source. "If a gospel had been written in Greek..." sounds to you like a statement of fact? Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a principle in logic which I think can also be applied here, in our use of secondary sources, be they "mainstream" or those which border on "mainstream" (i.e. who do not make-up the majority, but nevertheless are not fringe). Whenever we find a contested issue, in logic, the one claiming something by supposition/presumption/conjecture (which happens to be the majority), and the other claiming something without supposition/presumption/conjecture, but affirmatively (which happens to be the minority), we take the affirmative view and discard the one based on a supposition. For example: If ten people say to you, "perhaps this is the road to the village," and only three or four people say, "No! The other road leads to the village!," we take the minority view because they were certain about it. It is the same here with the mainstream who have all given different hypotheses and guesses as to the work of the original Gospel. Davidbena (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to second-guess mainstream scholars, that would be the very essence of WP:OR. According to WP:UNDUE, we let mainstream scholars decide the mainstream view and we trust them to be capable to do this. When they consensually tell that something is a historical fact, it is a historical fact for Wikipedia. Second, since you were so eager to look at Ehrman disputes upon YouTube, look up this one: [2]. Mutatis mutandis, ancient reports about a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew get subjected to the same historical methods. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

But you are "second-guessing" mainstream scholars, Tgeorgescu, when you choose to represent one of them, although their opinions, views and/or hypotheses are diverse one from the other (although they might reach the same conclusion), and often their opinions have been based on mere speculation. What I mean to say here, does disbelief in the Primary Sources by a majority of writers constitute a "reliable secondary source," as opposed to belief in the Primary Sources by a marginal minority, not considered by any means "fringe," since their views are often brought down by the mainstream authors themselves? This is so borderline, that there might be a place for the Wikipedia CEO and staff to "rewrite" the rules in this regard. Remember: "For every rule there is an exception to the rule.Davidbena (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no exception. WP:OR based on primary sources, whether added into article or soapboxed beyond patience on Talk pages is not accepted. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on WP:UNDUE, which states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views," there is still a place for the representation of the views on Matthew held by at least some of reputable authors cited by the Professor and I.Davidbena (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Usually views that are only held by 1 individual are in that individual's bio article only. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel the Elder??

Great work David! Edwards believes Gamaliel the Elder or Rabban Gamaliel was a leading authority in the Sanhedrin in the early-1st century CE who died twenty years before the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE). Edwards puts forward the possibility that this quote is referring to the Hebrew Gospel:

Let us turn to the end of the Gospel, where it is written "I came not to take away from the Law of Moses, nor to add to the Law of Moses."

• Talmud Sabb.116-b
• Burton L. Visotzky, Fathers of the World, Mohr Siebeck, 1995. p 81
• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 263
• Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. p 146

I must admit I am a little confused by what Nicholson and Edwards say about this quote. Maybe you could provide some insight. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a bombshell, Professor! Who can deny it?Davidbena (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Is a bombshell a good thing? - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is, indeed, a good thing! It is an eye-opener to our antagonists! I wish to reiterate here that the term "scholarly consensus" is often misappropriated, for the simple reason that the vast majority of scholars who have discussed this issue are not 100% certain of what language the original Gospel of Matthew was written in, and those who suggest that it was originally written in Greek have only laid forth conflicting hypotheses. Even the late Dr. William L. Petersen, in Tatian’s Diatessaron, E.J. Brill / Leiden 1994, p. 17, suggests that there was no justification in calling the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew a "forgery," and that, by one form of logic (based on Justin's use of a quote taken from that Gospel), it was indeed the proto text used in transmitting the Greek canonical text of Matthew.Davidbena (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: If Edwards means the quote by Rabban Gamaliel in the Book of Acts, actually the wording is a little different. "If this thing is not from G-d it will come to naught." The quote in the Babylonian Talmud is much later than Rabban Gamaliel.Davidbena (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

How much later? Could you reproduce the quote from the Talmd here. Cheers- Ret.Prof (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 116a-b) speaks specifically about the Greek Gospel (evangelion) which was lately translated from Aramaic into Greek. The Rabbis took notice of its omissions and inaccuracies, here and there, and by way of jest they coined a name for the newly composed Greek canonical Gospel of Matthew, calling it in Hebrew Awen Gelyon, meaning, "the gloss of iniquity," obviously, a hint at its Greek name "evangelion" which means "Good Tidings."Davidbena (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A story about Rabban Gamaliel and his sister and a certain gentile judge is related in the Babylonian Talmud (ibid). I have translated it here for you to see. Enjoy!

Sister of Rabban Gamaliel and the Christian Judge

A certain gentile judge, who professed to be religious, and a follower of the Christian sect, had a reputation for being a judge who never took bribes. Certain Jews who lived in his neighborhood wanted to test his sincerity. Emma Shalom, who was the wife of Rabbi Eliezer and the sister of Rabban Gamaliel, wanted to make a practical joke of the matter by going before him as a make-believe claimant in a lawsuit, sending him a most covetuos gift- a golden candle! She took with her her brother, who was the make-believe defendant in this case. She said to the judge, “I want you to divide our father’s inheritance between us, so that I will receive a portion among my brothers.” (Now in Jewish law, only the sons inherit from their fathers). The judge, being enticed by the gift, said in favour of the woman, “Divide ye the inheritance of your father between yourselves.” When it was retorted that, in the Law of Moses, a man who has sons cannot bequeath at his death aught to his daughters, he wittily answered: “Yes, but since the day that you were exiled from your land, the Law of Moses was taken away, and in its place, another book was given. It is now written, ‘Sons and daughters inherit alike.’ ” On the following day, Emma Shalom’s brother, Rabban Gamaliel, came before the judge with a Libyan donkey! The judge, being even more enticed by this gift, and remembering the verdict which he rendered yesterday, recanted yesterday’s verdict by saying: “Let it be known this day, before the plaintiffs, that I have since browsed through the book, unto its end, and it was found written therein, ‘I have not come to take away from the Law of Moses, nor to add thereto.’ Now since it is plain that the Law says ‘where there are sons, a man’s daughters do not inherit,’ let this be the ruling which stands.” At hearing this, Emma Shalom said to the judge with a chiding face: “Let your light shine like a candle!” Her brother, likewise, not being able to conceal his amusement at the manner by which they had tricked the judge by use of briberies, said to her: “No, this will not help him. The donkey has already come and kicked over the candle!” This story has been related in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 116a-b

I find the story amusing, and shows good Jewish wit and humor! Davidbena (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

COMMENT: Although the Babylonian Talmud was redacted in the 5th century by Jewish scholars of Babylon, it still contains within it anecdotal material and old stories passed down throughout the generations. Judging by the abovementioned story, the Greek Gospel of Matthew (used by the Christian judge) already existed in written form in the days of Rabban Gamaliel II. We're talking about the beginning of the 2nd century CE.Davidbena (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your translation is almost the same as Edwards. Hebrew Awen Gelyon, meaning, "the gloss of iniquity," obviously, a hint at its Greek name "evangelion" which means "Good Tidings." Clears up the confusion. Your insight is very very helpful! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope. (a) The original pun is associated with Rabbi Meir (a Palestinian active in the mid-late second century). (b) It was varied by Rabbi Yoḥanan bar Nappaha a full century later. (c) Shabbat 116a-b and its pun on εὐαγγέλιον, says nothing about a translation from Aramaic into Greek, as David tries to slip in. (d) We are not 'talking about the beginning of the 2nd century CE' since Gamaliel at Acts 5:34ff. is decades earlier (e) 'Hebrew Awen Gelyon, meaning, "the gloss of iniquity," doesn't clear up the confusion, but adds to this mess, by confusing Aven gilyōm with Avon gilyōm; (f) an obscure family anecdote written down 3 centuries after the ostensible event, described with elliptic obscurity, is not evidence for a 'fact' or 'set of facts' concerning anything, let alone the Gospel of Matthew, esp. since the law of succession quoted is not in Matthew or any other gospel; the above exchanges are gibberish, and I suggest when handling what scholars write you both heed Gamaliel's quoted remark in Acts:καὶ τὰ νῦν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπόστητε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τούτων καὶ ἄφετε αὐτούς• Please do not clog up the talk page with drivel, or private theories.Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff. I think that the quote in Edwards re the Hebrew Gospel is referring to Rabban Gamaliel the younger. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are obviously confused and know very little about Jewish history. First, the commentators on the Babylonian Talmud say that the word awen gelyon - Heb. עון גליון - is a play on words, and refers specifically to the Gospel, which the Greek speaking people called "evangelion." The context of the Talmudic passage proves it, since in a case where books are burnt by a raging fire, such faulty translations of Jewish texts have no sanctity and are permitted to be burnt. As for Rabban Gamaliel, he is the grandson of Hillel the Elder. In fact, the lineage of Hillel the elder is well documented in ancient Jewish sources. For example: Hillel the Elder (who immigrated to Israel from Babylonia in circa 32 BCE) is the father of Rabban Shimon, who is the father of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder (Rabban Gamaliel I) who is mentioned in the Book of Acts. His son was Rabban Shimon II, mentioned in Josephus, and who was killed by the Romans in Cyrene. His son was Rabban Gamaliel II, mentioned all throughout the Talmud and in Shabbat 116b, and who was a contemporary with Rabbi Akiva. He, too, had a son whose name was Rabban Shimon III, who was the President (Nasi) of the Sanhedrin, during the days of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Nathan.Davidbena (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

One more thing: For a discussion on this subject of the Greek evangelion, you may wish to see: “Christianity in Talmud and Midrash,” by Robert Travers Herford, pub. Farnborough 1972, pp. 161-171.Davidbena (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Since Gamaliel 1 at Acts 5:37 uses the same verb (καταλυθήσεται/καταλῦσαι) as the one in the Matthew quotation said to be alluded to by the philosopher at Shabbath 166a/b cf Gamaliel 11 material (Matt:5:17 οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι) I got distracted. I always am at 7.30, when the dinner gong has rung and I must rush to post.

For the rest, I'm familiar with the lineages, in fact it was puzzling over the lineages of family anecdote from G1 to G2, Acts to Shabbat 166b that distracted me. I also said it was a pun, so you need not enlighten me on the meaning of what I wrote. What you appear not to be familiar (though now with the edit conflict I see you ironically cite it) with are the vocalizations of עון גליון , and their respective uses by Meir and Yohanan see the old translation and notes in R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, 1903 pp.146-155,161-164, esp.1\55,162. both Edwards (p.232), Herford and E.B. Nicholson speak of the 70s CE or early 80s Ist cent.CE, not, David, as you write 'the beginning of the 2nd century CE. Nothing in Shabbat 116a/b is as you argue. You say the Aramaic says the philosopher used the Greek Gospel of Matthew (the Greek Gospel (used by the Christian judge)'. Well the text doesn't say that: it has the min cite a law of inheritance that is in no known Gospel. You wrote.'The Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 116a-b) speaks specifically about the Greek Gospel (evangelion) which was lately translated from Aramaic into Greek. The Rabbis took notice of its omissions and inaccuracies, here and there, and by way of jest they coined a name for the newly composed Greek canonical Gospel of Matthew, calling it in Hebrew . . .. All that is sheer misreading (the rabbis cited one in ca. 150 one around 250ca, i.e. 80/180 years after the normal dating for the Greek Matthew, not recently composed, etc.), or reading subjectively into the text what you want to find there. etc.etc. Please take this futilely boring sequence of misprisions elsewhere. It is not productive for the page we edit here.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's all trivia, Nishdani! From 80 CE to the beginning of the 2nd century is only 21 years. I am well within the margin of error, considering that a man's lifespan can reach eighty years. Second of all, you have no idea why the word "evangelion" was used in the Talmud in the context of fire burning books, and why it is permitted to let such books burn. It all comes down to what is considered "sanctity" in Jewish law. Some books that have been transcribed, even Hebrew books, do not have sanctity. Be well! Davidbena (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The first rule of anyone who wishes to study these things is that dismissing details as 'trivia' throws the baby out with the barfwater, as per Der liebe Gott/Teufel steckt im Detail often associated with Aby Warburg. The second rule is to adopt Nietzsche's advocacy of the art of slow reading: particularly since we are dealing also with theologians' hermeneutics, and as the man wrote: 'Ein andres Abzeichen des Theologen ist sein Unvermögen zur Philogie. Unter Philologie soll hier, in einem sehr allgemeinen Sinne, die Kunst, gut zu lesen, verstanden werden,,—Tatsachen ablesen können, ohne sie durch Interpretation zu fälschen, ohne im Verlangen nach Verständnis die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die Feinheit zu verlieren.'(Der Antichrist: Fluch auf das Christentum,(1888):52) Had you read the sources its 72-ca.110, i.e., 40 years not, 21. As to the second quip. why have I no idea about the details of book and margin burning? I read the passage in three translations several times. And you ignored the most important point re vocalization, and the fact that the pun emerged 70-80 years, and was in turn remodified, some 1960-70 years after the normal date given for Mattyhew's Greek Gospel, which means 'recently' is wrong, among other things.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you have been offended by my words, Nishidani, but you are obviously mistaken. The timeframe in which Rabban Gamaliel II lived is still late 1st century thru beginning of 2nd century CE. No one knows precisely, but can only roughly estimate the time. Birthdates were not preserved down to our time. As for the two exegeses on the word "evangelion," one explaining it as עון גליון and the other as און גליון, these are irrelevant, since the greater import of their teaching implies that the book called by the Greeks evangelion (i.e. a Greek translation of Matthew's Gospel) was not, repeat, not viewed as sacrosanct, in which case, it and the attributes given in it for God's Divine Name can be left to burn in a raging fire. It is as simple as that. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Mediation Process

We must all try to focus only on the content issues. This is what we have agreed to in good faith. As for me, I am leaving this talk page to focus on mediation. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, can one mediate between parties on an issue of policy interpretation? Esp. when the relevant policy guideline is as clear as a bell to an overwhelming majority of editors?Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Parsing words to pretend that Wikipedia policies are something else more to your liking can only end one way. As of now, we have the selective excision of sentence fragments taken out of context to mean something else. What's next? Maybe individual letters can be excised and rearranged to make new sentences. Ignocrates (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Above I was merely trying to explain my understanding of when primary sources WP:PRIMARY may be used and the importance of not going beyond what is stated in those sourcesWP:SYNTH. The response was a brutal personal attack on me. It was unfair! I am not perfect but I am certainly not the caricature presented above. (Please look at my edit history in context.) Since behavioral issues are not part of the mediation process I will say no more. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Which attack do you mean? The recent ANI complaint was against Davidbena, not against you (provided that you are not the same person). About m:MPOV it's just another perspective, since if it were considered offensive, it were already deleted from meta. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

We have now reached agreement:

• WP POLICY states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia;" Also it is very important that we not go beyond what is stated in the source.
• A second way that a primary source may be used is if it is quoted in a secondary source.

Nobody is now saying primary sources are not allowed. Their argument is turning to how in practical terms this policy is allowed. Of course the Devil is in the details! Here is where our mediator will be valuable in guiding us to an agreement. I think we have done all we can on this talk page. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, Ret.Prof. There is a policy dealing with obstructive behaviour, called WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As is known, I have a good deal of sympathy for the idea of early Christianity as a Jewish sect, probably with its own Aramaic traditions, whose nature was traduced by tendentious polemics and book manipulation (on both sides) when the split occurred and Judaic and Gentile Christian positions crystallised into reciprocal antipathy. But you are, in my view, doing that legitimate POV a great disservice by what can only be called obtusity, and a refusal to think closely, combined with an alacrity for quips. You've had your say. Drop it, otherwise, someone will eventually make your presence here shorter than it should be.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. I am suggesting we all drop it and let our mediator do his job! Look forward to the debate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, my advice is to pursue truthful editing, even if it entails an occasional "bump" or "bruise." Be well.Davidbena (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:VNT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgscu, a scholar once wrote: "Literature... depends heavily on credibility. If a text has passed through the professional hands of the author, editor, publisher, and bookseller, the readers will assume with good reason that the editorial frame and, in particular, the alleged authorship is accurate." (D. Trobisch). This does not negate, however, how that we, as editors, ought to be truthful in our reporting. If this is not clear, then none of the guidelines espoused by Wikipedia will be clear to you.Davidbena (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Policies, guidelines and essays are clear to me, see especially WP:The Truth and m:MPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't going to last much longer. We have had 3-plus years of watching Ret.Prof soapbox on personal, article, and public talk pages of Wikipedia. After all that time, he has yet to produce a single convincing reliable source to back up his OR. If mediation fails to resolve the content aspects of this dispute, this is going straight to arbitration to deal with the behavioral issues, even if I have to file the case myself. Ignocrates (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates, can you please tell us what Original Research is the Professor guilty of using/writing/making? Please inform me. Do you mean in an existing article?Davidbena (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof's method from the beginning has been to write OR commentary that he wants to be true and then go back and find references that sort of talk about the same subject. I will be saving those diffs for arbitration. There are literally hundreds of them over a three year period. The other editors here are well aware of the articles affected by this nonsense. I'll let them explain it to you. I have a driveway to shovel. Ignocrates (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ignocrates, I'm confused. I thought this mediation was specifically about Gospel of Matthew, or the Hebrew Gospel, and the Professor's amendments/postings in these specific Wikipedia articles. Now you tell me that it is a broader problem. I feel that I've been misinformed about the nature of this mediation.Davidbena (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

David, this mediation is about Gospel of Matthew and whether it should more fully include material on the Hebrew gospel of Matthew as mentioned by Papias. The current problems began about January when RetProf proposed an edit - one that was in fact a reversion of an edit I made some months earlier, which was in turn a reversion of an edit he'd made even earlier than that. This pattern of edits by RetProf and reversions/deletions by others stretches back perhaps three years. I became involved about 2 years ago maybe - I haven't checked) at a point when the conflict between RetProf and others had become really impossible. By mutual agreement they allowed me to rewrite the entire article. The others approved what I did, RetProf I don't think liked it, by he said he was withdrawing from the article. But he didn't - he kept coming back. So we have two problems, the immediate one (the mediation, which is a content dispute) and the much longer-running one of what other editors see as RetProf's disruptive editing pattern. RetProf holds that Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew that stands behind the modern Matthew. He's been editing that idea, often longthy edits, into a whole range of related articles, not just this one, over the years. That's the behavioural dispute that Ignocrates is threatening to take to Arbcom.PiCo (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And that doesn't even include the articles that Ret.Prof has attempted to add to the encyclopedia that admins have deleted as inappropriate. Ignocrates (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, User:PiCo, and thanks User:Ignocrates. Now the matter is clear to me. Ultimately, it all comes down to less-experienced editors knowing when to give-in, and allowing for the more experienced to make the appropriate changes, if at all called for. This is where editors must study their subject matter very, very well. We all must become like academicians, but we all must have a mind to work together whenever possible, and, definitely, never to impose our ways or views upon others without their consent. It was precisely for this reason that I withdrew from offering suggestions on how to improve the article, Gospel of Matthew. I had actually added a few lines about its authorship and composition which were quickly deleted. I gave up. I would suggest here that the Professor do the same. He can always suggest, but not impose a view, unless it is agreed upon by the editors at large.Davidbena (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair to RetProf, suggesting is what he's doing. This mediation will, one hopes, settle the matter. PiCo (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder: WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH are not optional policies: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. DO NOT analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. and Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. -- 101.119.29.83 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is also a core policy, and we seem to have a clear consensus here, except for two editors. Note that Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. -- 101.119.29.83 (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If I might add here, there should always be (in my humble opinion) a general inclination amongst the good editors here on Wikipedia to uphold all policies outlined on Wikipedia, and not to just select those policies which best fit one's own whims and fancies. I'm not pointing the finger at anybody, may God forbid. We also find outlined in WP policy what is called WP:UNDUE, according to which: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the main space fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views, etc." Based on this, there is still a place here for the representation of the views on Matthew held by at least some of reputable secondary source authors provided here and who espouse that the Gospel of Matthew was originally composed in Aramaic. IMHO Davidbena (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, there is some ambiguity in deciding how to apply WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Although the policies are clear enough, in practice, someone has to decide where to draw the line, and that line can only be determined by community consensus. In this case, the community consensus is overwhelming that an autograph Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is fringe scholarship. One or two dissident editors won't change that, no matter how long and loud they scream about it on the talk page and in public forums. This issue has had its day at FTN and it should be considered a dead issue by now, per WP:DEADHORSE and WP:WIN. Ignocrates (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Davidbena has considered by argument above and decided to withdraw from this discussion, per his note on my talk page. This is a wise move on his part, in my opinion. Ignocrates (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Post Mediation

I see that Ret.Prof has retired again. The mediation page has identified some compromise wording, but that wording seems merely to summarise what's already in the article at Gospel of Matthew#Composition and setting, and hence adding it would, in my opinion, only be confusing.

I have taken the liberty of adding a reference to Irenaeus, who provides an older example of the "Apostle Matthew" tradition than Eusebius (i.e. the tradition doesn't begin with Eusebius). However Irenaeus is even more cryptic than Papias, so I have used as few words as possible. -- 101.119.14.181 (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits and the mediation outcome

Some recent edits by an anon ISP have disrupted the text added as a result of the rather long mediation process. I've made some edits of my own towards returning to the spirit of the mediation wording, but I want to clear it with other editors: is anyone unhappy with what's there now? PiCo (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The version at the moment at which I write seems OK, but I do object to stating things like "All four gospels, plus the Acts of the Apostles, Revelation, and a number of the epistles, are products of the second generation of Christians" as fact. StAnselm (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Since I was specifically excluded from the mediation process, I don't accept the result. In any case, a "compromise paragraph" that got approval from just three of the twelve participants doesn't seem to me to constitute a consensus of any kind. However, I think normal editing processes are now working fine, and the article is steadily improving. I must say, I'm completely in agreement with StAnselm on the kind of oversimplification that states the majority view as if it was undisputed fact. I think that breaches WP:NPOV. -- 101.119.15.210 (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't terribly happy with the outcome myself, but should we now so lightly overturn it? Anyway, I'll withdraw from this and concentrate on what interests me at the moment, the theological questions relating to Matthew. PiCo (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, three out of twelve was hardly a consensus; I don't think there was any "outcome" to overturn. In any case, things are in my view going very well now via ordinary editing processes. -- 101.119.15.210 (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, user 101.119.15.210. Since you are so new to Wikipedia, you need to know at least that you should not take personally your exclusion from the mediation. There is a lot to know about how work is accomplished here, but as you can see, you are not excluded from making contributions, nor are constructive edits rejected out of hand. You do need to be able to accept that sometimes you may be overruled by other editors. That is a part of any collaborative activity. But no one (including the mediator) has excluded you. Another of the things you should know is that there are some people who deliberately act in violation of Wikipedia principles and policies. Quite often, the sources of problems come from edits through an IP address. If you would like to continue here, you will present a better face to other editors if you have arranged for a Wikipedia account. It's not required, but it tends to work better that way, at least when you encounter others for the first time. Just a thought. This comment actually belongs on your user talk page (do you know about those?), but you haven't created one yet, so I wanted to be sure you would find the message. Evensteven (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I assure you, Evensteven, I'm not exactly new to Wikipedia. I prefer not to have an account. I'm more than happy to be overruled if a majority of involved editors disagree with me. And yes, the mediation page was protected specifically to stop IP editors from participating. -- 101.119.14.122 (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

New users don't typically hand out trouts or even know what a WP:TROUT is. I'm guessing you may possibly be a banned (or vanished) user. Anyway, none of the editors involved in the mediation asked that it be semi-protected; that was a decision made by the mediator. No one is discouraging your contributions here. Ignocrates (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

All the same, your edit history seems unusual to me (multiple IPs over a long period of time). Therefore, I have requested a check to see if you are banned from editing. Ignocrates (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Very well then, 101.119.14.122, you will understand that I am assuming good faith. If you prefer to edit from an IP, that's fine with me. It was only a suggestion for someone who may not have known much about WP doings. I will now assume that you do actually know what a mediation is, why they take place, and why an IP might be banned from participating. I will also assume that you understand the nature of agreements reached there, and what that means in the formulation of consensus. Thus, it really ought to be clear to you by now that characterizing the outcome as "3 out of 12" is quite a reach, and that petulancy about being excluded from the mediation is misdirected here. If you really know better, what is your issue? I tend to agree with Ignocrates that something does not smell right here. Evensteven (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you will note that I have no objection to your recent edits to the article. Evensteven (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should strengthen that. I agree in principle that "oversimplification that states the majority view as if it was undisputed fact" is undesirable and can sometimes even be POV. I don't think anyone felt that the mediation resolution resulted in hard-and-fast wording that had to remain entirely as it was. I consider that as being obvious on the surface and expected you to see it. My opinion is that your article editing and others' has been a proper continuation of activity. But your prior complaints tended to be disruptive, and I agree with the mediator that you should have been banned for that time. The mediation was principally about restoring a pattern of normal editing activity - making that very thing possible. So take care of that positive outcome. Evensteven (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof has recently stated on his talk page that he is recusing himself from further editing on the Gospel of Matthew article, see diff. Therefore, I think the mediation can be viewed as a successful end to a prolonged content dispute and a return to normal editing. Ignocrates (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Design of references

A now-reverted edit from earlier today, mistakenly placed on the article page, does bring up an issue with references and use of the Harvard system. I agree the system makes the set of materials in bibliographies and references very orderly and neat, but on WP, it also distances those materials from the reader, requiring extra clicks of links to access, in a manner that is not particularly intuitive, especially for a casual reader. When the material is not available online, the system also makes that fact unobvious, by just silently having no target for a click. The mobile edit we got today is evidence that I am not the only one who has been struck by these non-print-media effects. Though I have already (earlier) had one discussion with another editor who disagrees with me, it is my opinion that if online references are not available in one click, or by popup, they are therefore devalued. As a basis of that opinion, I would claim that references are not only important to editors who want to check up on sources (and can be presumed to have experience and more perseverance), but that they can be of equal importance to simple readers, on all sorts of devices, who just want to look up more information (or also to check up on sources), but who then require a fully intuitive way to do that.

This is also a current issue for me as an editor, as I have it in mind to clean up references at the Eastern Orthodox Church article, and have been considering the merits and drawbacks of the Harvard system. I expect I am not the first editor (or even community) that has dealt with the problem. Since the editors of this article have chosen the Harvard direction, which I am shying away from, I wanted to ask why, to hear comments about that decision, and reactions to my opinion and the experience of the reverted editor. I also want to ask if anyone thinks it would be best to discuss this matter at project or inter-project levels, with a mind to introducing a more consistent approach for handling references across a whole class of articles. Anyone interested? Evensteven (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to be obtuse, since I don't totally understand "The Harvard System", but are you suggesting ditching all ref's that aren't available on-line? This is my interpretation of what you saying. Ckruschke (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Oh, no, certainly not. It's about how they're structured internally, and what that means for clicking to get at anything that does happen to be available online. Evensteven (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The reverted editor did not know what the hypertext links in the References section were. Because they look a lot like internal wiki-links to other articles, she reasonably supposed that that's what they were. They are supposed to be in-page links to the full entry in the bibliography, but many of them did not work because the ref=harv parameter was not in the templates. This should fix all of that.

To clarify terms: In the "real" world, "Harvard referencing" refers to using in-line parenthetical author-date referencing, e.g. "The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous (Duling 2010: 298)." Of course, here on Wikipedia we have to confuse every issue, so now "harvard" is also used to refer to a template-based mechanism such as on this article which automatically links shortened references to citation template entries, whether they are parenthetical or footnotes, and using a wide variety of citation styles. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on Harvard referencing. Yes, I'm sure you're right about the confusion of the editor. My point centers on the fact she couldn't get to what she was looking for intuitively, and in one click. Actually, though, that's two points. I would agree that omission of "ref=harv" amounts to a bug that is readily fixed. Do you feel that fixes the intuitive part? I'm not entirely sure of that myself, but would find it hard to argue against either. As for one click, well, that's my ease of use issue with Harvard references here. Do you see that as significant? I've seen references in the general technical media that indicate if you can't get to the result in one click, people won't generally go further. I don't follow that stuff closely though, and have no idea where I've seen it. Am I on track? Can anyone verify? Evensteven (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think what you're saying is right: People browsing the internet don't generally dig deep, because they are just casually reading. We probably have the same oft-repeated reports in mind on that point.

But let's ask: How would this consideration apply here? So, there's a first choice to make: You can use parenthetical referencing, or you can use footnote referencing. Parenthetical referencing would address the issue you mention, because it usually uses links which lead directly to the full citation. Parenthetical referencing is definitely the less popular option, however. The reason is because people feel that it disrupts the flow of the displayed text. Also, footnotes are necessary for actual, non-citation notes anyway, so there is more consistency. Footnote referencing instead puts those little superscript footnote markers in, which people feel do not significantly disrupt the displayed text. For footnote referencing you can go many ways: 1) You can go for short citations throughout (as this article does) with a list of full citation at the bottom, 2) you can go for long citations throughout, 3) you can go for the first citation to a work being long and following ones being short, or 4) you can do a mix. Only 2) would fully address the issue you are talking about: One click from the footnote marker and the reader would be presented with the full citation every time. I don't think 2) is common at all, however. There's at least three reasons for this: i) It's almost never done by any other publication. ii) It creates a lot of completely useless clutter in the wikitext. iii) It creates a lot of clutter in the displayed text of the footnotes.

In the end, there's no perfect system. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And to clarify more: Even though there is the confusion with the term "Harvard", that doesn't mean you should continue it! I didn't mean to imply that "Harvard" only refers to the sort of parenthetical referencing off-wiki. It does mean that on-wiki when it is being used correctly. The use of "harvard" along with the shortened footnotes system is I believe just a vestige of how that system of templates was built out of the old properly Harvard system templates. It's still better just to limit the use of "Harvard" to parenthetical author-date referencing. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Understanding the primary sources

@Evensteven: You are absolutely correct about understanding the primary sources! Now read the following and compare it to what Casey 2014 says about Papias!

Preface to the Four Gospels, 383 CE: From Jerome to Pope Damasus I will now speak of the New Testament, which was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who was the first in Judea to produce a Gospel of Christ in Hebrew script. We must confess that as we have it in our language, it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead.

LETTER 19: Pope Damasus (To Jerome) To his most beloved son Jerome: DAMASUS, Bishop, sends greetings in the Lord. The orthodox Greek and Latin versions [of the Gospel of Matthew] put forth not only differing but mutually conflicting explanations of the saying 'Hosanna to the son of David'. I wish you would write...stating the true meaning of what is actually written in the Hebrew text.

LETTER 20: Jerome (Reply) “Matthew, who composed his Gospel in Hebrew script, wrote, 'Osanna Barrama', which means 'Hosanna in the Highest.’”

Authorship, especially within the Early Church, was not strictly viewed as an individual activity. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, not again. Please review the controversy documented at Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 10#Primary Sources before you waste everyone's time with this, again. You cannot parse the words of WP:PRIMARY to find a meaning no one else sees which allows you to use primary sources as though they are secondary sources. You can state primary sources, but you cannot analyze, summarize, or interpret them in any way. That would be WP:OR. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I would leave the parsing to the reliable secondary or tertiary sources. I would only examine those sources to get a personal feel for how thorough they are in this regard. Reliable sources of a different bent must be allowed here and presumed reliable, whatever our personal regard for their reliability may be. And, of course, that goes both ways. This perspective may account, in some cases, for why reliable sources disagree, or at least see the balance of things in a different light. But this matter goes beyond what has actually been ventured here at this time. Evensteven (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree too. "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." If we use any primary sources in the article, we will take care to see Wikipedia Policy is strictly followed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good. What I hope we don't see now is an OR exposition about the Gospel of Matthew (as a subject) and what these primary sources mean (to Ret.Prof). If you want to talk about what Casey said as a source, why don't you start by explicitly documenting what Casey said in complete sentences (i.e., not sentence fragments lifted from Google Books) along with page numbers, per my suggestion above. I see your quotation about the early date (c.50 to 60), which is a minority view. What about the rest of Casey that relates to the primary sources above? Ignocrates (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, we must take care when editing material from primary sources. Also, because of the lack of a decent preview for Casey 2014, I think it is important to get a copy of the book. Sentence fragments lifted from Google Books will not work! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ret Prof, you were asked to link above to your previous advocacy for representing Jerome/Papias as reliable sources, yet you only provided one link. In my memory you have made multiple returns to this article pushing this every time. Can you please provide complete links to all your previous attempts to get this into the article. I am thinking also that perhaps we need to notify every single editor in all those previous attempts who has prevented the additions you wish to make to this article over the past few years. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New reference added

I took the liberty of adding a new reference: Maurice Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, A&C Black, 2014. I hope it will be edifying. He is a leading non-Christian historian who in a scholarly fashion examines the evidence regarding the origins the Gospel of Matthew. He concludes that Papias was right: Matthew did write a Gospel in Hebrew. However this early gospel was smaller and more primitive than the Gospel of Matthew we have today and there were major discrepancies between the two. It may have even been composed on wax tablets. His in-depth the study into "composite scholarship" of the Second Temple period has given the academic community much to reflect upon. He puts forward a compelling case that Matthew first composed a gospel in Aramaic and that this became the basis or fountainhead for the composite Gospel of Matthew. Before I start updating the article with material from Casey 2014, I will give others a chance to look at this new work as a sign of good faith. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure we need to include books that are written in response to blogs. At this stage I would not include it, since it is not specifically about Matthew. Anyway, the pages that discuss Papias on Matthew are unfortunately missing from the Google preview. What does he say? StAnselm (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I would also be interested in seeing what the reviews say about the work. WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT will of course all apply to any material which anyone might seek to add tothis article, with all those determined as per WP:CONCENSUS. May I suggest that a more effective approach might be to start an article on the book itself, indicating how the book has been received by the academic community along with a description of its contents, as a first step? John Carter (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

On page 90 of that book Casey says that "the gospel of Matthew is usually dated c.75-85 CE and its author is considered to be unkonwn." That exactly what our article says. Casey then gives his personal proposal, but Wikipedia presents the broad consensus, not the views of individuals. (We do mention in the lead that a view like Casey's remains a minority one). At the bottom of page 90/top of page 91 Casey outlines Papias' statement about an Aramaic Matthew an says this is "complete nonsense." I can't see that Casey's book adds anything, and it should be removed(the bibliography is for books actually used in the article).PiCo (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Does the article have any references at all to the minority view mentioned in the lead? A Georgian (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The minority view noted in the lead is about the date: "a pre-70 date remains a minority view." It's such a very small minority view that it doesn't get a mention in the article body (you can check out the books in the bibliography). RetProf isn't so much interested in the date as the process of composition - he thinks somebody, maybe the apostle Matthew or maybe not, wrote a gospel in Aramaic which then formed the basis for our Matthew. That could have happened at any date. It's not, however, even a minority viewpoint - Casey himself dismisses it. PiCo (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@PiCo Wow, did you misread Casey 2014! It is true that "the Gospel of Matthew is usually dated c.75-85 CE and its author is considered to be unknown." but Casey says the Hebrew Gospel was written by Matthew possibly on wax tablets and that Hebrew Gospel was a major source or fountainhead of the Gospel of Matthew. Do you have any authority that challenges Casey 2014 or that says that Casey adds nothing to biblical scholarship? - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN requires that the burden of proof lies on the person seeking to add information, which in this case would be you, Ret.Prof. You could more effectively meet the demands of policy and guidelines by showing that this proposal has received favorable consideration from others, which would be required to show it does not qualify as FRINGE. The easiest and most effective ways to do that would be to start or develop separate articles on the books or hypotheses if they qualify as independently notable first, and then propose additions to this broader article. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter I plan to wait a week to let everyone read the book. If editors only read snippets or previews they can get confused as did PiCo. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What Casey says is that some of the Q and M material in Matthew could have come direct from Matthew the apostle. That hardly makes Matthew the apostle the author of the gospel of Matthew. In any case, this is just Casey's hypothesis - we have to reflect majority views and significant minority opinions, and this is neither.203.217.170.26 (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no real comments to make on Casey himself, just one on authorship. For the sake of understanding the primary sources, it should be said that authorship, especially within the Church, was not strictly viewed as an individual activity. In certain cases, authorship was individual. But in others, where the intent of the writing was to serve the Church in its community functions (such as the production of holy writings which served to teach, some of which were later examined for entry into the Biblical canon), or later yet, the writing of church services or rubrics, such things were especially subject to common review, approval, and at least editing. St. John Chrysostom is said to be the author of the most commonly-used Divine Liturgy service, Pope Gregory I the author of the Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified Gifts, and most certainly neither was sole author. Their close association with the development and contribution of essential portions, even the heart of the services, and the high recognition and respect for their saintliness all contributed to their acclamation as "author". It's honorary (from our point of view) because the authorship is not single. It was a work of the Church in the earlier view, with the honor of recognition for contribution bestowed where most suitable. In light of this kind of tradition, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Apostle Matthew had some sort of direct participation in the composition of the Gospel, but ultimately it too was a work of the Church. Papias' writings should be examined with regard to meanings that do not translate into the modern era well. I don't know if Casey does that, or does it well, but whatever scholarly sources we draw on for the article should be looked at to see how carefully the research has explored this matter. Over much time, much text, many manuscripts and artifacts are all lost to material corruption, war or strife, vagaries of death or other lost memory, and so on. Just as perishable is the context of the time, the sense of how things were, and were done. Consider that we recognize that today better than we have in some times of recent past, and how it is driving historians to gather the recollections of those who fought in WW2 before we have no one living we can actually talk to about it. We know that when that time comes, we will have lost something. How much more, then, we have already lost since 70 AD, and how much more careful we must be in the way we look at what remains. That goes for us as editors as much as anyone. Evensteven (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Anon User: You are right! What Casey 2014 argues is that Papias was correct and Matthew did compose an article in a Hebrew dialect and that this "Hebrew Gospel" was the "fountainhead" for the Greek Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible. In other words:

• The Hebrew Gospel >>>> composed by the Apostle Matthew.
• The Greek Gospel of Matthew>>>> a composite composition which used a lot of authentic material from the Hebrew Gospel.
• Finally, Casey notes that there are discrepancies between the Greek Gospel of Matthew and the Hebrew Gospel composed by the Apostle Matthew!

It is really important not just to read the preview or snippet view of Casey 2014. You may not agree with Casey, but his scholarship answers a lot of questions. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ret Prof, can you please link to previous archive discussions of (1) Maurice Casey and (2) "fountainhead" / Papias raised by yourself on this Talk Page over the past couple of years. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see diff. More to follow. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Another diff Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm...I am not sure I am understanding the question. To my knowledge Casey 2014 has never been discussed? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof: Your apparent refusal to directly respond to the rather clearly-made request is unfortunate. The request clearly referred to Maurice Casey and his body of work, of which the latest work is only one piece, but likely consistent with his earlier work. So discussions of his body of work, if it is consistent with his later work, are very possibly relevant. Also, I think it would be very useful if you provided information on academic reviews of his most recent book to help establish how well or poorly it was received. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@PiCo What do you think of Casey 2014, re dating the Greek Gospel of Matthew between 50 and 60 CE. In any event the gospel is undated and nobody can be certain. We must work from a NPOV - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I suspect that the Orthodox Church and its scholars are probably more inclined to be sympathetic with the earlier date (back to 50 CE) than most groups, because they sometimes draw on traditions that have been largely forgotten in the west. Yet even so, the Orthodox Study Bible, produced by a convocation of such scholars in the US, makes only a passing nod to that early a date, and offers that it is "more likely" to have been written sometime after 70 CE. In addition, they mention the years Matthew spent in Antioch within the "strong, mixed community" of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Though the OSB doesn't say so, this could have been a time of collaboration about the gospel, a cross-checking of accounts and testimonies, and other such activities that I have heard postulated from other sources. The OSB does state that St Ignatius, bishop of Antioch from 67-107 AD, is one of the earliest witnesses to the existence of this gospel, which might imply completion (or at least advanced drafting) by 107. So back to dating, I would say that Orthodox support for 50-60AD should be characterized as fairly weak at best. If Casey is definite about wanting to date it then, Orthodox writings are unlikely to provide much more than occasional individual support. Evensteven (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, what would really be helpful to everyone here is page numbers and exact quotations (in complete sentences) from Maurice Casey's new book on any statements he made relevant to Papias that you are considering for inclusion in the article. Even better would be a comparison to statements Maurice Casey made in his previous books (page numbers and exact quotations only, please) so that everyone here can compare them. That would be vastly preferable to reams of editorial commentary about your interpretation of what Maurice Casey means. It's also a lot more helpful and constructive than telling everyone else to go read the book. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The following is from Casey 2014 p 90 "... I therefore conclude that Crossley is right: Mark's Gospel was written c. 40 C.E. Dates of the synoptic Gospels: The Gospel of Matthew. The Gospel attributed to Matthew is usually dated 75–85 C.E., and the author is considered to be unknown. I have proposed that it should be dated 50–60 C.E., and that its author was an unknown Jewish Christian..." Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the characterization that "support for 50-60AD should be characterized as fairly weak at best". It's not an idiosyncratic view, but one shared by a very small minority of scholars at this point. Ignatius' references to a putative Gospel of Matthew have been studied extensively. They refer to passages in what we now call "Special Matthew". There is not a single example of synoptic passages that overlap with the Gospel of Mark (that I am aware of anyway). There are many early examples of sayings material (Clement I, Didache, Justin) that are "Matthew-like" and show signs of coming from an oral tradition. Ignocrates (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

An early date for Matthew is a minority view, but a date of 40 CE for Mark is downright eccentric. This review of Casey 2014 is useful.PiCo (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A date of 40 would make the publication of Mark concurrent with Caligula's attempt to put a statue of Jupiter in the Temple. See the Olivet Discourse for more info on Mark's Little Apocalypse. "Eccentric" would be putting it mildly. Ignocrates (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ban

@ Iggy Now with both you and John Carter interacting on this page, are either of you in violation of your respective bans? - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a protocol to follow with respect to my I-ban. That's all I need to say about it here. Ignocrates (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see they are interacting usefully with you, Ret.Prof, not knocking up against each other. I would ask for the results of that malformed discussion/arbitration to be reopened and reviewed if it meant that two of the most active early Christianity editors could not input on such a basic subject as Gospel of Matthew. The editor stock of WikiProject Religion in general has been whittled down to a handful of editors able to weigh academic modern sources, just because two of those editors bumped heads in another topic area (Ebionites I recall?) it would be damaging to the encyclopedia to say that neither of them can now input on the Gospel of Matthew. This article is high visibility religion article under constant pressure from persistently reoccurring WP:FRINGE views - even such as those promoting medieval rabbinical translations of Latin Matthew as lost Hebrew originals and so on - that excluding two competent editors would make ensuring WP:RS WP:WEIGHT content considerably more difficult. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of support. There is no problem here, nor will there be. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Glad you have worked things out! - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Casey 2014 and Wikipedia's Gospel of Matthew article

RetProf asked me (two threads above) for my opinion/views on Casey's argument for an earlier date for GoM. This is both a response to that question and a few observations and thoughts on Casey's 2014 book "Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?" (hereinafter Casey 2014)

First, so far as Casey 2014 deals with GoM, he's repeating word for word what he wrote in his earlier book, "Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching", published in 2010. This is quite normal scholarly practice, but it's worth noting that Casey 2014 isn't new work. (I've highlighted a single key phrase in both links, but it's the entire section that's repeated).

Second, both books are popular works, not aimed at a scholarly audience - Casey was concerned at the growing Christ Myth movement and wanted to counter it with a book for the general reader. This is also worth bearing in mind: Casey isn't making an argument about the composition of GoM but about the historicity of Jesus.

Now for what Casey says re GoM and its date and author:

• "The Gospel of Matthew is usually dated c. 75-85 CE, and its author is considered to be unknown" (page 90) This is what our article says, so I don't see that we need to change anything because of this.
• "I have proposed that it should be dated c. 50-60 CE..." (p.90, same link). Our article already says that a date earlier than 75-85 is a minority opinion, and the mere fact that Casey supports the minority isn't a reason to change our article.
• "...and that its author was an unknown Jewish Christian who may or may not have been called Mattai" (p.90, continuation of the above). This speculation is found in other sources (I mean scholarly books) as well, but it's only one of several and I don't think it needs a mention in our article. Of course, that's a personal call on my part and anyone is welcome to argue a contrary case.

RetProf keeps saying that Casey 2014 supports or advances the idea that an Aramaic Gospel of Matthew forms the "fountainhead" for GoM. This isn't actually true. In fact Casey says this:

• After summarising the Papias/Eusebius tradition that Matthew compiled the sayings/logia (oracles) in a Hebrew language" (bottom of p.90): "When applied to our Gospel of Matthew this tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognised." (top of page 91). This is pretty much what our article says, though we use more restrained language.
• He then asks how the tradition could have arisen, and answers: "[O]ne of the Twelve, who was a tax collector, (wrote) down material about Jesus during the historic ministry", and that "[s]ome of this Gospel's Q material and some of the material unique to it (i.e., the "Special M" material) resulted from Matthew the tax collector's material being transmitted (and) translated..." (Page 91). In other words, when Casey talks about a "fountainhead" which is authentic Matthew behind the GoM, he's talking about some of Q and M (not even all of Q and M), and not a lost Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
• Casey 2014 never uses the phrase "Hebrew Gospel", nor the phrase "Aramaic Gospel" - please tell me where you got the idea that he believes such a thing existed?

Casey's ideas on the nature of Q and M are not the academic mainstream. Both are thought to have been in Greek, and M is thought not to have been a single document but a mix of oral and written material circulating in the author's community. Casey advances no evidence that Matthew the apostle wrote anything, beyond offering a hypothesis that could explain Papias.

Wikipedia has to represent mainstream academic opinion plus significant minority views. All in all, I can't see that Casey has anything that we need to include in our article. PiCo (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on the exact quotations provided here, I find this summary of Casey's new book (and previous publications) convincing. Sadly, this book was his last rodeo. There are too few competent Aramaic scholars as it stands. If anyone has more to add to PiCo's informed opinion, please contribute. Otherwise, I think it's time to form a consensus and move on. Ignocrates (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you have misread Casey. I will give it a couple of days for others to get a copy of his book. I will also re read it myself to see if I have made any mistakes. Then with the help of the mediator we will try to sort out our differences. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think an appeal to mediation is particularly helpful. Ret.Prof, please explain how PiCo has misread Casey. StAnselm (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@everyone, I would highly recommend read the section Reliability of article: Papias of Hierapolis. Perhaps some of the information provided can better help solve this current issue. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A popular book

You say both books are popular works, not aimed at a scholarly audience. Do you have any sources to support this position? @Andrevan: If this was a popular book, would it cease to be a reliable source? - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Casey says himself in his Preface that his aim is refuting mythicism - see the first para of page viii. As no scholars accept the mythicist argument, and as he talks about writing in response to blogs and to the popular mythicists Price and Doherty, I think it's safe to say his target audience is the general public. But Casey is a reliable source, based on his academic record and the way other scholars treat him with respect. PiCo (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Casey is a reliable source, but believe he is writing for both a scholarly audience and the general public. - Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Andrevan:Can a group of user accounts preclude a reliable source and overrule NPOV?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

They can if the WP:CONSENSUS is that a user is constructing a WP:SYNTHESIS, yes. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The mediation process

@StAnselm: I think the mediation process was very helpful in regard to FRINGE and RELIABLE SOURCES. Building upon this solid foundation will help us compose a good article written from a NPOV. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I hope you answer my question before we get to that point. StAnselm (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Pico and Ignocrates and StAnselm have all inputted now on Casey. I share Pico and Ignocrates conclusion that the result this time is the same as last time (times). Ret Prof there is no support for your proposed use of Casey, or indeed any source, to bolster claims for that reading of Papias/Jerome in this article. And I would note also that previous discussions noted that the main relevance of the reliability (on any subject) of Papias/Jerome is it the reliability sections of the Papias/Jerome articles. I suggest you now give this subject and the Gospel of Matthew a rest for 12 months. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When getting ready to challenge the context of "When applied to our Gospel of Matthew this tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognised." (top of page 91), I noticed a big NPOV blunder by both PiCo & Ret.Prof. I will be off to the library and will address NPOV problem shortly! - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the problem, repeatedly you tell us your POV and then that you are off to the library to find sources that support the POV. If one of my undergrads did that I would mark his essay an immediate zero before even seeing it. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot wrong with this interaction. The questions to answer here are whether the proposed sources are reliable sources and what they say. Then we can address how to reflect this in the article. Are the sources reliable? What do they say? That's all to discuss. Above I see discussion as to whether Casey is popular or scholarly. If we've conceded that Casey is reliable but simply feel Casey is popular, then we can simply write: Casey thinks X, although this is considered popular by proponents of Y such as Dr. Z. A different problem is whether Casey is actually talking about a proto-Gospel of Matthew, or if Ret. Prof is reading too much into some of the implications of what is possibly a general overview - this falls under "what does the source say?" If you aren't contributing to answering these core questions, the condescension is unhelpful and skirts civility. Andrevan@ 09:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I will put off my trip to the library re The Pontifical Biblical Commission and comply immediately with our "informal" mediator's request. There are two important edits that I feel must be made to fix the NPOV problems with this article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Andrevan, we're not discussing whether Casey is popular or scholarly - he was a professor - but whether this particular book is directed at a popular audience or a scholarly one. And I've said it doesn't matter - he's a reliable source. No one is saying anything different. This is a red herring. PiCo (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

RetProf, you don't need to tell us what the Pontifical Bible Commission said in 1911, you need to to tell us where you find a reference to a Hebrew Gospel/Aramaic Gospel in what Casey said in 2014.PiCo (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Date of Composition

1. Reliability of Casey 2014

I concur with PiCo that "Casey is a reliable source, based on his academic record and the way other scholars treat him with respect." He is a "leading expert" on the Historical Jesus and deals extensively with the origins of the Gospel of Matthew. Indeed, it would be fair to say Maurice Casey, is one of the most important Historical Jesus scholars of his generation and Jesus: Evidence and Argument Or Mythicist Myths? complies with Wikipedia policy on reliable sources in every way.

What does Casey 2014 say?

Casey throws his support behind what up to now has been the minority position! He argues for an early date for the composition of the Gospel of Matthew i.e. between 50-60 C.E.

The following is from Casey 2014 p 90

... I therefore conclude that Crossley is right: Mark's Gospel was written c. 40 C.E. < DATES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS: THE GOSPEL ATTRIBUTED TO MATTHEW > The Gospel of Matthew is usually dated c. 75–85 C.E., and the author is considered to be unknown. I have proposed that it should be dated c. 50–60 C.E., and that its author was an unknown Jewish Christian...

My edit is [diff diff]. Note, I am flexible as to the wording as long as the article is written from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Casey 2014 is a reliable source and clearly argues for a composition date between 50 CE - 60 CE. This is very important to historians as it means the Oral period of transmission could be as short as short as 17 years. It follows that the Gospel of Mark was composed around 40 C.E. It also means that Q source and M source were early. Therefore I stand solidly behind my edit. diff I believe PiCo was wrong to delete it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It is difficult to actually place a certain date of composition because multiple sources have different theories of composition. On average, a date between 50 — 110 CE would be the timeline of composition for the gospel. I see 65 — 70 or 75 AD and 85 — 100 or 110 CE, but I would not place the date according to one scholar's view. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the 50 - 60 date is still a minority view...but with a notable scholar such as Casey now backing it...it has become an important minority view! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Still a minority view none the less, and there are many notable scholars. Simply this, the date is not going to be based on a minority or one scholar's point of view. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, PiCo was not wrong to delete it. The talk page discussion is a virtually unanimous consensus (minus one) for keeping the original date range, yet you tried to force your version into the text anyway. That makes three tries now against consensus. Ignocrates (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

On what grounds? Can a group of user accounts working together overrule NPOV, RS and other core policies? - Ret.Prof (talk)

Ret.Prof, Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. A "group of user accounts working together" is six other editors working independently who feel that the article is properly weighted, per WP:WEIGHT vs. one editor filling up the talk page and trying to insert an edit three times against that consensus. There is no NPOV problem. The article already mentions the minority view; it just doesn't mention it with the words you personally like best. Ignocrates (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You guys are the very definition of ‘chutzpah’. You take an edit that is well within Wikipedia guidelines. Then you delete it. When I object, you say the "early date" issue is a red herring. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)