Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Blomberg hype by Lee Strobel

(a) I don't think the Papias bit should be in the lead, since almost no modern textual or historical scholar accepts it at face value. It sits very awkwardly there prose wise.

(b) Craig Blomberg does, of course. But has he written a scholarly analysis of Matthew's historicity on this question that would stand peer review by historians? A good many of the problems of writing religious articles on wikipedia stem from an inordinate desire to fish out material that is a fringe minority view from evangelical professors based in the United States, which virtually no biblical scholar elewhere takes seriously. In any case, the hyped up and extensive note on Blomberg by the creationist booster and journalist Lee Strobel (note 14) is definitely fringey. We don't use the huge 6 volume work of Luz, Davies and Allison, but find room for Blomberg, and even highlight what are (technically indefensible) opinions or 'obiter dicta' from people who may have the requisite Phd, but are not specifically know for their creative analytical participation in the complex problems of biblical textual redaction.

(c) Matthew's position is depicted as within Judaism generally in the lead, but historically this is highly controversial, from Dobschuetz's view he was a converted rabbi to those who argue he was a gentile. Etc.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(a) perhaps Papias would be better moved down to date (I would like to see in the article the Aune comments on date).

(b) no particular opinion, but suspect Blomberg would be a second view.

(c) mainstream sources e.g. Eerdmans commentary on the Bible p1001 James D. G. Dunn, etc 2003 almost all have "In this context the author of the Gospel of Matthew seems to be a Jewish teacher who believes in and follows Jesus". The suggestion of Ernst von Dobschütz (1870-1934) is an elaboration on this, but isn't particulary notable is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Papias would be best discussed in the dating.Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think one should distinguish sources that contain opinions from prominent names within the Christian academic and evangelical community from textual conclusions from scholars, Christian or otherwise, whose life is dedicated to specific studies in Biblical hermeneutics, exegesis and redaction analysis. Blomberg seems to fit the former. It may be just my bias, but I am not particularly impressed by material that does not come from a scholar of classical and semitic languages actively working at the forefront of the technical issues of the history of that time. If we could establish for wiki articles in this area a strong criterion for inclusion on the last grounds, much of the fringey opinionated stuff drops away. With all due respect to Blomberg, as quoted, his opinion is just silly and cannot be anchored in any argument intelligible to an historian. The articles would then represent the best that modern research is producing. Non-religious readers like myself or most of the globe do not want opinions by big names. They want, as PiCo is trying to do, the essential facts and the basic key frames of Matthean scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dobschütz's article 'Matthäus als Rabbi und Katechet,' had a pretty big influence in its day (1928) and is considered important enough to be reprinted, in translation, by Graham N.Stanton in Stanton (ed.) The Interpretation of Matthew, (1983) 2nd.ed T&T Clark, Edinburgh 1995pp.27-38. In his intro.Stanton writes: 'Discussion of von Donschütz's view that the evangelist was a converted rabbi is still very much alive.'(p.4). Pure speculation of course, as is his argument that Matthew writes from the aftermath of Yavneh, and was connected to Jochanan ben Zakkai. But nearly everything here, given the nature of evidence, is speculative. Nishidani (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've cut most of the lead and moved it her to the Talk page (below). We can come back and review the lead when the article itself is satisfactory. As for Matthew's Jewish setting, I also got the impression that this is standard. (See this essay by Luz, p.84). There's a book in the article's bibliography, "What Are They Saying About Matthew?", that might be useful on this, but I haven't looked at it yet. PiCo (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

From my recollection of casually reading on this topic for years and years and contributing extensively here on Wikipedia, I have to say a) I cringe when Strobel is put forth as a reliable source on general content, instead of say minority to fringy positions, and as a rule wouldn't want to see him in the lead (though some of that might be personal bias) and b) I really recall most of my sources agreeing that Matthew is generally considered the Jewish gospel (or most Jewish gospel or what have you). -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

All the gospels come out of Judaism indirectly, and much of the material is understandable as coming, to borrow a phrase from Saldarini, 'active deviant associations and sects within Judaism' (cf. Anthony Saldarini, 'Matthew's Christian Jewish Community', U Chicago Pr 1994 p.84). This formula is particularly true of Matthew, if only because it is important to distinguish here the 'Matthew' associated with a Gospel of the Hebrews, from our Matthew. That is why it is not helpful to speak of a 'Jewish gospel' in regard to the Greek prose, and demotic style of Matthew the evangelist. 'most Jewish' . . well, what was 'Jewish' in those days? Certainly the adjective bore a strong ethno-cultural connotation, but the period of Ist century CE was riven by sectarian movements under the large umbrella of Judaism. Matthew has significant attacks on 'their synagogues', the Pharisees and the Jerusalem elite, and is in a halfway house that can and has been interpreted as either wholly within, or distinctly a step outside the house of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Any ideas on what we can put in the Themes section, and relevant sources?PiCo (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There's so much one might add, given the huge quantity of RS on this. I'd prefer to hang in here, as you revise thoroughly. My compliments on the work so far, by the way. I think it best for others to let you revise it with a completely free hand, and then collectively fine-tune it once your succinct recension is completed. Just one point at the moment, however. In the Themes section we have:-

The cast of thought and the forms of expression employed by the writer show that this Gospel was written by a Jewish Christian of Iudaea Province.

As you know we had an earlier sentence in the lead acknowledging that no one can fix from where Matthew wrote, within or beyond what at that time was the territory of Judaea Province (e.g. Phoenicia, Syria, Alexandria, Edessa, Antioch, etc). Patristic tradition has gotten the upperhand here. Some of our strongest recent commentators however are rather decidedly in favour of Antioch (Luz, Meier, Davies, Allison). Above however we have a very confident assertion that contradicts Davies and Allison's own survey of the scholarly options (Matthew:1-7 pp.138-147)

'the community in which he lived as he wrote his gospel was not, in all probability, in Palestine' (p.141)

They themselves propend towards Syrian Antioch:'while, in our judgement, the Frst Gospel was probably put together for the church of Antioch, this conclusion remains no more than the best educted guess.'(p.147)Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the Matthean community

Please have a look at this section and let me know if I've made any major errors or omissions. PiCo (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a good summary of Davies and Allison, but perhaps needs tweaking to represent the other major recent commentator's opinion, namely Luz, who writes:-

I see the Matthean community as Jewish Christian, originating in Palestine. There the community’s mission to Israel failed, and eventually, probably in the period preceding the Jewish War of 66-70, they were forced to leave the land of Israel. They found a new home in Syria and began to missionize among the Gentiles.’ Ulrich Luz, 'Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew as a Historical and Theological Problem: An Outline,' in U. Luz, Studies in Matthew, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005, ch.12, p.244

What Davies and Allison argue is also Saldarini's conclusion. He writes:-

'This study concludes that the Gospel of Matthew addresses a deviant group within the Jewish community in greater Syria, a reformist Jewish sect seeking influence and power (relatively unsuccessfully) within the Jewish community as a whole.' Anthony Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, University of Chicago Press 1994, p.198

Thanks for the work in the meantime. It gives an excellent basic structure for other editors to work on and finesse for details.Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, Luz definitely needs to go in. Saldarini can quoted just to get away from over-reliance on Senior, but he represents what might be called the Orthodox Church of Davies and Allison, whereas what's needed is major alternatives, like Luz. Does the Luz/Davies pair cover all the major views? PiCo (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A distinction exists here between the community for whom Matthew wrote, and the place where Matthew wrote. The major alternatives for the community for whom Matthew wrote are (a) within Palestine (b) beyond. Luz emphasizes its origins, and Davies-Allison accentuate where it was situated at the time of composition. So you have that covered, it's just a matter of tweaking it to make this distinction. Luz in his 1993 essay details that Matthew's community in his view joined the diaspora in Syria after failing, before the 66-70 war, to convince 'Israel'.

You might say that the association of the Gospel with Antioch in Syria is the traditional view. Luz wrote in the first volume of his commentary:

the Gospel of Matthew does not betray its place of origin. Certainly it was a large Syrian city whose lingua franca was Greek.’ (Matthew: a commentary, Augsburg, 1989 (German original 1985) p.92

In his Festschrift contribution, 'Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew' (1993) he reaffirms that it was written outside of Palestine, but that the community Matthew addressed had some decades before come from there. So really, there is a continuity between their perceptions on where it was written (Greater Syria), a certain nuancing in Luz when it comes to origins. Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, but what exactly is the distinction between "A large Syrian city whose lingua franca was Greek" and "Antioch" - a suggestion of Laodicea? I'm underwhelmed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Papias tweak

Apropos

"Matthew put together (or in some manuscripts, "wrote") the sayings (logia) in the Hebrew dialect and each one translated them as he was able." Modern scholars interpret Papias to mean that Matthew made a collection of Jesus's sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic, which others then translated.

There are two ambiguities in Papias's phrasing, hebraïdi dialéktōi, and the verb hērmēneuse (which we give as 'translated'). As to the former, it has been translated as 'in Hebrew', 'in Aramaic', or 'in the Hebraic/Semitic manner' (meaning that stylistically it has the rhythms of Semitic prose, though in Greek). The last option has been overlooked (which would effectively dispose of a lot of contention, were it true). The second term can be taken to mean 'translated' (as we have) or 'interpreted'. For details see David L. Turner, Matthew, Baker Academic, 2008 pp.15-16 here Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Finished!

Or perhaps I'm just tired of this game. Anyway, please look, check the refs, check the sins of omission and commission, and generally do as you will. (Do you think it could go for GA status?)PiCo (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for the thorough revision, and hard work, you've done to put this page back on a solid footing. I haven't had the time to be of much help, for which I apologize, but when possible, I'll return and give it a closer examination. I certainly think it has strong potential to be lifted to GA level, and the best way to do this is to get a team of us to review it closely. If others can register an interest in pushing it through to that level, then,(many hands make light work), we could organize this as a project at a mutually agreed time. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

PiCo - ditto, I haven't seen such a through and balanced page clean up on Wikipedia. I'd support what Nishidani says about GA, though don't have time unfortunately for next 2 months. That shouldn't stop others. Well done PiCo In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding my voice to those above - this an energetic and admirable effort. Eusebeus (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. It's been a pleasure, I've learned a lot. If anyone cares to take this further, I believe the Themes section is quite weak, as is the section on comparison with other literature, and the Lead needs to be expanded. PiCo (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Current text

The current text says that the Greek text does not sound a though it is translated from Hebrew. This is true, as far as it goes, but see Matthew Black, "An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and the Acts". The third edition seems to be the latest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.45.120 (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I gather that Black argued that there were Aramaic sources behind part of Q - in other words, the words ascribed in Matthew to Jesus himself (or at least some of them). The book is rather old now, but I also gather that it's regarded as very solid. That said, I think that including Black's nuances would take us to a level of detail that Wikipedia isn't really suited to - the Aramaic background to Q seems to me to be a bit abstruse for a readership still trying to come to terms with the very existence of Q. Still, if you can propose how it might be worked in, give us a proposal. PiCo (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

("Casey offers a compelling argument that Aramaic sources behind part of Q are of extremely early date" - maybe this fits better in the article on Q source?)PiCo (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Any written Aramaic-language source for the New Testament (if there even was one, which many scholars doubt) would almost certainly have been a "sayings document", or list of quotations of Jesus, and so somewhat remote from any of the books of the New Testament as we have them. AnonMoos (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No mention is made of the Hebrew edition of Matthew, as studied in some recent scholarly books (Example, "The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus" by Nehemiah Gordon) and the evidence for Hebrew 'word play' in the parables. Shouldn't this information be referenced? 81.110.126.221 (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The following seems to be rather POV:

"The narrative tells how Israel's Messiah, having been rejected by Israel (i.e., God's chosen people), withdrew into the circle of his disciples, passed judgment on those who had rejected him (so that "Israel" becomes the non-believing "Jews"), and finally sent the disciples instead to the gentiles.Luz (1995), p.84 The gospel is nevertheless aimed at a Jewish audience, and its message is that that Jesus was the Messiah; Jesus, not the Law, is now the focus of Jewish identity; and that Jew and gentile are to be brought into the one community.Senior (2001), pp.8-10"

I see that it has been sourced, (Luz and Senior), but the latter seems to contradict the former, and Luz's conclusions appear to be presented as mainstream. Is that the case? A Georgian (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately my google-books access to Luz has now fallen foul of the way pages are subtracted the more you visit, but perhaps you can look at that page for me and tell me if it's being quoted properly. As for Senior, I've still got access to that and our article does seem to reflect his views. Senior also says that Luz's view on the community of Mathew is that it had already made the break with Judaism. I have to say that personally I don't see a conflict/contradiction between these two passages - where do you see it? PiCo (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The contradiction is that the first quote characterizes Jesus as having given up on the Jews, while the second indicates that it was directed to a Jewish audience. I wasn't questioning the source or the accuracy of the quote. Maybe if the quote leads with, "according to Luz" it would be more clearly an informed opinion than implied settled consensus. I also think his first parenthetical odd and the second lacks an antecedent. No big deal; I didn't delete it, I just wanted to bring it to your attention. If it passes your scrutiny, then maybe I'm just "seeing things". A Georgian (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography Needs to be Completely Redone

Has anyone who edited here ever written or paper or gone to college? The current bibliography lists reference articles and texts that are not mentioned or cited at all in the Gospel of Matthew article. If they are not "referenced" for information they should not be in the references section. For unreferenced commentaries, possibly a section or subsection should be created separately. For all others, they should be listed as external links or for further reading... This bibliography is a mess and has virtually no application to the article that is written. Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to take up the sword and edit. It's easy to point out all the things that are "wrong". Ckruschke (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Unlike Luke

"and unlike Luke, who traces" Yeshua's "ancestry back to Adam, father of the human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the Jews" Abraham was the father of the Hebrews, Jews are the people of Kingdom of Yehuda/Judea the desert-mountain southern part of Eretz Yisra'el. Bhug (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Author

On what basis, other than tradition, is the author "most likely St. Matthew"? If none can be offered, it should be removed from the lead or changed to possibly St. Matthew.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The section Gospel_of_Matthew#Authorship_and_sources says that most scholars doubt Matthew's authorship so I'd tend to agree. Elizium23 (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

error in article

The author stated that the apostles were eventually sent to the Gentiles. However, the only apostle that was sent to the Gentiles was Paul. This is stated many times and was clarified in Galatians 2:6-21, that Paul was to go to the Gentiles and Peter and the other 11 apostles were to go to the Jew only. This is the most glaring error that I see but if anyone cares, I would be happy to clarify a few others. thanks, bob Bror0060 (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to this sentence: "Matthew's gospel tells how Israel's Messiah is rejected by Israel, withdraws into the circle of his disciples, passes judgment on those who have rejected him so that "Israel" becomes the non-believing "Jews", and sends the disciples instead to the gentiles.", or another? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Matthew 28:16-20: 16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. ... 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” PiCo (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Another error

According to http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=circumc&searchtype=all&version1=48&language1=en&spanbegin=1&spanend=73&startnumber=26 and http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=gentile&searchtype=all&version1=48&language1=en&spanbegin=1&spanend=73&startnumber=26 , the Gospel of Matthew does not mention anything about circumcision nor about being circumcised. Therefore the claim about allowing uncircumcised people in the church seems phony. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have read the Alison text cited (it is available online at Google Books) and it fully supports the statements preceding. Elizium23 (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Matthew's sources

Burkett (pp.175-6) says the author drew on three "primary" sources - the article bases on that. I assume by "primary" he means "main" rather than "original" or "first-hand". Nothing about this being a "majority" view. If you know of any other view, please let us know - but so far as I'm aware there isn't any other. PiCo (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect introduction

The Wiki introduction to the Gospel of Matthew states that Jesus "passed judgment on those who had rejected him".

Jesus did not pass judgement on anyone.

John 12:47 "And if anyone hers my words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world."

Whoof - I agree - that's a highly biased POV. I'll see if I can "fix" it. I'm sure others will chime in for/against your comment. Ckruschke (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

You were right :).

We can't do Wikipedia on this basis: we have to follow reliable sources, and Luz is very much a reliable source. His four-volume commentary on Matthew is among the most significant of recent works on the gospel (you can look up reviews in RBL and elsewhere), and he's recognised by his peers as a leading specialist. You can't delete material sourced from him on the basis of your own reading of John.

What Luz is saying is this: Jesus began by preaching to Israel (meaning the community of God's chosen people); but the Jews rejected and crucified him; so he turned instead to the previously inferior gentiles (the "nations"), sending his disciples to them instead of to the Jews. (Note the distinction between Israel, the holy community, and Jews, an ethnic group.)PiCo (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I was also touched by this tricky way to say things; "passed judgment on those who had rejected him" seems to refer to a resent personality and it is the author of this part of the article the only one who is passing his own judgement, Jesus was doing a lot more than that. I don't see why Luz in its all wisdom cannot accept to choose his words more carefuly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.32.228.82 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus re Papias

Thank you for allowing the Papias quote! As you remember, I believed it was important to understanding Matthew. I have looked at all the hard work of PiCo, Ckruschke, Carl etc and must say congratulations are in order. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ehrman 2012, Casey 2010 & Edwards 2009

Great article! All we need to do now is add the most recent scholarship. Recently scholars such as Ehrman (2012) pp 98-101, Casey (2010) pp 86-89 and Edwards (2009) pp 2-10 have taken the position that that Matthew collected the Sayings of Jesus and reduced them to writing. All three further state that this Hebrew Gospel is NOT the same as the Gospel of Matthew we have in our Canon.

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman is one of the most formidable Biblical historians of our time. He is the holder of a Distinguished Professorship. Not only is he required reading at most seminaries, but he has managed to hit New York Times best sellers list. In his most recent work Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 98-101 Bart D. Ehrman explains why Papias, who was born in 63 CE and was a Bishop in the Early Church is so very important. Although Ehrman takes the position that Matthew reduced the Oral Tradition to a Hebrew dialect (probably Aramaic) he does not believe that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is the same as the Gospel of Matthew in our Bible. Because there is "a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to" what we call Matthew". Ehrman adds, in fact, what Papias "says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels." The Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew is distinct from the Gospel of Matthew that eventually came to be included in Scripture.p 101 Papias then, is "testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves."P 101

Maurice Casey

Maurice Casey is one of Britain's most noted historians. He is Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham, having served there as Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the Department of Theology. His most recent work Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. p 86-89 supports the aforementioned scholarship. Casey believes that Matthew collected the oral traditions of Jesus and reduced them to writing. "Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down... There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. p 86 Therefore "it is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language."88 Finally, he agrees with Ehrman that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel has no connection with our Gospel of Matthew. "This tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognized." p 87

James Edwards

Unlike Casey and Ehrman, James Edwards is a Christian scholar. He is a Bruner-Welch Professor of Theology, an Ordained Presbyterian minister, a contributing editor of Christianity Today, and member of the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton. In his most recent work the The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 2 he confirms that the Oral Gospel traditions were collected by Matthew and that Matthew wrote them down in the Hebrew Gospel. p3

Then Edwards evaluates the testimony of Papias using the criteria of Casey and Ehrman. Papias is supported by 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Twelve of the Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer, either Christian or Non Christian, challenged these two facts. Google Link - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oral gospel traditions

I added this link because these two articles are sequentially related and we must take care to avoid duplication. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Edits by user Eric Kvaalen

This is for user Eric Kvaalen, who has told me on my personal talk page how upset he is that his hours of work were reverted. I can understand his feelings, and he deserves a respectful answer and explanation. I had intended to put the two edits side by side, but it proved impractical, so I'll give a more general overview.

Firstly, the article is carefully and exhaustively sourced: if the article says, for example, that "Matthew probably originated in a Jewish-Christian community in Roman Syria towards the end of the first century A.D.," that's probably what the source says. If Eric changes this to read that "it is theorised" that Matthew so originated, he's moving away from the source. Possibly the bulk of Eric's edits are of this type.

Secondly, Eric devotes a great deal of his editing to the theory that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (the Hebrew gospel hypothesis). This theory has practically no support among modern biblical scholars, and any coverage at all would be undue weight - in this article we talk about the gospel as understood by modern scholarship, we don't try to argue a case for a view with almost no proponents.

Other edits seem to serve no real purpose that I can see - changing "Jesus travels to Jerusalem" to "Jesus travels towards Jerusalem", for example. I don't object to that sort of edit, but I don't think it's all that valuable, either.

I guess this still seems harsh, but at least it's an explanation with more detail than I could give in an edit summary. The essential point is: we need to respect our sources, and we need to observe the need for giving due weight to various viewpoints. PiCo (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

PiCo, imo, Eric Kvaalen was way too easy on you. In particular, please explain your deletion without discussion of the following reliable sources:

Brown 1997, p. 210-211

Brown 1997, p. 210 "There are medieval Hebrew forms of Matt that most scholars think of as retroversions from the Greek of canonical Matt, often made to serve in arguments between Christians and Jews. However, some claim that these texts are a guide to the original Hebrew of Matt (French scholars like J. Carmignac and M. Dubarle have contributed to this thesis...) Still other scholars think they can reconstruct the original Hebrew or Aramaic underlying the whole or parts of the Greek text of canonical Matt on the assumption that the original was in Semitic... The vast majority of scholars, however, contend that the Gospel we know as Matt was composed originally in Greek and is not a translation of a Semitic original... Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament"

• Brown, Raymond E. (1997). An Introduction to the New Testament. Anchor Bible. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.

Jewish Versions of the Gospel of Matthew" by Craig A. Evans, Mishkan 38 (2003), pp. 70-9

This statement - "This theory has practically no support among modern biblical scholars, and any coverage at all would be undue weight" - is false, as these two modern biblical scholars clearly mention it. How do you justify deleting reliable sources without discussion when their content is clearly relevant to this topic? Ignocrates (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

@Ignocrates, how do you get from "The vast majority of scholars ... contend that the Gospel we know as Matt was composed originally in Greek..." to your charge that I'm wrong to say that there's practically no support for the idea that it was composed in Hebrew? PiCo (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The point, my esteemed colleague, is that reasonable people can disagree about the appropriate weight to apply to this material, but the WP:WEIGHT cannot be zero. Craig A. Evans and Raymond E. Brown are notable scholars, per WP:NOTE, and their published works are not outside the mainstream of scholarship, per WP:FRINGE. Therefore, the simple fact that they mention the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew proves the weight is not zero. There is currently a one-way linkage between Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and this article. It should be restored to a two-way linkage, even if only with a brief mention, to maintain WP:NPOV. Ignocrates (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My answers to PiCo:

The author of a book has the right to say something like "Matthew probably originated in a Jewish-Christian community in Roman Syria towards the end of the first century A.D.". Everybody understands that that is his opinion. It's not a "fact". But in Wikipedia, we have to be more circumspect. There are lots of people who would disagree with the idea that Matthew probably originated in a community in Syria towards the end of the first century. The article gives the point of view of one set of scholars, who by the way tend to look down on those who disagree.

I don't think my edit should have been reverted on the grounds that "a great deal of it was devoted to the theory that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew". I put back in some material that had been deleted years ago. I don't think evidence should be ignored just because a lot of people like to ignore it. I'm not saying that Matthew as we have it today was translated from Hebrew. But I don't think we should simply ignore the work of scholars like Craig A. Evans or the Roman Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission, just because the "in crowd" thinks they've figured it all out.

The reason I changed "Jesus travels to Jerusalem" to "Jesus travels towards Jerusalem" is that the part of the sentence right after that refers to something that happens long before he gets to Jerusalem.

I made many more changes which I can very well defend. I don't see why I have to take the time to defend every single one!

PiCo, by reverting my edit, you even put back the statement that "Matthew agrees with Paul that gentiles did not have to be circumcised in order to enter the church"! As I stated in my edit summary, the Gospel of Matthew never mentions the circumcisions of Gentiles.

Now that other people have edited the article since your reversion, putting back my edits is more work than just reverting your reversion. I'm faced with the choice of spending even more time on this, or just forgetting about it.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

@Eric Kvaalen, my concern is that we use reliable sources, give weight to majority views over minority ones, and avoid original research. I've made a change to the second para of the lead after reviewing the source used for that sentence. You're welcome to do that sort of thing yourself. On "Matthew agrees with Paul that gentiles did not have to be circumcised in order to enter the church", I haven't checked the source, but I suspect that that passage was in the article because it's in the source - in other words, if you took it out because you personally interpret Matthew differently, then you;re doing original research. Finally, I don't give a damn, and you're welcome to do what you want - there's more to life than Wikipedia. PiCo (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to stand with Eric Kvaalen on this one. The edit should not of been deleted without more discussion on the talk page. As was pointed out above, deleting reliable sources without discussion when their content is clearly relevant to this topic goes against Wikipedia policy. Eric Kvaalen's work should be restored and discussed on the talk page. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Note how the policy of verifiability is turned upside down, per WP:BURDEN. All of Eric Kvaalen's content, and the reliable sources that support it, are summarily deleted without discussion, whereas, when Eric questions the sources that show where Matthew discussed circumcision of the Gentiles, he is assured that everything in the article pre-Eric is verifiable and the burden is on him to prove otherwise. I can appreciate the irony of a good tragic-comedy, and this surely is one. Ignocrates (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The quote from Brown clearly supports reverting Eric's edits as WP:UNDUE; Wikipedia does not present fringe views as being mainstream. That's also policy. Besides, for the view that Matthew says that about circumcision there was a source in the article and PiCo assumed it was introduced in good faith. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a b.s. argument. First of all, I produced the quote after the content was deleted, not PiCo. Second, no one said it wasn't a controversial minority view. However, that is different than deleting any mention of it. If it's not worth mentioning, why are reliable secondary sources discussing it? Why is there an independent article on it? Smells like the sulfurous odor of POV to me. Ignocrates (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that Ret.Prof has reverted all the edits since mine. I'm glad for the support, but I think we should look at the edits that have been done since PiCo reverted mine. So I am going to try to do that. If someone wants to edit the result, that's legitimate, but reverting to before Ret.Prof's edit is not. By the way, I think it's stupid to condemn the deletion of a simple erroneous statement (that Matthew talks about circumcision) on the grounds that it's original research! What, are we supposed to be idiots who put anything into the article so long as some source says it, even if it's clearly false? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the the U.D....it was accidental. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I added some material from Ehrman (supported by Casey and Edwards)

The following statement from Papias is now considered to be accurate by Ehrman:

Papias (b. 63 A.D.) Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus (logia) in a Hebrew dialect (en Hebraidi dialecto), and everyone translated (hermeneusen) them to the best of their ability.

Today many scholars believe it is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in a Hebrew dialect, Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 87-88 as the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves. Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101 Indeed, Papias's relevant testimony may have come from the apostolic fountainhead. In any case it is very early within living memory of the apostolic age. James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3 Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Apostolic fountainhead is a buzz-word expression. I suggest it be explained in plain English. Ignocrates (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, in the interests of preventing a revert-war, I suggest you consider a RfC, once you are finished making changes to this section. Ignocrates (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As always the concerns you raise are important. It has been a topic of scholarly debate for some time. I will attempt to address your concerns below. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the point of a WP:RfC is to seek the opinions of the broader community, not use it as an opportunity to further elaborate on your own views. I suggest the Request board as a place to start receiving input to reach a consensus on the proper WP:WEIGHT of this new material. That will reduce the likelihood an opposing editor will simply delete all of it, again. Ignocrates (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I will delete "further elaboration on my own views". I fully support WP:RfC. You are able to see things that I am not! Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sage advice

I reproduce here, from the archived talk page discussion, some sage advice by Paine Ellsworth that relates to the current strife on this page:

For you both (editorial note: both = In ictu oculi and Ret.Prof), it might be a better idea to discuss any major changes to this article here on the Talk page before making your edits, thus to perhaps allow other editors to weigh in on your proposals. It would also be a good gentle reminder that here in Wikipedia, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". So please respond to WP:PRESERVE and be very careful about removing cited referenced text. And when you add new textual claims, you are expected to be able to produce scholarly reference sources for your additions.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  03:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Everyone who has a sincere interest in improving the quality of this article should consider following it. Ignocrates (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Thanks for helping me through a rough patch. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

See my user talk page comments about a way out of this. Ignocrates (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My Edit

My edit is from:

• Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101
• Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 87-88
• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3

- Ret.Prof (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, I'm a bit confused. You are stating that Hebrew Matthew is the original and authentic Gospel of Matthew, correct? There is no text-critical evidence that canonical Greek Matthew was translated from a Hebrew original, so what are we to make of canonical Greek Matthew? Ignocrates (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Another good question. The short answer is no. We must track the reliable sources on the Gospel of Matthew carefully and not go beyond what is in them. My edit "Today, scholars such as Casey believe it is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in a Hebrew dialect, as the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves. Indeed, Papias's relevant testimony may have come from the apostolic fountainhead. In any case it is very early within living memory of the apostolic age." is solidly referenced although it may need a bit of work. Any OR must be deleted. If we get consensus then I plan to move on to "Possible earlier versions of the Gospel of Matthew". I have been reading material and it will be challenging! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what "the short answer is no" means. Just give me the short synopsis. Are you saying this Hebrew Matthew is (a) a lost gospel, or (b) the source from which canonical Greek Matthew was translated, against all text-critical evidence, or (c) something else? Ignocrates (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not give "my opinion" on Wikipedia. I truly believe that the opinions of editors are not important and can be counterproductive. What is important are the reliable sources. All the positions you mentioned above have some support and some opposition. It is our job to write an article from a NPOV. Also, to be quite honest my views are evolving. Obviously I have been impressed by Ehrman, Casey and Edwards and believe their scholarship has a place at Wikipedia! Hence the conflict. Thanks again for all your work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, an evasive answer. Of course, I was referring to a synopsis based on your understanding of the secondary sources you have been repeatedly citing - Ehrman, Casey, and Edwards - that you referenced in the article. If you are now claiming you don't understand them, why are you adding content to the article based on them? Ignocrates (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I applied a POV-tag to the section you created until you respond with a straight answer. Based upon your understanding of the sources you are citing, are you adding and do you intend to add content to this article stating that Hebrew Matthew is (a) a lost gospel, or (b) the source from which canonical Greek Matthew was translated, against all text-critical evidence, or (c) something else? Ignocrates (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You added a POV TAG because I refuse to push a POV? In any event, I am not trying to be evasive. I will try to be more direct. Most scholars believe that (a) Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew has been lost. (b) Greek Matthew is related to the Hebrew Gospel (but it is not a translation due to text-critical evidence). Parker takes an interesting position. See diagram (c) I like Papias because his comments support a chaotic model of the 'Q' material. Papias attributed the collection of Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/ interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. I do intend to add content material from Casey's section entitled The Gospel according to Matthew pp 86-93 and hope it will be helpful to this article. Sorry for frustrating you but this is the best I can do at present. In any event my edit "Today, scholars such as Casey believe it is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in a Hebrew dialect, as the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves. Indeed, Papias's relevant testimony may have come from the apostolic fountainhead. In any case it is very early within living memory of the apostolic age." is solidly referenced Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101, Maurice Casey, 2010. pp 87-88 and James R. Edwards, 2009. pp 2-3 although it may need a bit of work. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Two problems I see with the Composition section of this article are WP:SOAP and WP:SCOPE. The first point is evident in this self-deleted talk page diff. The Hebrew Matthew content is vastly over-weighted compared to the text-critical hypotheses of modern scholars. That brings me to the second point. This article is about the canonical Gospel of Matthew; it is not about all possible lost or theoretical gospels and sayings sources that may have been associated with authorship by Matthew. There are other articles for those things already, specifically, Hebrew Gospel hypothesis for scholarly hypotheses about lost and theoretical Aramaic or Hebrew Gospels of Matthew, and Hebrew Gospel of Matthew for Rabbinic translations of the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Consequently, locating material about the aforementioned topics here, beyond, perhaps, a tiny mention for wiki-linking purposes, creates a WP:CFORK that needs to be addressed. The POV-tag stays in place until all of this mess is cleaned up. Ignocrates (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally... at long last...I have actually figured out your concerns...the penny has dropped...my eyes have been opened! Sorry for being so dim witted. Maybe I should change my user name from "Ret.Prof" to "Ret.Twit" ! I agree that the Composition section needs work. Also should the Papias quote even be a part of the Gospel of Matthew?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you have misread Ehrman's standpoint. Here is an outline of what he taught for The Great Courses (quoted from the handbook of the course The Historical Jesus): Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

“ II. The titles of the Gospels name their authors as two of the disciples, Matthew (the tax collector) and John (the son of Zebedee), and two friends of the apostles, Mark (the secretary of Peter) and Luke (the traveling companion of Paul).

A. Scholars have reasons to doubt these traditional ascriptions. 1. If Matthew actually wrote a book about Jesus’ words and deeds, he most likely would have called it something like “The Gospel of Jesus Christ” or “The Life and Death of Our Savior.” Whoever labels this text the “Gospel according to Matthew” is trying to explain whose version of Jesus’ story this one is. 2. Moreover, we know that the original manuscripts of the Gospels did not have their authors’ names attached to them. B. Even more significantly, none of the Gospels claims to be written by an eyewitness. 1. For example, even though someone named Matthew is mentioned in Matt. 9:9, nothing in that verse indicates that he’s the person writing the account. Furthermore, nowhere in the Gospel does the author indicate that he was personally involved in the events that are described. 2. Even verse (21:24), indicates that the author was not the eyewitness, but based his account on the report of an eyewitness. 3. In sum, the New Testament Gospels were written anonymously. C. The earliest readers of the Gospels found their authors’ names to be unimportant. D. The first time an ascription can be found comes from about AD 120–30 in the writings of an obscure author named Papias. 1. Papias claimed that the apostle Peter would speak about Jesus’ words and deeds as the occasion demanded, and that Mark, his secretary, later wrote the stories down but “not in order.” Papias said he received this information from an elderly Christian. 2. Papias also claimed that the Matthew wrote the sayings of Jesus in Hebrew and that “everyone interpreted them as they could.” He says nothing about Luke or John. E. This tradition from Papias must be considered seriously, even though there is no way to know for sure, because Papias doesn’t quote the Gospel of Mark. 1. Still, Papias emphasizes that the author of the Gospel was not an eyewitness. 2. The earliest we can trace this Mark tradition is to AD 110–120 (Papias’s elderly informant)—that is, almost a half-century after Mark was written. There is no other supporting evidence. 3. Papias tells us that Matthew’s book comprised only “sayings” of Jesus (our Matthew contains a lot more than that) and it was written in Hebrew (not Greek, as our version came down to us). Papias does not appear, therefore, to be referring to this book. F. Apart from this tradition in Papias, we don’t hear anything about the identity of the writers until near the end of the second century AD.

”

Yes but Ehrman (2012) pp 98-101 goes into much more detail showing Matthew composed a gospel in Hebrew but that it was very different from our Greek version of Matthew. See also Composite Authorship - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Authorship

Par. 3

The Blackwells article on the Gospel of Matthew explains that the Papias tradition about Matthew is generally "held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. p 301 and "Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic" Blackwells 2010 p 302 It is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language." Maurice Casey, 2010. pp 87-88 The Papias tradition "is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves." Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101 (ie the apostolic fountainhead) "It is in any case very early, within living memory of the apostolic age." James R. Edwards, 2009. pp 2-3

I have also noted your numerous other concerns raised above (ie "apostolic fountainhead" etc) and revised the material accordingly. The revised edit reads "Modern scholars now believe the Papias tradition to be fairly trustworthy and usually interpret the tradition to mean Jesus' disciple Matthew had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic. Maurice Casey states that it is "genuinely true" that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in a Hebrew dialect, as the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.

I have a few comments about your citation format: (1) Dennis C. Duling is the author of the chapter you cited; David E. Aune is the editor. I have fixed this citation. (2) Casey and Edwards are not even in the list of sources. (3) We don't link to websites in citations of books as sources: they include a name, year, and page numbers. That's all. Ignocrates (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE concern

This is WP:FRINGE and PiCo was right to revert it and other editors wrong to restore it. A 1385 translation from Latin to Hebrew by Ibn Shaprut has no place in this article, it belongs in Rabbinical translations of Matthew.

We should not have to keep deleting the same WP:FRINGE content every 12 months. If someone wants to develop James R. Edwards The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition 2009 and Edwards' "Papias's testimony comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead." then that can be done in James R. Edwards. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have removed Edward's "apostolic fountainhead" as well as the "1385 translation" from the article. I also revised the wording to fall in line with the suggestions made at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Finally I added a statement of fact from Blackwell (2009) p 602 - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of material without references

I agree that material at Wikipedia needs to be supported by reliable sources. I further agree that an extensive discussion of the Jewish Christian Gospels including the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazoraeans, the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew which have almost nothing to do with the Gospel of Matthew are not a good fit for this article. Therefore I have deleted the following:

• There are numerous testimonies, starting from Papias and Irenaeus, that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew letters and in the "Hebrew dialect", which is thought to refer to Aramaic. The sixteenth century Erasmus was the first to express doubts on the subject of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." Here Erasmus distinguishes between a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew letters and the partly lost Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, from which patristic writers do quote, and which appear to have some relationship to Matthew, but are not identical to it. The Gospel of the Ebionites also has a close relationship to the Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, and hence some connection to Matthew. The similarly named Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew has almost nothing to do with Matthew, however, and instead is a combination of two earlier infancy Gospels.

If you have any other concerns, let me know and if I am unable to find reliable sources to support my edit I will promptly delete the material. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved

I moved the following material from "Possible earlier versions of the Gospel of Matthew" to "Modern theories" as it seemed a better fit.

• Most contemporary scholars, based on analysis of the Greek in the Gospel of Matthew and use of sources such as the Greek Gospel of Mark, conclude that the New Testament Gospel of Matthew was written originally in Greek and is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (Greek primacy). If they are correct, then the Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome possibly referred to a document or documents distinct from the present Gospel of Matthew. A smaller number of scholars, including the Roman Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission, believe the ancient writings that Matthew was originally in Aramaic, arguing for Aramaic primacy.

- Ret.Prof (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed Tags

I have deleted those edits that have given rise to the tags. Feel free to restore, if you still have concerns. Remember Tags must be specifically supported by WP policy and reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Deviant group within the Jewish community in greater Syria

I also agree that this section went into way to much detail. Two problems I see with this section are WP:SOAP and WP:SCOPE. Although scholars do speculate as to where the Gospel of Matthew was composed, there is no way we can be sure. The internal evidence is all over the place while the external evidence points to Jerusalem or Judea. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The striking and incontestable fact!

The Blackwell Companion series in its study of the historical evidence re Matthew, now points to a "striking and incontestable fact. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship and composition of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was the first written, that it was written in the Hebrew language," Blackwell (2009) p 602 and even in the subscriptions to Arabic and Syriac manuscripts of Matthew, we find consistent corroboration, Blackwell (2009) p 602 for example:

• Here ends the Gospel of the Apostle Matthew. He wrote it in the land of Palestine, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the Hebrew language, eight years after the bodily ascension of Jesus the Messiah into heaven, and in the first year of the Roman Emperor Claudius Caesar. Blackwell (2009) p 602

The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. Blackwell (2009) p 602 In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these two facts. Edwards (2009) p 259, p 102 & p 117.

- Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I have a slight issue with this section in how it is worded and sourced. The text in question is this:

The historical data is both "striking and incontestable". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another."

My issue is that the article is presenting this as a "striking and incontestable" fact without referencing possible bias in the source. When I read the paragraph, my immediate question was, "According to whom?" When I looked up the source, it turned out to be a book on theology, and given the subject matter, it is easy to assume that the authors would have some motivation for putting forward this particular model for the origin of the New Testament. That being said, I don't think it is a bad source necessarily. My opinion is that we should add an in-text attribution to make it a bit more clear (as per Wikipedia:INTEXT). Ideally, we could cite an opposing view concurrently, to give the full breadth of thought on the issue. Honestly, I have the same issue with citation 16, but that will be for another time.

Thanks - Ljpernic (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Most interesting!...at first I agreed with you. However, it is not possible to reference a "possible bias" or "cite an opposing view", because it is a "statement of fact". To your question "According to whom?" the answer is everyone. No scholar has opposed the "striking and incontestable fact! The statement is supported in a detail by James Edwards who does the math! In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these two facts. Edwards (2009) p 259, p 102 & p 117.

Conclusion: Some scholars such as Casey and Ehrman (see above) argue that the facts show that Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel while other scholars have yet to be won over by the New Scholarship.

However, I do agree that the following from the Blackwell Companion series has no place in the article: To those cynical of excavations of imaginary strata in an imaginary source document, the external evidence looks like a rock in a weary land. And indeed, if we go back to the door of that library at Harvard and listen closely, we can hear a few ... is POV and probably contains original research. I do concur that it has no place at Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Translation verses Composite Authorship

Some, including the Roman Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission, believe that the Gospel of Matthew is simply a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. However there are real problems with this position. First the subscriptions to the early MSS are more consistent with composite authorship than a translation. Jerome confirms this, as there are discrepancies between the Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew. In a letter to Pope Damasus, Jerome explains 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 letters. 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.

Today, most scholars embrace composite authorship (See Two-source hypothesis, Four document hypothesis & Diagram) Since the publication of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, and a variety of other Aramaic documents written in the ancient world, this "present generation of scholars have had the opportunity to make massive progress." Casey (2010) p 108. We now have a much clearer idea of the " the nature of authorship in Second Temple Judaism. Composite authorship was common, and so was the attribution of documents to the fountainheads of traditions." Casey (2010) p 88. As Jerome testifies the Apostle Matthew was the fountainhead of the Greek Gospel of Matthew which is of composite authorship in the same sense as many ancient Jewish works, such as the books of Isaiah and Jubilees. Casey (2010) p 89 (See also Fountainhead and Sources of Matthew) - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Toned down the anti-Semitism

I had difficulty with this statement in the lead "Israel's Messiah, having been rejected by Israel (i.e., God's chosen people) passes judgment on those who had rejected him (so that "Israel" becomes the non-believing "Jews"), and finally sends the disciples to preach to the gentiles. "

I think the editor misread Luz who is actually talking about the "leaders" and the "judgment on Israel's leaders". In any event I toned it down. Please let me know if I went too far. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Composition and setting

WP:SCOPE

The scope of an article is the topic or subject matter, which is defined by reliable sources. The extent of the subject matter identifies the range of material that belongs in the article, and thus also determines what does not belong (i.e., what is "out of scope"). The reliable sources See List on the Canonical Gospel of Matthew such as Blackwells 2010, The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church 2013, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia of the historical Jesus 2008, and New Catholic Encyclopedia devote a section to Papias, translation and composite scholarship. For more in debth look at some of this scholarship the following links have been added: the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, the Two-source hypothesis, the Four document hypothesis & Diagram

It is also important to note, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Tertiary sources may be used but with care. Encyclopedias etc. cost a great deal to produce. At Wikipedia we are producing our own encyclopedia based on secondary sources, not copy editing the costly work of others. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Bromiley source

I don't have time to go into this, but from the few checks I've made, the page numbers given for Bromiley don't match up with the passages sourced from him in the article. PiCo (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad that you came out of retirement! The Bromiley ref was essentially correct but whoever did it was a bit sloppy. I fixed it and hope that the editor who first cited it does not take offense. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the reference. I promised myself I would avoid this article, but I couldn't stand it. Please use proper citation formatting. Ignocrates (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Continued WP:FRINGE

I've reverted the addition of Hebrew Gospel hypothesis as the "main" link for composition, but what is the solution to these continued edits? It seems evident that Ret Prof is determined to push what is only notable as WP:FRINGE view into this and other high visibility articles? What's the solution to this? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Please provide some reliable sources to support your edit that the Hebrew gospel hypothesis is fringe. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem:

Pheme Perkins Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels -2007 Page 197 "The hypothesis that a Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew tradition has been detected in new Gospel fragments continues to surface on the fringes of scholarship today. It was first proposed by the second-century Christian author Papias, who ...

Now, other editors, what is the solution to the continuing edits on this article? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That is good enough to support your edit. For my full response please go Hebrew Gospel hypothesis where must try to work through this topic from a NPOV. There are reliable sources on both sides of this issue so we may need outside help. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV means keeping fringe material out of a major article like Gospel Matthew - none of your material has any place in this article. Yourself and previous advocates of "Original Matthew" theories have tried repeatedly to insert the theory into this article and it has been repeatedly removed. And yet here you are filling the Talk page with more advocacy for this theory. What will it take to stop this? Are you ever going to accept that this fringe theory does not deserve a prominent place in major New Testament articles on en.wp? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So we're back at this game are we? What has changed since the last time we reviewed the question at hand (see the archive for relevant discussion? Are we doing the old, look at all these wonderful WP:RS which exempts the material from the WP:FRINGE requirement again? That dog won't hunt and since we have been over this extensively before, rehashing old arguments is a variant of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which is in turn a form of WP:DISRUPT, which leads us all traipsing over to WP:ANI to ask for a topic or article ban. OTOH, if there has been a shift in the scholarly consensus that now accepts the Hebrew hypothesis (of which I am unaware), then the article should incorporate the theory. Eusebeus (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Eusebeus, exactly. Unfortunately with User:PiCo semi-retired, User:History2007 retired, User:DougWeller on leave, I'm not sure how we can do this. One thing is clear, RetProf's firm conviction that the WP:TRUTH is that the "real" Gospel of the "real" Matthew is lurking in Hebrew fragments is just not going to go away. This is more than adequately covered in the article on the fringe theory, a single link is sufficient, but will RetProf accept not making a case for the theory in Gospel of Matthew article itself? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked over the previous discussion, so I refrain from commenting on it. However, there doesn't seem to be anything in this thread itself which seems to remotely indicate that the theory meets WEIGHT requirements for this page. Eusebeus said above that there seems to be good cause to think that this qualifies as Disruptive or Tendentious editing, and, based on the material presented here, I would have to probably agree. FWIW, I tend to think that the best way to proceed is to review the other extant reliable sources of a type similar to wikipedia itself, which generally means "reference" works of a dictionary/encyclopedia type, and see how much weight they give the material in the main article for this topic itself. If it is mentioned at length in other articles there, that is another question irrelevant to the discussion for including material on this topic in this article, but is relevant to inclusion of such material in articles of a similar subject as those articles in those books. Yeah, I have seen some articles in some encyclopedias run to 40 pages or more in print, and no, not everything in those hugely long articles necessarily qualifies for inclusion in our shorter articles here, although they might be relevant to other articles here. If the proponents of this change can produce evidence which clearly indicates that this topic has received coverage in content directly relating to the Gospel of Matthew itself, like encyclopedic articles in print sources, that it might proportionately merit the same rough proportional level of coverage here, that would seem to me to be the way to indicate the material should be included here. Can anyone point to evidence of this topic getting enough attention in other sources to meet WEIGHT requirements here for this particular topic and article? John Carter (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

?????????????? Now I am a really confused old guy! I remember Casey, Ehrman etc being debated "as fringe" in Oral Gospel traditions, the heated discussion on the talk page as well as the fringe notice board discussion (consensus Ehrman not fringe) and I even remember some discussion with User:Smeat75, User:Paul Barlow User:Salimfadhley, User:IRWolfie-, User:Eric Kvaalen, User:Shii and User:Stephan Schulz, BUT I have no recollection of a "Fringe debate" on Ehrman, Casey, Blackwell etc re the Gospel of Matthew?? Nor was it ever brought to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ?? In any event see below. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Part of your confusion seems to be based on your apparent insistence to misrepresent the statements of others. Your claim above that somehow Ehrman is counted as "fringe" was so far as I can see in no way said by anyone other than yourself, and attempting to misrepresent the statements of others is and generally has been a rather serious violation of conduct guidelines. I seem to once again be put in the situation to tell the above editor that the primary concerns for wikipedia editors are regarding their conduct, and that such problematic conduct as attempting to start straw man arguments, like the one above, are and I think always have been seen as problematic. Now, Ret. Prof., if it isn't too hard for you to do so, do you think it would be possible for you to actually read and perhaps directly respond to the statement I made, rather than engaging in such off-topic statements which probably have little if any place here? If you can demonstrate that, per policies and guidelines, this material is of sufficient importance to meet WP:WEIGHT requirements, which are different from WP:FRINGE requirements, despite what you seem to have asserted above, no one would object to seeing this. However, as per WP:BURDEN, the onus of proof falls on you, and engaging in such useless commentary as the one above does not in any way contribute to others getting the impression that you are giving the appropriate degree of concern to your own conduct, which is in fact the primary reason that editors are brought before various review bodies. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, a query about this topic has been raised on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard‎. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It was you who raised the query. I am just alerting other editors here about a discussion in another place. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry got that out of order. Is this better?- Ret.Prof (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

You have made a number of good points. Indeed I agree with most of what you have said. I particularly appreciate your statement "OTOH, if there has been a shift in the scholarly consensus that now accepts the Hebrew hypothesis (of which I am unaware), then the article should incorporate the theory." Being open and fair-minded is so very important to working through a difficult topic! The Fringe issue seems to revolve around the following sources:

• David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303
• William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602
• Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101
• Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88
• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3

One group of good faith editors feel so very, very strongly that the above scholars are wrong and push what is only notable as WP:FRINGE view and that NPOV means keeping fringe material out of a major article like the Gospel of Matthew - the Blackwell Companion, Ehrman, Edwards and Casey have no place in this article! This scholarship represents a dog that won't hunt and therefore such scholarship was rightly deleted from this article.

vs

The other side believes that the Blackwell Companion (2009 2010), Ehrman (2012), Edwards (2009) and Casey (2010) represent the best and most up to date scholarship on the Gospel of Matthew. All are respected in the academic community representing the cutting edge of critical studies.

I think we all agree with In ictu oculi that the time has come to resolve this conflict.

1. Are the Blackwell Companion (2009 2010), Ehrman (2012), Edwards (2009) and Casey (2010) fringe?
2. Does the scholarship re the Hebrew (Aramaic) authorship of the Gospel of Matthew fall under the category of WP:Fringe theories?

Accordingly I have posted a request on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard to guide us through this challenging topic. Thanks again for all the good work you do.- Ret.Prof (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

On the question of fringe theories, I think the problem is in the written article text, not the sources used to support its claims. The references are properly cited, and none of these experts are fringe writers. It is the use they are put to that is a fringe view, and their use to construct an argument is original research.

Craig does not have much weight in this argument. He is an apologist, not a biblical scholar, and he supports a highly conservative view that argues, using Papias, that the Gospel of Matthew was either composed by, or directly based on, this "Hebrew Gospel". None of the other scholars agree with this, and Casey describes it as 'complete nonsense'.

Aune summarises the consensus view - that the early Christian movement, following Papias, believed the Gospel of Matthew to be the same as the 'Hebrew Gospel'. It is clear that he does not agree with this: “Papias’ description does not correspond well with the New Testament”. There is nothing to suggest that he believes the 'Hebrew Gospel' was an actual document.

Casey, as noted, dismisses the traditional authorship of the Gospel of Matthew as complete nonsense, but he appears to be open to the idea that the Q source used by both Matthew and Luke included elements written by the original apostle, and that Matthew had, or made, a better translation of it from Aramaic into Greek.

Ehrman, again, summarises the consensus view, that the attribution of any part of the Gospel of Matthew to the text mentioned by Papias is simply false: "there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. … he appears to be referring to other writings”. He leaves open the existence of a lost 'Hebrew Gospel'. He makes the point nevertheless that Papias claimed to have met people who knew the historical Jesus (which is what his book is about), and that much is probably true.

Edwards argues that the Papias account is so widely reported that it is probably correct, that the Hebrew Gospel existed, and that it was used by Luke, not Matthew.

How anyone can imagine that any of this supports the theory that there has been a profound shift in biblical scholarship is beyond me. Aune and Ehrman represent the mainstream view, and where Casey and Edwards may differ from this, they come to very different and contradictory conclusions. I cannot see why any of this would be relevant to an article about what we call the Gospel of Matthew. None of these writers suggest that if the document Papias says Matthew wrote existed, it forms a part (except indirectly) of our modern Gospel of Matthew. I can see no reason to include this reference in the article. This is why I have reverted the large section that was there - a plain reading of which would suggest that modern scholars had changed their mind and now thought the tax collector Matthew wrote the Gospel. Which is, as Casey says, complete nonsense. --Rbreen (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with your revert! And I agree with you that Casey, Ehrman and Edwards now accept that Papias was correct and Matthew composed a gospel in Hebrew! This is truly a major shift in the scholarship. I also agree that they do not believe that the Canonical Gospel of Matthew was a translation of theHebrew Gospel as some conservatives still argue. Casey in particular makes the case for composite scholarship which Matthew was the fountainhead! Re the Gospel of Matthew, most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. They present both those who support and oppose Papias. We should follow the reliable sources and also write our article from NPOV Google Books Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You're making points out of thin air. You should draw conclusions from what mainstream scholars say, not from what you would wish that they say or from what they don't say. You have misrepresented the sources and pretended that they say what they actually disagree with (with the exception of the apologist). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read carefully what I have written. I DID NOT write that "Casey, Ehrman and Edwards accept that Papias was correct and Matthew composed a gospel in Hebrew". Edwards thinks the original Matthew wrote a text, which was substantial enough to be called a gospel; Casey seems to think it possible that Matthew's text was a part of Q, but that implies a collection of sayings, not a gospel; Ehrman doesn't say either way. That is very different to what you claim, and certainly does not amount to a major shift in scholarship. That is just YOUR interpretation, and it is original research.--Rbreen (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

In any event, Papias does not seem to provide us with the kind of information we can place a lot of confidence in. I should point out, in this connection, that scholars have almost uniformly rejected just about everything else that Papias is recorded to have said in the surviving references to his work.

...

If scholars are inclined to discount what Papias says in virtually every other instance, why is it that they sometimes appeal to his witness in order to show that we have an early tradition that links Matthew to one of our Gospels, and Mark to another? Why do these scholars accept some of what Papias said but not all of what he said? I suspect it is because they want to have support for their own points of view (Matthew really wrote Matthew) and have decided to trust Papias when he confirms their views, and not trust him when he does not.

The result of this quick examination of Papias is, I think, that he passes on stories that he has heard, and he attributes them to people who knew other people who said so. But when he can be checked, he appears to be wrong. Can he be trusted in the places that he cannot be checked? If you have a friend who is consistently wrong when he gives directions to places you are familiar with, do you trust him when he gives directions for someplace you’ve never been?

Papias is not recorded as having said anything about either Luke or John. I’m not sure why. But the bottom line is this: we do not have any solid reference to the authors of our four Gospels in which we can trust (for example, that the author is actually referring to our Matthew and our Mark) until closer to the end of the second century—nearly a full hundred years after these books had been anonymously placed in circulation.

— Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 107-110

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Casey says that the composition of the Gospel of Matthew was 'composite' - not an especially controversial or innovative suggestion; he does not say that 'Matthew' was the "fountainhead" - that is your interpretation. Edwards says that if the John that Papias mentions was John the Apostle, then the testimony of Papias 'comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead' - and then says he thinks that unlikely. You are simply cherrypicking words and ideas to fit into your own view, which is not expressed by any of the sources you cite. This is original research.--Rbreen (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. Ehrman 2013 p 100 Quoted by Ret.Prof (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an academic debate that should be described in the article. A "fringe theory" is one that is outside of the responsible literature entirely. If Ehrman et al. cover it, that is at least grounds to mention it. Shii (tock) 23:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Imo, this discussion is about WP:SCOPE and WP:WEIGHT. There is no WP:FRINGE here, other than a faux-fringe argument some people are attempting to use to shut-off the discussion. Imo, the best solution would be to have another go at an WP:RFC, but this time with broad community participation, so that it isn't written-off immediately as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Ignocrates (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Btw, this discussion was continued on Jimbo's talk page. I point it out only as an fyi. Ignocrates (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I must be rather dim-witted because I cannot figure out for the life of me what Ret. prof wishes to advance as an argument. You want to state that The historical data is both striking and incontestable. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. This is a WP:FRINGE view as evidenced by the fact that scholars (including some you cite above in favour of this view) explicitly reject this idea (e.g. Ehrman). Taking this topic to the Fringe noticeboard is absurd, misguided and frankly smacks of an attempt to WP:GAME.

This is disruptive editing: instead of raising a serious content issue, you are merely obfuscating, as evidenced by the fact that you offer scholarship that directly contradicts your contention. The Papias claim should be mentioned, and indeed it is - nicely - in the first paragraph of the article along with an explanation of why scholars have come to the conclusion that Papias should not be used as evidence for a proto-Matthew in Hebrew. That reflect the scholarly consensus - et ça suffit!

So let me say this. Wasting editors time with this kind of cavilling nonsense is disruptive and uncivil. If you would like to craft a nice paragraph that notes how scholars have come to reject Papias' claims of a Hebrew original while mentioning that there is some scholarship that has tried to maintain the theory is fine. Statements like "Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect" is, however, FRINGE-laden OR.

Do we really need an RfC to determine that scholarly consensus rejects the idea of an original Hebrew Matthew gospel? No, because we can read. What we do need is a way to prevent disruptive editing from consuming the time of editors who, having committed to engage in good faith, are forced to take time to note that citing material that explicitly rejects the idea an editor is trying to promote, and having this advanced as a "shift in consensus", is nonsensical to the point of incomprehensibility.

In other words: you're being rude. So stop. Eusebeus (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Eusebius, I suggested an WP:RFC because Wikipedia works, for better or worse, by building WP:CONSENSUS. Ignocrates (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, please be advised that I suggested an WP:RFC/U for Ret.Prof on Dougweller's talk page User_talk:Dougweller/Archive 26#Propose an RfC/U for Ret.Prof, and my suggestion was either explicitly rejected or ignored. Imo, this is a necessary step in the dispute resolution process preceding any involvement by WP:ANI. Ignocrates (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right about RFC as a process for consensus, and we can go through one and confirm the view that fringe theories are just that. And RFC/U may be a better route given that this is about one editor whose engagement is repeatedly disruptive. Eusebeus (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I think we should do both at the same time. It takes two editors and an active dispute to initiate an RFC/U. We have several editors engaged in disputes with Ret.Prof at the moment, so I can't think of a better time to do this. As I said the first time I proposed it, I consider the purpose of this RFC/U to be instructional. We have an opportunity as a group to explain to Ret.Prof what he is doing wrong and how he can improve going forward. The unspoken assumption of this good advice is that it's a last warning. Ignocrates (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Ret.Prof's talk page indicates he is on an indefinite break. The same thing happened last time. Ignocrates (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Solution to Fringe

User:Eusebeus and User:In ictu oculi ask above what can be done about continued fringe inclusions. What we need is a right to revert single-handedly, without being guilty of edit-warring, any inclusions of claims of Hebrew/Aramaic primacy before there is a consensus on the talk page for such an inclusion. I'm not sure what is needed to allow this: Would Wikipedia:General_sanctions have to apply? Or can something less serious help? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Atethnekos - I would think that the prevalence of sources saying the language is Greek, justify the removal. If Aramaic is mentioned (and I thought it was) it should be to dismiss it as fringe. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It might not be unreasonable to add some hidden text in the coding of the article to the effect that there should be consensus on the talk page for adding any claims regarding Hebrew or Aramaic primacy in advance, and, maybe, starting some sort of FAQ page to link to on the talk page here which might include that topic. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would support something to this effect. How much casual, good faith drive by edits do we see pushing the Aramaic/Hebrew hypothesis? If it's common enough, a pointer to earlier discussions and an FAQ may be salutary. Eusebeus (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also support, good idea. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

An easy way to manage drive-by editors of this type would be to ask AN (not AN/I) to apply a 1RR edit restriction in a 24 hour period to anyone that edits the page. There is no edit warring with a general 1RR, and since the restriction applies uniformly, it doesn't require convincing them of the correctness of your side of the content dispute. Many regular editors patrol this page, so that restriction should not be too burdensome. Ignocrates (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

May be an additional good idea. Might not help with IPs and sockpuppets. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources

(‘’Moved from my talk page’’)

I have not looked in at wikipedia for a few months for various reasons but did so today and see this discussion. I must say that in my opinion John Carter's statements about Bart Ehrman do not show a grasp of the policy he quotes, WP:RS, which states at the very beginning "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Ehrman is certainly "authoritative" on his subjects and the information from my edit in April quoted above is now a little out of date as he has two more forthcoming books on the New Testament to be published by Oxford University Press,[[1]]. It is disturbing to me that a powerful admin such as I believe John Carter to be seems to think he can decide that a respected authority with seventeen books published by OUP is a "questionable" source because he writes "popular books". It seems to me from what John Carter says that his attitude is really a case of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT and therefore he thinks it should not be here. Regards, Smeat75 (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Ret. Prof. had himself already agreed in a separate discussion thread that Ehrman's popular works do not meet the level of scholarship indicated for WP:RS. And, yes, I also agree with several articles I have seen in academic journals, and even as I remember Ehrman himself in one interview, that popular literature in general is geared for a popular audience, tends to undergo thorough review and suggested changes to make it more appealing to the popular audience, and often winds up being something which, maybe in some cases, the author himself wouldn't necessarily support as being of optimal academic quality. Such popular material has material motivation to some extent as well, and the packaging and sometimes weight of material in such books is sometimes strongly influenced by editors looking for optimal profit. Personally, I read just about everything Ehrman writes, because his material is among the most accessible and easily understood out there. I first encountered him with his lectures from The Teaching Company, honestly, and was very impressed there as well. But popular sources are in general less well regarded than academic sources, and if we can find an academic source which says what Ehrman says, they would be the better sources. If Ehrman says something that academic sources don't say, then there might be a problem, and I think it not unreasonable that such information isn't necessarily acceptable simply on the basis of Ehrman having said it, particularly on central articles whose encyclopedic articles elsewhere sometimes run to over 40 or even 100 pages. However, yes, I believe it not unreasonable to say that a source can be "questionable" for use by us as per WP:RS if the source is not an academic source. Also, FWIW, I think I remember somewhere urging people to read Action Philosophers!, a comic book of all things, because it according to its reviews and my own experience of having read it does a better job of more clearly and straightforwardly presenting the thought of some philosophers, like Wittgenstein, than many or most of the academic sources. The same can be said for Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the Universe. Now, in general, except for perhaps particularly wonderfully phrased comments expressing a point more clearly and effectively than other sources, I do think that, in general, they shouldn't be used here either. Unlike some other academics, like James Tabor, so far as I can see Ehrman submits his work to academic journals for review, and in general receives good reviews. I believe that it might have been better had Smeat75 actually reviewed the prior discussion on this topic by Ret. Prof. and myself, which he apparently had not done, and also perhaps reviewed the rather inflammatory comments made by Ret. Prof. in which he clearly refused to AGF others regarding their reservations about including this material in an article. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is probably not the right place,another user's talk page, to continue this discussion, however I cannot help but ask if you think Oxford University Press (publisher of seventeen books by Bart Ehrman) and Harvard University Press (publisher of two) are publishers of "popular books?" If Oxford University Press and Harvard University Press are not "academic sources" then what is? Also as the WP article on Ehrman says: Ehrman is a leading New Testament scholar, having written and edited over twenty-five books, including three college textbooks and WP:RS says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." The "popular books" by Ehrman you refer to are only a small portion of his output and the only difference between them and the academic works is that they do not have scholarly apparatus such as a lot of footnotes and references. Writing NYT best-sellers does not disqualify a recognised authority from being WP:RS.Smeat75 (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to feel obliged to make this comment repeatedly in multiple places, even if you beleive that they might not be the best place to comment. If, as you say, you can't help but discuss this matter, then maybe you require some outside assistance in not going offbase like this? The question is, I guess, whether the books being considered are published by the academic presses or not. I have not reviewed the specific quotes, but, if they aren't, they do not by default qualify as academic just because his other books are published by Harvard or Oxford or whatever. The quote about Ehrman from our article is also, frankly, worthless in this context, And, honestly, your unwarranted assumption in the last sentence of your little The rather completely irrelevant last sentence is also, honestly, worthless in this context. There is also one other, very significant, difference between his popular books and his academic books, the fact that they are written for a general audience and are, basically, "written to sell." Being an academic does not automatically indicate that someone's NYT best-sellers doesn't perhaps disqualify material which is not of a scholarly standard as reliable sources, either. Honestly, in cases like these, like I said above and elsewhere in the previous discussion regarding this topic, which you seem to have ignored, the best sources for an article are those which are cited in reference works (of whatever kind, including high-level textbooks I suppose). If you can indicate that Ehrman is cited in them, by all means do so. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:RS, especially noting the sentence "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both" and WP:NPOV, paying particular attention to "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Smeat75 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

And I very honestly believe that these comments of yours are themselves almost incoherent. You seem to be taking the opinion that each and every word uttered by someone who is generally regarded as a reliable source on a topic is to be taken as of equal weight. That has never been the case. If you were to review the history of the RSN, you would find that the editors there have rather often taken the position that someone who is in general a reliable source on a topic, but who also promotes a fringe theory related to the topic, is not considered a reliable source for the inclusion of the fringe theory. I also am honestly more than a bit astounded by the apparent inherent assumption in your comments that somehow in some way Ehrman is perhaps the only independent reliable source on any topic out there. Feel free to raise these questions at WT:RSN, where I think you would get perhaps broader response, but consensus is in general that in general your comments above are right, but what we try to do is determine exactly how closely any individual source meets RS standards for the specific usage to which it is being placed. Ehrman has, in recent years I am told, taken a rather stronger position on the theoretical oral traditions of early Christianity than is supported by the bulk of the academic community. While that view might not specifically meet "fringe," it is perhaps a very distinctly minority position which might not, in some cases, meet WEIGHT requirements for a specific article. That is more or less inherent in the "fairly, proportionally (emphasis added), and as far as possible..." quote you used above. Proportinality is, as I think you can see, held to be more important than inclusiveness, at least per the comparative emphasis and weight given it in the sentence you quote. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, the issue re Ehrman was already raised at RSN as well as FTN. John Carter seems to have a massive problem with WP:I DON'T LIKE IT coupled with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Ignocrates (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. FYI, RSN only deems whether the sources can reasonably be used, not whether they are the best available sources out there. There is a difference, whether you have ever been able to recognize it or not. And your own huge problem with stalking, which I have to believe most people would consider the above edit to be, jumping to clearly prejudicial conclusions for no other apparent reason than to engage in petty personal attacks, which I believe is another long-term habit of yours which can be documented, and your own obvious almost absolute disregard for WP:POV is a much bigger problem, which, depending on the time I have available for this purpose in the next week, I would expect to be raised to ArbCom within the next week or so. I believe their conclusions about who has the most serious stalking and harassment problems will, basically, eliminate the problems you have presented and seemingly continue to present here. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

My fyi was directed to Smeat75, so keep your accusations of stalking to yourself. Btw, "best available sources out there" is a subjective judgement. Do you have a scholarly review ranking who is "best"? I don't think so. In fact, your "best" is based on nothing but your own bias. Since you are not competent to contribute to article content in this category, by your own admission, there is no reason to take your recommendations about the "best" sources seriously either. Ignocrates (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates, much as you apparently think otherwise, you are not an all-powerful entity who can make demands such as "keep it to yourself", and such arrogance is one of your long term problems to be addressed. And, FWIW, I think just about any reasonable editor with a substantial history around here would know that the sources which are most relied upon by other sources are among the ones we should most rely on here. As we both know, you yourself had for some time done your best to ignore the RSN comments regarding the reliability of The Jesus Dynasty, so it is amusing that you now seem to rely on it, at least when it doesn't disagree with you. And, however you say after the fact your statements were indicated, the content of it is also relevant, and it seems to not unreasonably be a form of personal attack, which, admittedly, I am more than used to from you at this point. And the issue of your own, fairly obvious bias, which seems to have existed from your very start here, which is itself a matter other editors should take into account when considering anything you say around here, and which will be one of the major considerations in arbitration when the request is filed on Sunday or next Thursday. Given the amount of time it takes to develop the lists of encyclopedic content I am still working on, I tend to concentrate on it. And, FWIW, there is an article on "reference works" in the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion which lists some of the most reliable and relied upon sources on the topic of religion. Also, yes, there is at least one I believe book (it might be an article, I haven't checked it recently) on the "best" reference sources out there, but the only one I can remember which dealt with religion is the Coptic Encyclopedia, which isn't relevant to this topic. So, Smeat, take into account the history, rationality or (in the case of the last one above) irrationality of the comments here as well, and the prior history of editors who have displayed a history of POV pushing which is become so bad that they are being taken to ArbCom shortly. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"I also am honestly more than a bit astounded by the apparent inherent assumption in your comments that somehow in some way Ehrman is perhaps the only independent reliable source on any topic out there." I do not know how anyone could get that impression from what I said. Here is what needs to happen - "Bart Ehrman says x, citing source, however this other authority, citing source, says y". Not "Bart Ehrman says x but there is a "better" source that says y so we can't use Ehrman." It is really quite simple and I must say it surprises me that you don't know that.Smeat75 (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What I think needs to happen is that someone, probably you and some others, need to read WP:PSTS. Ehrman's books, which are in general highly regarded, admittedly, are also in most cases tertiary sources, much like encyclopedias, as he is most often just repeating the comments of others, from what I have seen, and not really discussing anything which is more or less original to him, much like the two comics I mentioned above. It is really quite simpole and I guess I must say that it surprise me that you apparently haven't paid much attention to policies and guidelines other than RS. It is not the only guideline here. I believe Ret. Prof., who is, as he said, reviewing policies and guidelines, may well know that. I would perhaps also suggest that certain parties perhaps read WP:FORUMSHOP. In general, the best place to ask about matters relating to policies and guidelines is to ask the person directly, probably on their individual talk page, unlike, like I saw, on one of the noticeboards. But, yes, even policies and guidelines do indicate some sources are preferable to others. Like I said, it is, despite the implicit (or in the case of one person fairly explicit) to actually review the relevant policies and guidelines. If you have serious questions, it is rather simple, and something most people get fairly quickly, that probably the best place to raise them is either at RSN or of the individual directly, not on administrators' noticeboards or on the pages of third parties. I very strongly suggest that the thing that most needs to happen is that certain editors familiarize themselves with all guidelines and policies, perhaps, in this case, particularly you. Yes, some of Ehrman's work, including a lot of academic journal articles, are secondary, and we favor them. But, except perhaps in the bibliography sections of articles, we prefer where possible secondary sources, more or less the people who present the ideas under discusssion in the first place, rather than people who repeat them later. John Carter (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"Like I said, it is, despite the implicit (or in the case of one person fairly explicit) to actually review the relevant policies and guidelines. If you have serious questions " Yes, I have a serious question,. What does that previous sentence mean? It is incoherent. " Yes, some of Ehrman's work, including a lot of academic journal articles, are secondary, and we favor them. But, except perhaps in the bibliography sections of articles, we prefer where possible secondary sources " That doesn't make any sense either - "A lot of his work is secondary but we prefer secondary sources?" Eh? I note that once again you have compared the work of probably the leading NT scholar of today to comic books and if you think Ehrman just repeats things in his books that he has got out of other books you need to read Ehrman's works.Also I did not "forumshop", I joined discussions you were taking part in in two places.Smeat75 (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

P. S. I would also suggest that you might be interested in checking some of the various reviews of reference sources which are generally created. If you were to do so, you would see that, in a number of cases, the reviewers themselves rather clearly state that some sources are better than others. Certainly, several indicate that one or more given articles within reference sources are better, or worse, than those in others, or otherwise speak of the comparative quality, accuracy, and neutrality of the sources. In fact, a few of the databanks I have access to have the content from one such journal, whose title is "Reference and User Services Quarterly or something similar, which generally contain reviews of reference works every issue, most of which generally contain some degree of comment similar to that I indicate above. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

What other publications or websites may do is a matter for them, of course. This site has its own guidelines and policies, which despite the fact that you hand out admonitions to others about them, it does not seem to me that you understand at all. You must have read WP:NPOV but what you say does not even come close to following it. It is no business of anyone here to sit in judgement on respected scholars and their writings and say "here he is like a comic book, can't use that, here he is like a "tertiary source ", so can't use that,(interesting question, how can the same writer be like a comic book one minute and an encyclopedia the next?), here he is WP:FRINGE,can't use that, here he is OK maybe, but there is a "better" source over here so we will use that instead". It is all quite ridiculous, if there is a gold-plated, copper-bottomed 100% WP:RS source, it is a leading academic, scholar and NYT best-selling author with seventeen books published by OUP.Smeat75 (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There are also a matter as per WP:WEIGHT, which specifically deals with the matter of which sources are to be given more weight in articles, based on the level of acceptance they have in the relevant community. which is yet another guideline we are supposed to follow. I also note how on this page you seem to have regularly given yourself the right to hand out admonitions, on, so far as I can tell. I have read WP:NPOV, several times in fact. Believe it or not. Also, if you could be bothered to follow the links to those articles, which seemingly you have not done, you would note that both those comics sources are also tertiary sources, as per the guideline above, and one of them, Gonick, is one I know to be at least used as a junior college textbook. What I believe is "quite ridiculous" is that you seem to believe that apparently, simply on the basis of an individual's reputation, each and every word he has ever stated must be regarded in some sense as reliable. Nowhere in any policy or guideline is such a remarkably irrational statement made. It seems to me quite clear that you refuse to believe that anything other than WP:RS can be made to apply in instances where you have a clear opinion, and that more than anything seems to indicate to me your own remarkable lack of understanding.

Also, I would call to the attention of anyone reviewing this that, at no point have you ever done anything to indicate where the question you are raising was raised earlier. That is a rather serious question in and of itself. Carl Sagan, who had similar credentials to Bart Ehrman, was actually damned to hell in the Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle novel Escape from Hell because, despite his having similar credentials, he toward the end of his life misused his name to promote the now widely discredited "global cooling" hypothesis, primarily to get media attention, according to that book. Despite those similar qualifications, however, he has been not been given the blind, mindless, total acceptance that you seem to indicate per your comments above must be given to every "leading scholar," even in those cases where he is specifically taken positions which are in sometimes clear contradiction to those of the academic community. I am sorry that you cannot seem to grasp the fairly basic and obvious conclusion that your own remarkably prejudicial assessment of Ehrman as a "gold-plated, copper-bottomed 100% source" in some matters does not mean that he meets the same standard for each and every statement he has ever made. Regarding your threat of RfC/U, please feel free, but also realize that filing unwarranted complaints and accusations is itself a serious violation of conduct guidelines, and WP:BOOMERANG might well apply.

If you are capable of pointing out specific instances where you believe this source has been removed, which you have to date refused to do, vy all means do so. It should be noted that Ret. Prof.'s own complaints were primarily about Ehrman's support of the oral gospel tradition, a belief which he gives much more weight and credibility to than most other "leading scholars," although obviously some cherry-picked supporters of any hypothesis can be found. I also believe it would be very interesting to add yet another instance of possible harassment against Ignocrates, considering that I expect to have a complaint regarding him filed to the Arbitration Committee for review and action within the next week or so. I imagine any complaints about similar conduct from others would be likely addressed as well.

If you do have serious questions about any particular instances of where you think this source has not been given due weight, feel free to provide them, something you have to date seemingly refused to do. If you decline to do perhaps the only useful thing you might do regarding this matter, then, honestly, I believe it would probably be in your own best interests to review the conduct guidelines and content guidelines, which clearly include much more than simply WP:RS, and perhaps try to understand the application of some of the other guidelines as well. Good day. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

And, to Ret. Prof., seeing how others have pointed out at WP:FTN regarding the Gospel of Matthew that you seem to have used quotes from various sources as support of beliefs/theories that are actually opposed by them, I think that it probably is a very good idea for you to at least take a break, and also read all the guidelines, including those which deal with the correct and incorrect use of sources, as you seem to have done there. Really, I cannot see any excuse for such conduct, and it is very, very hard to believe that such apparently willful misuse of sources to support beliefs that they do not in fact support is something you shouldn't already very clearly know should not be done. There honestly is no acceptable reason for doing so. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)