Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Is showing the sources for Jesus' sayings not considered "scholarly?"

I'm lost. Can someone explain why it isn't acceped?

Jewish exegeses in the teachings of Jesus: In Matthew 5:22, Jesus said: “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment (Heb. mishpat): and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, 'Thou fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire!”

This teaching can effectually be broken down into three parts, meaning, Jesus was expounding on three different biblical sources. The first clause, “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment,” with emphasis on judgment, is based on a verse in Ecclesiastes 12:14, “For G-d shall bring every work into judgment (Heb. mishpat), with every secret thing, etc.” Meaning, the matter of hating one's brother is a thing often concealed away in a man's heart and is not always readily discernible or evident to others (hence: every secret thing). Here, Jesus says that if a man hates another or is angry at another for no reason at all, his punishment (i.e. judgment) is forthcoming, just as implied by Ecclesiastes 12:14. [1]

The second clause, “whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca (empty headed!), shall be in danger of the council (i.e. judges in a court of law),” is taken from a verse in Exodus 22:9: “For all manner of trespass...the cause of both parties shall come before the judges, etc.” The words “manner of trespass” are written in Hebrew as devar pesha = דבר פשע.

By changing the traditional vowel markings from devar pesha (manner of trespass) = דְּבַר פשע to dibbur pesha (word of trespass) = דִּבֻּר פשע , that is to say, if we change the vowel “patach” beneath the Hebrew letter bet (ב) in the word דבר so that it will now be read with the vowel “qubbutz,” as in בֻּ = bbu = “dibbur,” the word’s meaning changes to, “For all criminal speech...the cause of both parties shall come before the judges, etc.”

Thus, Jesus, using well-known dialectic principles,[2] came up with his own teaching in Matthew 5:22: “…and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca (i.e. empty-headed), shall be in danger of the council.” In other words, such "criminal speech" mentioned in the middle clause will eventually bring a man to stand trial in the courts, hence: council or Sanhedrin, just as implied by Exodus 22:9.[3]

The third clause, “…but whosoever shall say, Thou fool,[4] shall be in danger of hell fire!,” with emphasis on “thou fool,” is a conflation of two teachings (in accordance with certain hermeneutical principles used in Jewish teachings); one found in Proverbs 11:12, “He that despises his neighbor LACKS A HEART,” and the other in Proverbs 6:32, “He that commits adultery with a [married] woman LACKS A HEART; he that does it destroys his own soul.” The words, lacks a heart, in the one scriptural verse is analogous with, lacks a heart, in the other scriptural verse. Just as the words "lacks a heart" used here in connection with adultery (Proverbs 6:32) is a cause for destruction, so, too, the words "lacks a heart" in connection with despising others (hence: “thou fool!”) is a cause for destruction, hence: hell fire![5] Unfortunately, Christians who have no Jewish background do not readily recognize the source for these teachings.

---

NOTES:

[1] So is this exegesis explained in the book, “Menorat Ha-Meor” of Rabbi Yitzhaq Abuhav the Spaniard (15th century); cf. Eliezer Kahana’s book “Siach Sefunim – Megillat Kohelet,” p. 119, Warsaw 1878, on Ecclesiastes chapter 12:14, where he explains: “Over every secret thing, meaning, the evil thought concealed in man’s heart, God will bring to judgment.”

[2] Based on a teaching in "Avoth deRebbe Nathan," chapter 37, verse 10, that Hillel the Elder - a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth - taught seven hermeneutical principles of logic, and which same principles of logic, amongst others, were well-known to his generation. This particular hermeneutical principle is also mentioned by Sherira Gaon, in his "Iggeres of Rav Sherira Gaon," chapter 6, p. 54, Jerusalem 1988.

[3] This exegesis is brought down in the Babylonian Talmud (Baba Metzia 43b) and holds a man liable even for speaking his criminal thoughts! See also RASHI, ibid. s.v., החושב לשלוח יד, and see Tosafot, ibid. s.v., החושב.

[4] Heb. “shoṭeh” = שוטה, meaning, a mad man, or someone who has become crazy. According to the Midrash Rabba (Numbers Rabba 19:5), the word which was called by the Greeks, moré (foolish man) = μωρε, was called by the Hebrews “shoṭeh.”

[5] This particular hermeneutical principle is called in Hebrew, “gezerah showah” – meaning, “the drawing of analogies,” an example of its kind is found in the Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 17a). Davidbena (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena,

Thank you for having come to Talk page to discuss your edits.

Re your subject heading "Is showing the sources for Jesus' sayings not considered "scholarly?"" - no, because without WP:Reliable sources it is WP:Original research

You say "Unfortunately, Christians who have no Jewish background do not readily recognize the source for these teachings." - this is not true, scholars do not have to have Jewish background to recognise many Jewish aspects to Jesus' teaching, and many in Matthew are widely recognised, from John Lightfoot onwards. But it needs to come from a reputable source. And be relevant to the article; this article is only for material about Gospel of Matthew which is recognised in WP:reliable sources.

In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that other editors reverted his work 4 times before anyone explained what he did wrong per WP:TPG, and that was after he received a talk page warning. WP:BITE applies here. Ignocrates (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. Davidbena is the same as IP user [[1]]; I gave a source briefly in the edit summary revert, but after David's re-edit, I went straight to the talk page with my evidence. Then Eusebeus referenced the discussion page with his revert. Then another revert cycle. Now he has moved on to including different stuff. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see that now. Thanks for letting me know. Ignocrates (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Atethneos, whatever the reason given for rejecting my edits, I had not seen it. I assumed that the statement needed to be re-worded. Try to "Assume Good Faith." I had no intentions of doing anything against Wikipedia rules. Davidbena (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

For Your Information

Note that Jerome writes about Matthew's gospel on this wise (De viris inlustribus, ed. C.A. Bernoulli, III):

"Matthew, also called Levi, an apostle after having been a publican, was the first to compose a gospel of Christ in Judea in Hebrew letters and words for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. But who afterwards translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilius the martyr so diligently collected. From the Nazoraeans who use this book in Beroia, a city of Syria, I also received the opportunity to copy it. In this it is to be noted that where the evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimonies of the old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two (quotations?) exist: Out of Egypt have I called my son, and For he shall be called a Nazarene…" Eusebius also wrote (hist. eccles. III. 39.16-17):

"…But concerning Matthew, he (Papias) writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the words in the Hebrew-language and every one interpreted them as he was able. [vs.17] And he (Papias) related another story of a woman accused of many sins before the Lord which is available in the Gospel according to the Hebrews (i.e. what is now written in John 8:1-11). These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has already been stated." Davidbena (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena, this is all WP:OR. Please please please please stop posting WP:PRIMARYSOURCES In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I do not understand why a quote, without my commenting upon it, is considered original research. But let's say that you are right. Is it wrong to discuss such "original research" on a Talk page, in order to help clarify a certain point? Here, I never asked to publish this material in a WP article. Davidbena (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Because as per WP:PRIMARYSOURCES it isn't for us to handle primary sources on the Talk page. Because the article doesn't use them, we need secondary reliable sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, one more thing: You stand to be corrected. It is not against WP rules to cite "Primary Sources." According to WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The wording here still makes it permissible to use "Primary Sources" if the situation calls for it. Davidbena (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you have already gone several times over that minimum in edits to the article and here on the Talk page. Please do not further cite primary sources here. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, what you are now saying is merely "apologetics," since you have never once suggested that it is permissible to use a "Primary Source" on Wikipedia. Why are you so antagonistic? You should try to encourage new editors, instead of playing the role of antagonist. Our primary objective here should be to present the truth (i.e. facts) to our readers. Moreover, a good editor will recognize when information presented is biased. By the dupes of words artfully framed it is, sometimes, easy to fool the scholar! Be well. Davidbena (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not apologetics.

The reason I am being "antagonistic" (actually I'm not, I'm just getting very tired of saying the same thing again and again and again) is that you are not taking WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on board. We try to encourage new editors who study. Study means buy a book and read it. We don't encourage new editors who dismiss all of scholarship and do their own DIY amateur study. That is WP:OR. If you want to do your own study, go and join an Aramaic-original NT blog. There are dozens of them. But this is an encyclopedia, and it is our job not to do our study of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES]].

If you want to edit here you need to use scholarly sources, not your own ideas. Do you understand? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you call the sources I mentioned so far "amateur," or "non-scholarly," you have no idea what scholarship is. You will not find a more authentic or reliable "Primary Source" than the ones that I mentioned. Jews revel in debate. Having studied Talmud for seven years, and having engaged in the polemics brought down in the Talmud, I guess by many you would be considered "easy bait." The truth is, it is not entirely against WP rules to cite "Primary Sources." As a rule of practice, one should cite only reliable "Secondary Sources." However, "Primary Sources" can still be used occasionally. According to WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The wording here makes it clear that it is still permissible to use "Primary Sources" if the situation calls for it. Davidbena (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead with that and you will be reported to WP:ANI for disruptive editing. The Talmud is important as a historical document, but it is in no way something like modern historical scholarship. Unless you want to comply with the idea that contemporary historians (who live by publish or perish) decide what counts as history, you don't belong editing this article, in fact you would not belong at all editing Wikipedia articles. See WP:ABIAS for details. You should also read Wikipedia:Advocacy: Wikipedia is not the place for promoting your world-view or your religion (this applies to all world-views and all religions). Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Tgeorgescu, I will not be reported to WP:ANI for disruptive editing, since I am trying to build a consensus here for change in the current flawed article, Gospel of Matthew, and this I am doing on a Talk Forum suggested to me by the editors themselves for advancing my views and making them known. Contrary to your opinion, modern historical scholarship does not decide history for us. Historians are only as good as the sources which they have at their disposal. For example, the Hebrew Bible, is an accurate historical record of events that transpired long ago. If a modern historian comes along with speculative theories of what may or may not have happened, based on "empirical evidence," I disregard his theories and remain firm with the ancient biblical texts bequeathed to us by Israel's Sages. Why? Because Israel's prophets were eye-witnesses of those events. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rarely seen such open disagreement with WP:NOR, sadly seems inevitable that this will end in a topic ban. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, you misunderstand the import of WP:NOR. "No Original Research" is a proscriptive guideline to prevent writers from publishing articles that have no verifiable and reliable source. It does NOT, repeat NOT, refer to inner communications between co-editors who try to sway the minds of the other to see their point of view. Still, I am convinced now that you enjoy using threatening language as a scare tactic to get your own way. It will not work, and I fear that it might someday boomerang against you. Be careful. Davidbena (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Catholic commentary

Davidbena you ask concerning this quote Gospel of Matthew, The (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture) 1441213864 Curtis Mitch, ‎Edward Sri - 2010

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

Yes. Curtis Mitch, ‎Edward Sri are saying that early Catholic church writers agreed with you. Yes. But now please look at the next paragraph. Wikipedia represents modern scholarship, not traditions, not dark ages nor medieval scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, is there any room for mentioning the "development of traditionally held beliefs" regarding the Gospel of Matthew in our current article, or should we keep this information hidden from the public's view? Davidbena (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes we should keep it hidden, ... no seriously a small section about church traditions is worth having... but this isn't an article about church traditions patristics this is an article about a Greek text. Look, to be honest, you've been told several ways, in polite ways to bring some modern scholarship, to do that you need some basic knowledge. What is your basic start text for this subject? Can you cite a standard basic introductory academic work you have read? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that would depend on what you mean by "...standard basic introductory academic work...." If you mean academic works published by University Professors, I have not only read several, but I have translated from Hebrew into English more than two dozen works published by Professor Yosef Tobi of Haifa University (Israel). You may want to do a Google check on his name. But that is beside the point. You are assuming things that you should not be assuming. As for the sources that I have quoted, they are reputable and reliable sources, by all accounts. Rather, you are bent on your own prejudices. Davidbena (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena, then please name 3 of the sources you have read which would help in relation to this article. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I will do something even better. The Church Fathers are quoted as a "Primary Source," and their opinion carries more weight than the views held by modern historians. It was the opinion of their day and age that the Aramaic Gospel "According to the Hebrews" (Gospel of Matthew) was the original Gospel penned by Matthew. Now, although argumentum ad antiquitatem does not always hold up as true, in this case it does! I have briefly reviewed one of Bart Ehrman's works, but his views are nothing in comparison to older testimonies dating back to the 3rd and 4th centuries! The testimonies brought down in Klijn's Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects cannot be dismissed, neither those testimonies carried in Epiphanius' Panarion (Medicine Chest), nor in Epiphanius' Treatise on Weights & Measures - Syriac Version, nor in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. Albeit, all "primary sources," they speak for themselves. Can you name a book that carries more weight than these "primary sources"? Davidbena (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Aramaic Gospel of Matthew

Concerning [2]. So I reverted this edit once, User:Davidbena, and now you've added it again. In my revert I gave my reason: Duling 2010 says on page 299: "it is generally accepted that the original language of Matthew was Greek". I want to remove your claim again. What source do you have for your claim? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Atethnekos, you wrote by quoting Duling, who said: "it is generally accepted that the original language of Matthew was Greek." Perhaps what may have led Duling into that conclusion is the fact that Matthew often refers there to "the Jews" who did this, or "the Jews" who did that, as if he was addressing a gentile (Greek) readership. The truth is, however, the Aramaic word for Judaea (the country) is יהוד, just as we find it written in the Aramaic "Scroll of Antiochus," while the Aramaic word for Judaeans (the people of that province) is יהודאי. Matthew was merely telling us what the Judaeans did to Jesus, as opposed to the Galileans. The word "Jews" should be understood, therefore, in the context of "Judaeans."

Moreover, since Jews of the 1st century CE primarily made use of Aramaic in their writings, except when writing to foreigners, it is only logical to say that Aramaic was the vehicle used in writing the Gospel of Matthew. It is preposterous to think that the early Jewish following of Jesus - who spoke Aramaic (Matthew, too!) - would have needed to write the first gospel in Greek, and then turn around and translate it into Aramaic. It's usually the other way around! But why do we need to conjecture? Are there not ample testimonies to this effect in Klijn's "Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects"?? Why guess when you have the testimony of the Church Fathers who saw the original Aramaic Gospel of Matthew and who quoted from it, being preserved up until their time, even though the early Church Fathers also made use of a similar Greek Text (Evangelion) transcribed some years before their time!?

Both, the Ebionites and the Nazoraeans made use of the same Gospel, as we learn in Jerome (Commentariorum in Mattheum Libri IV, ch.12, vs.13, ed. D.Hurst): "…In the Gospel which the Nazoraeans and the Ebionites use which we translated recently from Hebrew to Greek and which is called the authentic text of Matthew by a good many, etc."

This will also explain why some people call this Gospel, "the Gospel of the Ebionites," or conversely, "the Gospel of the Nazoraeans," since it alone was used collectively by both groups. They - being Jewish - made use of a text written in the Aramaic language! Elsewhere, Jerome writes (Dialogus adversus Pelagianos, in: Migne, Patr. Lat. 23, Parisiis 1883, III, 2): "From the Gospel 'According to the Hebrews.' In the Gospel 'According to the Hebrews,' which was written in the Chaldaic and Syriac language but with Hebrew letters, and is used up to the present day by the Nazoraeans, I mean that according to the Apostles, or, as many maintain, according to Matthew, which Gospel is also available in the Library of Caesarea, etc." Here, again, the Nazoraeans were using the same Gospel mentioned earlier, only the Gospel used by them had its own appellation. It was called "According to the Hebrews," which same name is repeated by the Church Fathers in other places as well when describing the Gospel written by Matthew. In short, all of these titles are used to describe the one and the same book, the original Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. Davidbena (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe, since Duling is a legitimate scholar with academic integrity, his editor, Aune, is a legitimate scholar with academic integrity, and the publisher, Wiley-Blackwell is a legitimate press with academic integrity, what led him to make that claim was the fact that it is true. But that doesn't really matter, because we're not here to judge whether the reliable sources are true or false. We are just here to represent the reliable sources.

It is only you who are saying that these church fathers "saw the original Aramaic Gospel of Matthew and who quoted from it". Find a reliable source which says that rather than merely making the claim. There are a lot of reliable sources which disagree. I already gave Duling, here is another: Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (Eerdmans, 2009), p. 34-35: "But like Epiphanius, Jerome does not equate his Hebrew gospel with Canonical Greek Matthew ... a different and presumably earlier Hebrew Gospel attributed to Matthew in addition to Canonical Greek Matthew".

To be absolutely clear: This article, Gospel of Matthew is about the canonical Gospel of Matthew. That is, when you open pretty much any edition of the New Testament, it is the first book included. Every reliable source which has been presented says that the gospel to which Epiphanius, Jerome, etc. are referring is a different book which also just happens to be attributed to "Matthew". Until you present a reliable source which says otherwise, the fact that the same word "Matthew" is used with regards to both is just a coincidence and nothing more. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Atehnekos, you wrote: "...what led him (Duling) to make that claim was the fact that it is true..." Are you saying that academicians are unassailable? That would be an incorrect assertion. Rather, the matter in question is disputed by academicians. It just so happens that Duling, here, is wrong. We have already cited conflicting opinions by those of the academic ranks. Albertus Frederik Johannes Klijn, in his "Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects" (1973 - E. J. Brill Co. Leiden), proves most consummately in his Introduction that scholars are divided as to how many Gospels there actually were in Aramaic! Scholars are not in agreement about this fact, when, in actuality, there was only one Aramaic Gospel of Matthew.

Yes, the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew differed from the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew. When we brought up the subject of the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew, it was only to suggest that it should be mentioned alongside the canonical Greek text of Matthew's Gospel since some of the early Church Fathers believed that it was the original Gospel, or Proto-Matthew, making our Greek text of the canonical Matthew a translation, with later interpolations. As for citing a scholarly source that supports our view, I think we have fulfilled the requirement. "The Gospel of Matthew," written by co-authors Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri, p. 18, says:

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

Footnote:

[3] E.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.24.6; Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3.Davidbena (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You said that maybe why Duling said that was because he was under some misapprehension. So I said, "Or maybe...what led him to make that claim was the fact that it is true", but then you quote me and leave out the "or maybe" part and claim that I seem to be be saying that authorities are infallible. I wasn't claiming anything of the sort. I could not have been clearer: Whether the reliable sources are right or not, is not our job to decide. This is not a general discussion forum for the Gospel of Matthew. This is a discussion page to help make improvements to the article. Challenged material which is not cited accurately to reliable sources are not improvements to the article. That is the position of nearly every editor of this encyclopedia.

Your edit is this: [3], which says: "Some say that this was a later interpolation, since the genealogical record of Jesus did not appear in the original Aramaic Gospel of Matthew." Mitch and Sri 2010 do not say that it was an interpolation, nor do they say that the Gospel of Matthew original was in Aramaic, nor do they say that "some say" this. So Mitch and Sri 2010 in no way supports your view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Atethnekos, you are correct. "Mitch and Sri 2010 do not say that the Greek canonical text of Matthew's Gospel was an interpolation," but it is implied by their words that the Greek text which came after the original Gospel penned by Matthew (in either Hebrew or Aramaic) was merely a translation. Having established this fact, by simple comparison with the Aramaic Gospel mentioned by the primary sources named by Mitch and Sri 2010 (e.g. Jerome and Eusebius, and I will add Epiphanius, since he, too, refers to the same Gospel), we can see that the current Greek canonical text of Matthew's Gospel was indeed interpolated in its beginning - with the inclusion of the genealogical record of Jesus. I'm not saying that this was wrong. I'm just saying that we should see the Greek canonical text for what it is, viz., a translation. Since Mitch and Sri 2010 cited Irenaeus and Jerome and Eusebius, it is clear, beyond any doubt, that they were referring to the original Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. I would recommend that this particular "dispute" between scholars be given equal attention in the current Wikipedia article, and I sincerely believe that it will contribute vastly to the article's veracity. Davidbena (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You say that it is a simple comparison which gives that result, but all the reliable sources cited so far that speak to that point disagree. Again, find a reliable source which makes that claim. And that is not what Mitch and Sri 2010 implies, either. They don't imply that it was written by Matthew, only that there was an ancient tradition which said so. They never endorse this ancient tradition.

P.S., and this is a matter of civility: Don't change the substance of your comments when someone has specifically remarked on that substance, as you did here. Read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments on how to change your own comments in a discussion page setting. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Atethnekos, the instruction not to change our original texts refers to major changes that, when or if the original text should be quoted by others, it will be incomprehensible to those who refer back to the original text. It does not apply to a minor grammatical correction. The rule was made only to help facilitate easy communication. Lol. As for what you said about "all the reliable sources cited so far that speak to that point disagree," I would rather say that some of the sources presented so far, be they reliable or not, think that the Greek canonical text isn't a translation or interpolation, whereas other sources believe that it was. Davidbena (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the instruction is not just for that. I referenced what you wrote, you changed your comment with the result that my reference no longer made sense. That is exactly the sort of thing that the rules are supposed to prevent. Your change was not a minor grammatical change. Your sentence was perfectly grammatical; what you changed was the meaning.

If you say that some of the reliable sources believe that it was, then produce those reliable sources. There is no need for you to write any more without producing such sources. I don't give warnings because it is not my place, but I will say that I suspect that if you continue to post in the way you have, someone is going to get fed up and submit an overview of your contributions to WP:AN and an administrator there will probably judge your contributions to be inclusive of edit-warring and otherwise disruptive editing. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, Atethnekos, you totally misunderstand the import of civility, since the edit that I made in the above post does not change the meaning of anything. It is merely a grammatical correction: "...Are you saying that academicians are unassailable?", instead of "...You seem to be saying that academicians are unassailable?" As for what you said about producing reliable sources, I have already done that, but to no avail. Notwithstanding, the truth stands firm. The Church Fathers are quoted as a "Primary Source," and their opinion carries more weight than the views held by modern historians. It was the opinion of their day and age that the Aramaic Gospel "According to the Hebrews" (Gospel of Matthew) was the original Gospel penned by Matthew. Now, although argumentum ad antiquitatem does not always hold up as true, in this case it does! Davidbena (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not misunderstand community norms concerning editing comments. Your sentence was already perfectly grammatical. There was nothing to correct. What you changed was the meaning. Even if you didn't change the meaning, you are still not supposed to change your comment the way you did. Again, read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments. I'm giving you helpful advice here.

You have not produced reliable sources for the claim that the original Gospel of Matthew was in Hebrew or Aramaic. There was no attempt to avail on that point. It doesn't matter whether the truth stands firm. If your goal is to spread the truth rather than to merely represent reliable sources, I would suggest submitting your work to Journal of Theological Studies, published by Oxford University; Journal for the Study of the New Testament published by Sage; Novum Testamentum by Brill; and New Testament Studies by Cambridge University. When it gets published, then we can cite your work here. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So here [4] you cite Against Ebionites 13,1 and 14,1. But Epiphanius is not talking about the canonical Gospel of Matthew: He is talking about the Gospel of the Ebionites which he explicitly contrasts with the canonical Gospel of Matthew ("they call [it] a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not entirely complete, but is corrupt and mutilated"). Neither does he say that Gospel to which he is referring was written in Aramaic. Finally: Epiphanius isn't even a reliable source for authorship of the Gospel of Matthew. I cite Dennis C. Duling [5], published by Wiley-Blackwell in the Blackwell Companion to the New Testament, edited by David Aune [6].

Please reconsider your edits. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Same problem with this [[7]] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Klijn seems to state what was the consensus/debate 40 years ago. Time has passed since then. On Mitch and Sri, Eric Vanden Eykel wrote "The commentary does at times suffer from a somewhat apologetic desire to maintain consistency with the Catholic tradition, even when Matthew seems to be in tension with it." [8] We may therefore guess that the authors have sided with the Catholic tradition in respect to the authorship of the book. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Petition

I am loathe to begin this humble petition, or what should already appear as plain and evident to the administrators/moderators (Assistant editors) of Wikipedia, and to all minds of rational beings. There is something terribly flawed with the logic that, on a Wikipedia page entitled "Gospel of Matthew," there isn't any room for scholarly input with references (published) treating on the sub-topic of "Jewish Exegeses in the Teachings of Jesus," meaning, how these teachings were derived based on known principles of Jewish logic and which have been used by Jews in biblical exegesis for thousands of years.

When I first sought to address this topic, I was deferred on grounds that I had omitted academic references (published sources). Having fixed this problem, I was again deferred under the pretext that I should first seek a consensus with Wikipedia editors whereby they'd agree to mention anything about Matthew's Gospel from the standpoint of non-important "Aramaic fringe" texts associated with the original Gospel of Matthew. I was taken aback by their classification of the language spoken by Jesus as being "fringe," given the fact that some of the words passed down unto us in the Greek translation of Matthew's Gospel are actually Aramaic words! How can something so basic be classified as "fringe," when the Wikipedia page itself seeks to discuss varied aspects relating to the "Gospel of Matthew" from an academic point of view? Could it be that they are not familiar with the Aramaic language?

It would be commensurable with Wikipedia's good reputation to address this situation in a forthright manner, and not shun away from something which is so elementary! The argument which I've heard from some that "scholars disagree" with our view is always a subjective argument. If my disputant can produce one or two scholars who disagree with a certain theory, I can produce four or five scholars who would agree with the theory! It is a non sequitur. Moreover, calling any sub-topic which addresses the Aramaic language spoken by Jesus and employed in the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel as "fringe" is, in my view, a wrong designation. Davidbena (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw your edits, they constitute WP:OR, see especially WP:SYNTH. Such edits are prohibited in Wikipedia. You are not allowed to pass your own opinion on scholarly subjects, even if you were a full professor of Biblical exegesis. You may only render the viewpoints of reliable sources and draw no further conclusions than those clearly expressed by such sources. Sources like the Talmud and the Bible are problematic, since they are multi-interpretable. We let reliable sources interpret them, we don't state our own opinion upon them. Contrary to popular opinion, Wikipedia is not the place to ventilate your own opinion or your own theory. These have to be published in peer-reviewed reputable journals and only after such publication may be they accepted within Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

David, one of the quirks of Wikipedia is that it works by building WP:CONSENSUS. There may be times in a spirited discussion when you are convinced you are right and the consensus view on the talk page is wrong. That's the way it goes sometimes. It works much better to lay out your ideas for improving the article on the talk page before you make major changes. Ignocrates (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can only be built on something based upon reliable sources. He did not even mention a reliable source, so he has to find such sources before attempting to build consensus on certain edits. It's not that he quoted sources which are controversial, his edits are "not even wrong", they fail to be verifiable and they must first be verifiable before saying that they are wrong or correct. The gist is: his edits are completely unacceptable and he has to understand this instead trying to build a consensus around using no sources whatsoever. There isn't and it ain't gonna be such sort of consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to a little clearer on our interpreation of WP guidelines here. The problem with sources such as the Hebrew Bible or the Talmud, referred to above, is not that they are "multi-interpretable" (and they certainly are!). According to WP guidelines (and the WP professionals can point the user to the proper documents), is that they are Primary Sources, in this case. WP bases its articles on reliable and verifiable Secondary Sources, in this case, not Primary. This means that published Secondary works by academic reliable and verifiable publishers and researches on the subject have to cited as the sources, not the original texts or Primary Sources, as he is doing here so far in this case. Now, he implied also that he has 4 or 5 scholares with a contrary opinion on the issues he raised. So what he has to do is quote these works by these scholars, that support or actually published his "original research," and then anyone here can read these arguments and verify what type of proposition they are supporting. I just hope this maybe makes a little clearer to the new editor how WP works, and what guidelines have to be applied to adding content to it. warshy^¥¥ 17:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is probably too controversial an article for a newbie to begin their editing career. I suggest reading WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:FRNG, and WP:PRIMARY to get up to speed on the basics. Otherwise, you will be like chum in a shark tank on pages like this one. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's input here, and I will take your advice and begin to read the WP guidelines for editing. Already I have found things that do not exactly "fit-in" with the current article on "the Gospel of Matthew," such as the guideline which states: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." The current article seems to hold the view that the Greek NT Gospel of Matthew is not a translation from the original Aramaic Gospel, but does NOT present a neutral position. As for showing reliable, published "Secondary Sources," I will try to find them. Again, thanks for your encouraging words. Davidbena (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena

Thanks. Re why we do not use the Bible and Talmud as sources see WP:PRIMARY as Ignocrates linked. As for "but does NOT present a neutral position" - no it doesn't, the article presents the position of scholarship that Gospel of Matthew is Greek and was not written in Aramaic. Since no credible scholar supports the view that it was written in Aramaic this is not a view that needs to be represented. Also if you are interested in the New Testament text you may wish to buy and read an introduction to the New Testament text such as Metzger. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

But isn't the Talmud, as commentary on the Bible, a published secondary source? A Georgian (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The distinction between primary, secondary, tertiary sources is not well-defined. Nor is it actually important most of the time. Most of these policies and guidelines are usually written in response to particular problems. The problem here is that there is a bunch of material (e.g., [9]) which is not represented in any reliable source, or at least no one has presented any such reliable source. It's not enough that some source mentions something. For example, that Bava Metzia 43b concludes that a man is "liable even for speaking his criminal thoughts" is well and good and no one is doubting that, and that would be perfectly fine to include in an article on that topic. But what does it have to do with the topic of this article, the Gospel of Matthew? Only if someone can produce a reliable source for this topic which mentions such a thing, can we mention it as well. This is the implication of Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is probably the most widely-accepted policy that this encyclopedia has.

For example, I can go over to psychopathy and find the claim "Rapists, especially sadistic rapists, and sexual homicide offenders have a high rate of psychopathy. Some researchers have argued that psychopaths have a preference for violent sexual behavior", which references a article in Criminal Justice and Behavior. A great source! So, should I include the claim in the article Barack Obama? No, because no reliable source is produced which says this has anything to do with Barack Obama, and the material would be rejected by other editors for just that reason. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Atethnekos, since you wrote: "Bava Metzia 43b concludes that a man is liable even for speaking his criminal thoughts is well and good and no one is doubting that, and that would be perfectly fine to include in an article on that topic. But what does it have to do with the topic of this article, the Gospel of Matthew?" Be assured, my good friend, that I was only advocating that we ADD a new sub-title entitled the "Jewish Exegeses in Jesus' Teachings," which, by its title and nature requires a brief look into some of his teachings, and approached from the standpoint of "Source Criticism." This, I think, would be most appropriate to an article treating on the "Gospel of Matthew." In fact, it is the essence of the Gospel itself. IMHO. Davidbena (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not defending the material in question, I was questioning lumping the Talmud, which is secondary, with Torah/Tanakh, which is primary. A Georgian (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough; really I don't mean just to respond to you, but lay my thoughts out in general. I would just say again on that issue: these categories are not well-defined, but also not usually important. For some topics is is really helpful: because the distinction is so much clearer and it helps define what are the reliable sources, but for most topics it doesn't matter. For example, the Russian revolution. The primary sources are Lenin's etc. letters and telegraphs etc. The secondary sources are the historians who read all or most of these documents (and also consult other specialists), and then the tertiary sources are those that read these historians and then give a view on some balance of those. But not every topic has a comparable division. For example, the historical Jesus. Is the testimonium flavianum a primary source? Almost everyone would label it as such. But it's nothing like Lenin's telegraphs to Stalin or Trotsky. Lenin's telegraphs represent the views of someone who was there making the Russian revolution happen, and some of them were commands, actual speech acts which were part of the Russian revolution itself. Josephus was just a scholar who heard and read things about what happened before he was born and repeated them. He's nothing like Lenin; but because they are both "old" documents which historians use to give an account of what happened, they are called primary sources. Similarly here for the Gospels of Matthew and the Talmud, maybe some people are going to say that some texts in the Talmud are primary sources, because they are "old" documents used by scholars to help give an account of the gospel. But maybe others would say they are secondary sources. Maybe some would say that some Talmudic texts are primary and some are secondary. Maybe, but actually you rarely ever see the reliable sources discuss such categorizations, because for this topic it is not very important. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

User:AGeorgian, the Talmud is a primary source per WP:PSTS, and in any case the Talmud has very little to say on Jesus in the Talmud/Yeshu let alone any awareness of Matthew. Since Matthew was not translated into Aramaic until late and not distributed among the Talmudic authors why would they know anything specific about Matthew. Fully agree with Atethnekos' explanation above. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, you stand to be corrected. It is not against WP rules to cite "Primary Sources." According to WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The wording here still makes it permissible to use "Primary Sources" if the situation calls for it. Davidbena (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry but I don't stand to be corrected. For your purposes you should understand that as none. NONE. NO PRIMARY SOURCES. Since you have already gone over the limit. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, if I might correct you, Jews did not discuss Matthew's Gospel in the Talmud, not because it was not known to them, but rather, because it was rejected by mainstream Judaism. Jews came to the realization that Jesus could not be the expected Messiah if he could not establish peace in the world, which is the most basic and fundamental thing the Messiah is supposed to do (Isa. 11:1-12). With that said, however, we still find original Aramaic quotes used by Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud. The famous words of Hillel the Elder, quoted by Jesus, are contained in Tractate Shabbat 31a, namely: דעלך סני לחברך לא תעביד. זוהי כל התורה כולה, meaning: "That which is hated by you, refrain from doing the same to your neighbor. That is the entire Law." It seems that the Greek translators of the Gospel of Matthew simply paraphrased his words, by which today we find: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12; KJV, Authorised Version). Although similar statements have been made by many early writers and sages, it is plain that Jesus was quoting Hillel by his adding the concluding words, "for this is the Law, etc." We also find that Jesus quotes from Ben-Sira, whose original words are also brought down in the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 100b), such as: אל תצר צרת מחר = "Take no thought for the morrow." (Matthew 6:34; KJV). Davidbena (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena

You evidently did not understand what I said. I said "Since Matthew was not translated into Aramaic until late and not distributed among the Talmudic authors why would they know anything specific about Matthew. Fully agree with Atethnekos' explanation above". Now, please do not quote the Bible or the Talmud on this Talk page again. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your premise is wrong, In ictu oculi. Matthew's Gospel was not translated into Aramaic from Greek, except the Syriac "Peshitta" which was translated into Aramaic for the Aramaic-speaking Christians. Jews, however, had no need of a Greek text since they spoke Aramaic in the 1st century CE, as evidenced by all of our ancient Aramaic texts preserved today (in the Hebrew alphabet). Now, if the Jews who believed in Jesus (i.e. the Ebionites and the Nazoraeans) read from the Aramaic gospel of Matthew, is it then conceivable to think that Jews who speak Aramaic will write a book in Greek only to have it translated back into their native tongue, Aramaic? There are no historical records or ancient texts suggesting that it ever happened that way. It is pure nonsense to think so, my friend! Frankly, anyone who says so doesn't understand Jewish custom or mentality.

Moreover, when Jerome says in another place that "a good many" call it (the Ebionite Gospel) the authentic text of Matthew, he was simply telling us in his own words that there was an oral tradition in his day regarding the book's authorship and authenticity, saying that it was widely known to be the original text of Matthew's gospel. Davidbena (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not his fault. You do sound like don't understanding that there is a distinction between Talmud and present-day historical research. In fact, you sound like having no instruction in history or any other empirical science, beyond high-school level. Even a year passed at the university studying any empirical science would have taught you that recent academic publications matter in respect to the scientific consensus, since the rest belong to the history of science. Sources like the Talmud don't even pretend doing empirical science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, lol! I can't help but be amused by your accusations. I am a Jew and I have studied the Talmud for seven years in one of the finest Yeshivas in Jerusalem. You and I approach this subject from two different perspectives. We, who are religious Jews, adhere to ancient customs and traditions, and we do not seek novelties, or ways to change our ancient customs. You, on the other hand, revel in novelties and in "empirical science," which latter, mind you, still isn't necessarily the truth, or factual, but is often based on speculation. We are not insensible to the fact that, sometimes, man's observations are misguided. So, when I support the ancient texts of ancient Greek and Latin authors who saw with their own eyes Jews reading from an Aramaic copy of the Gospel of Matthew, this, in my view, is significant! By the way, I have studied Jewish logic. I will add, most Jews revel in debate, and I am no exception. Davidbena (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Isaiah

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Isaiah has zilch to do with Matthew (except for the odd messianic prophecy), but I've been putting rather a lot of time into a revision of it lately. Since this seems to be the current waterhole where one finds religiously inclined editors, I'd just like to invite anyone with an interest to go over and see if you can suggest improvements. Thanks. PiCo (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

PiCo, the article entitled "Book of Isaiah" is written well, but I am interested in seeing the academic research which led scholars to the conclusion that chapters 40-55 of Isaiah were "the work of an anonymous Exilic author" (Deutero-Isaiah). You cited Lawrence Boadt (1984), "Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction," Paulist Press, for this claim, although Jewish tradition (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Bathra 15a - top) avers that it was "...Hezekiah and his party..." who compiled the books Isaiah, Song of Songs, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Of course, this refers to the Vorlage of the Masoretic text used by us today, a text which, itself, was transliterated from a Proto-Paleo-Hebrew text into the current Assyrian script (modern Hebrew script) which Jews make use of today. The Assyrian script (modern-Hebrew script) was learnt by Israel during the Babylonian exile, and was introduced by Ezra into the canonical books of the Hebrew Bible. This might explain why some "scholars" (who are not without error) think that part of the Book of Isaiah was composed during Israel's exile. We might also rectify this discrepancy between Jewish tradition and modern-day scholarship by saying that scholars rightfully observed an Isaiah text written in late antiquity, rather than early antiquity, because - in Jewish tradition - the Babylonian exile occurred in 422 BCE, rather than in 586 BCE (as generally assumed by chroniclers today). In short, the Book of Isaiah, according to Jewish tradition, was indeed compiled in late antiquity.

Verifying Jewish Tradition as Fact

According to the Third Book of Manetho [1] who brings down eight successive Persian kings and the number of years in which they reigned after Cyrus, Cambyses succeeded his father (Cyrus) and reigned over Persia five years, while Cambyses was succeeded by Darius, the son of Hystaspes, who reigned 36 years. It is this Darius who renewed the decree of Cyrus to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. According to Ezra 6:15, the Temple was finished in the 6th year of the reign of Darius the king.[2] It began to be built in the 2nd year of his reign (Ezra 4:24), in accordance with the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah. This one date, the 6th year of Darius, being the year in which the Second Temple was completed, is perhaps the most crucial date we have in helping us to determine the number of years which have transpired since that time down to our own present age. For if we take this date, comparing it with the time frame mentioned in the Aramaic Scroll of Antiochus,[3] we learn that from the Second Temple's rebuilding till the 23rd year of the reign of Antiochus Eupator, son of Antiochus Epiphanes, who invaded Judaea, there had transpired 213 years in total. Now Antiochus Eupator's father, Antiochus Epiphanes, had died in anno 149 of the Seleucid Era (162 BCE), in which year his son obtained the kingdom, just as we learn from Josephus’ Antiquities (xii.ix.2). Twenty-three years later, that is, in the year 172 of the Seleucid Era, or what was then 139 BCE, which happened to be the 23rd year of the reign of Antiochus Eupator, the Second Temple had already stood some 213 years, meaning, it was built in 352 BCE! If these figures are correct, and we have no reason to doubt them, this puts Darius' 6th year of reign as 353/2 BCE. Seventy years prior to this time was 422 BCE, the beginning of the Babylonian captivity!

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See: The Ancient Fragments, ed. I. P. Cory, Esq., p. 65, London 1828. Manetho was the high priest and scribe of Egypt who wrote down his history for Ptolemy Philadelphus.

[2] Josephus' account of the same period is erroneous. According to Josephus (Antiquities xi.iv.7), the Second Temple began to be built in the 2nd year of Darius and was completed in his 9th year.

[3] Also known as Megillath Benei Hašmonai (The Scroll of the Sons of Asamoneus). According to medieval Jewish Rabbi and scholar, Sa‘adia Gaon (882 CE – 942 CE), in the introduction to his book on Hebrew grammar, Egron (Kitāb asūl al-ša‘ar al-‘ibrāni), The "Scroll of Antiochus" was written by the elders of the schools of Hillel and Shammai in the Chaldaic language. This would put its composition in the early 1st century. Davidbena (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of WP:OR, which you have already been reminded is not allowed on Wikipedia. Besides, it has nothing to do with the discussed articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, you misunderstand the rules of Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with sharing original research on a Talk Forum in order to make a point. Here, contrary to what you may have thought, I was not trying to publish an article on Wikipedia. Lol! Davidbena (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena, "Tgeorgescu, you misunderstand the rules of Wikipedia." convinces me that some kind of official warning is required, to make it register that you are heading to a topic ban on Bible articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A ban? For what reason? My sole objective is to be faithful to the truth, without distorting it. So, if a few editors object to my views, and others agree with my views, is that a good reason to ban me? Unless, you are in the habit of trying to scare people??? Try to be more objective and you will see the logic to all that I say here. I am for Wikipedia producing the best articles possible, and that means - I suppose - educating some editors on how to think properly and not reject "Primary Sources." Davidbena (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

David, if you want to know what led scholars to think that Isaiah came from three separate periods spread over nearly 400 years, you should read the books listed as sources in that section of the article. We have to stop discussing Isaiah here - article Talk pages are meant for discussing improvements to the relevant article, and this is well off the topic of Matthew (for which I, of course, am responsible - maybe I'll be the one banned :) PiCo (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Welcome Davidbena

User:Davidbena, I think that anyone who CAREFULLY reads what you have written would agree that your work is solid. It is supported by the NEW SCHOLARSHIP of Ehrman, Casey, Edwards etc. I think that those who dispute that Jesus was Jewish or the possibility of an early Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel are living in a time warp and clearly have not been keeping up to date by reading the scholarly works of the past five years. We do have some disagreements (See User:Ret.Prof for my position and I look forward to some stimulating discussion.)

Secondly, there have been some discussion regarding WP:RS. Although "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources", tertiary and primary sources may be used with care. "While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."

Thirdly, although some of the harsh statements made against you are worthy of "being slapped with a dead fish", what you bring to the discussion is valuable. However it is important to remember the following:

"I don't think outside observers of this complex dispute understand how much it is rocking the foundation of certain people's deeply-held beliefs. Ignocrates (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)"

Therefore, being understanding and kind is important. Having said that your being a Jew who studied the Talmud for seven years in one of the finest Yeshivas in Jerusalem is a GOOD THING. You and I approach this subject from two different perspectives but religious Jews, adhere to ancient customs and traditions, and do not seek novelties, or ways to change ancient customs. So, when you support "the ancient texts of ancient Greek and Latin authors who saw with their own eyes Jews reading from an Aramaic copy" of the Matthew's Gospel, this, brings much too the debate! By the way, I too have studied Jewish logic will revel in the debate. A most sincere welcome to Wikipedia! Shalom! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Response

1. I have found the discussion here and at WP:FTN very helpful. I agree with User:Shii that 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, as the question is one of WEIGHT, not FRINGE. (See PiCo, John Carter, Ignocrates and IRWolfie )
2. Secondly, after carefully reading WP:RS and reflecting upon the above discussion, I have come to the conclusion that Ehrman is a reliable source per User:Smeat75. Indeed Ehrman is a leading source.
3. Most interesting is accusation that the article goes beyond what is written in Ehrman and the apparent deception and "willful misuse of sources". Although I do not believe there has been any willful deception (it is always important to assume good faith), this is an important issue must be dealt with. (See below)

Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101

• And this is what he says about Matthew: “And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [or translated] them to the best of his ability.
• This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. 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. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This 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 to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101)

Issues

1. Trustworthiness: After reading pp 98-101 carefully, the central theme is that the testimony of Papias is trustworthy for it 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 to the disciples of Jesus themselves."
2. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel: It is true that Papias “knows” that there was a "collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew". Nothing is said to challenge this fact.
3. BUT "there is no reason to think that he is referring to the book that we call...Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels." Therfore, although Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is not the same as the Gospel of Matthew, there was a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew!

Where conservative scholars (and for that matther user:John Carter and friends) go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about our Gospel of Matthew when he is really talking about the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. British historian Maurice Casey comes to the same conclusion.

Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88

• Papias attributed the collection of some 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. (quote from p 86)
• It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew. It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87)

It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous and is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now, it has to be admitted that not everyone agrees. There are still some Christian scholars who believe that the Gospel of Matthew is a direct translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. On the other extreme are those who believe the Gospel of Matthew is a Christian deception as it had nothing to do with Matthew because the Hebrew Gospel spoken of by Papias never existed. Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Reliable sources notice-board

There is continued debate about reliable sources (see user:John Carter above). I am surprised at how many reject Bart Ehrman as a reliable source re Biblical scholarship both here and at the Oral Gospel traditions. In any event I have sought guidance at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If Bart is rejected, I will abide by the consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

In the quote from him he says about Papias "that he knows people who knew the apostles (or the apostles' companions)". That's what Ehrman means by the testimony of Papias. It is reliable since Ehrman thinks that Papias would not lie about knowing those people. So, it's not exactly that Papias in general would be trustworthy (in another quote I have shown that Ehrman compares Papias to someone gives wrong directions for reaching some places one knows how to reach), but he considers that he would not tell a bald-faced lie about knowing those people. Sometimes popularized science books leave out lots of nuances and use imprecise formulations, that's why they should be used with caution, especially given Ehrman previous statements about Papias' reliability. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Per Tgeorgescu, that is my understanding too.

But really the SIZE of these posts (here and there) and the keep-on-coming-back year after year. It's too much. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. You can't just dump c.7,500 words on a talk page and assume you're having a discussion. Who is going to read it? Especially when the point about what Ehrman is saying has been explained and repeated again and again without apparently leaving an impact. --Rbreen (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No need for a topic ban

I carefully tried to deal with all your concerns. Maybe I overdid it?? In any event, there is no need for a topic ban. I have made my point and will be voluntarily stepping back from this topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Tag:Authorship and sources

Papias tradition

I agree with you. It seemed reasonable remove the Papias material which says "Matthew composed his Gospel in a Hebrew dialect" from this article . . . until I checked the references. The scope of an article is the topic or subject matter, which is defined by reliable sources. WP:SCOPE Deleting the Papias tradition from our article is simply not supported by the reliable sources. See List The reliable rources on the Canonical Gospel of Matthew devote a section to Papias. To delete Papias from our topic would go against Wikipedia policy.

I have also gone to the seminary library in order to comply with synopsis request (above). I checked the encyclopedias and other tertiary sources ranging from the New Catholic Encyclopedia to Blackwells and found that all their articles on the Gospel of Matthew delve into the Papias issue. Quite honestly I could not find a source that did not refer to Papias. My synopsis or outline would be as follows:

OUTLINE

1 Composition and setting 1.1 Authorship 1.2 Setting: the community of the Gospel of Matthew 2 Structure and content 2.1 Structure 2.2 Prologue: genealogy, nativity and infancy 2.3 First narrative and discourse 2.4 Second narrative and discourse 2.5 Third narrative and discourse 2.6 Fourth narrative and discourse 2.7 Fifth narrative and discourse 2.8 Conclusion: Passion, Resurrection and Great Commission 3 Themes in Matthew

4 Comparison with other writings

This is pretty standard stuff. What is important to note is that the sections on Authorship have Papias included. Although I looked at many many sources on the Gospel of Matthew, the four that I based my outline on were The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church 2013, Encyclopaedia of the historical Jesus 2008, New Catholic Encyclopedia and Blackwells. Also I am flexible. Hope you find my outline a step in the right direction.

Ret.Prof (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Authorship

Although the Gospel of Matthew does not name its author, Blackwells points out that the early MSS have the following citation:

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 earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey b. 63 A.D). His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius, generally "held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." Blackwell (2010) p 301 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. Blackwell (2010) p 302 Indeed, leading British historian Maurice Casey has gone so far as to say, "It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew" compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able. (See also Casey 2010 p 86)

Bart Ehrman and James Edwards now support Casey and argue that 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

Indeed there can be no denying the striking and incontestable fact that the Apostle Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel. 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) 19:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Modern scholarship: translation verses composite authorship debate

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 several historical problems. First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (see The Synoptic Problem). Blackwell (2010) p 302 Also 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." James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009 p 33

Most contemporary scholars embrace composite authorship (See Two-source hypothesis, Four document hypothesis & Diagram) and believe the Gospel of Matthew is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (Greek primacy). Raymond Edward Brown, An introduction to the New Testament, Anchor Bible Series, Doubleday, 1997. p. 209-211 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." 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.". 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. Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, 2010. p 89

Ret.Prof (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Net Bible

I do not use online sources such as Wikipedia, NET Bible, etc as sources for content. I am using the NET Bible to show what a successful online source format should look like. Also note the NPOV... all scholarly positions are explained...both those who support the trustworthiness of Papias and those who oppose. I strongly suggest both sides stop their POV pushing and write an article from a NPOV. Remember NPOV policy at Wikipedia CANNOT be set aside by consensus!

• 2. Authorship.

The questions that cluster around the First Gospel have largely to do with the much-discussed and variously disputed statement concerning it found in Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), cited from the much older work of Papias, entitled Interpretation of the Words of the Lord. Papias is the first who mentions Matthew by name as the author of the Gospel. His words are: "Matthew composed the Logia (logia, "words," "oracles") in the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue, and everyone interpreted them as he was able." Papias cannot here be referring to a book of Matthew in which only the discourses or sayings of Jesus had been preserved, but which had not any, or only meager accounts of His deeds, which imaginary document is in so many critical circles regarded as the basis of the present Gospel, for Papias himself uses the expression ta logia, as embracing the story, as he himself says, in speaking of Mark, "of the things said or done by Christ" (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24; compare particularly T. Zahn, Introduction to New Testament, section 54, and Lightfoot, Supernatural Religion, 170 ff). Eusebius further reports that after Matthew had first labored among his Jewish compatriots, he went to other nations, and as a substitute for his oral preaching, left to the former a Gospel written in their own dialect (III, 24). The testimony of Papias to Matthew as the author of the First Gospel is confirmed by Irenaeus (iii.3, 1) and by Origen (in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10), and may be accepted as representing a uniform 2nd-century tradition. Always, however, it is coupled with the statement that the Gospel was originally written in the Hebrew dialect. Hence, arises the difficult question of the relation of the canonical Greek Gospel, with which alone, apparently, the fathers were acquainted, to this alleged original apostolic work.

• 3. Relation of Greek and Aramaic Gospels:

One thing which seems certain is that whatever this Hebrew (Aramaic) document may have been, it was not an original form from which the present Greek Gospel of Matthew was translated, either by the apostle himself, or by somebody else, as was maintained by Bengel, Thiersch, and other scholars. Indeed, the Greek Matthew throughout bears the impress of being not a translation at all, but as having been originally written in Greek, and as being less Hebraistic in the form of thought than some other New Testament writings, e.g. the Apocalypse. It is generally not difficult to discover when a Greek book of this period is a translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic. That our Matthew was written originally in Greek appears, among other things, from the way in which it makes use of the Old Testament, sometimes following the Septuagint, sometimes going back to the Hebrew. Particularly instructive passages in this regard are 12:18-21 and 13:14,15, in which the rendering of the Alexandrian translation would have served the purposes of the evangelist, but he yet follows more closely the original text, although he adopts the Septuagint wherever this seemed to suit better than the Hebrew (compare Keil's Commentary on Matthew, loc. cit.).

The external evidences to which appeal is made in favor of the use of an original Hebrew or Aramaic. Matthew in the primitive church are more than elusive. Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10) mentions as a report (legetai) that Pantaenus, about the year 170 AD, found among the Jewish Christians, probably of South Arabia, a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, left there by Bartholomew; and Jerome, while in the Syrian Berea, had occasion to examine such a work, which he found in use among the Nazarenes, and which at first he regarded as a composition of the apostle Matthew, but afterward declared not to be such, and then identified with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Evangelium secundum or juxta Hebraeos) also called the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, or of the Nazarenes, current among the Nazarenes and Ebionites (De Vir. Illustr., iii; Contra Pelag., iii.2; Commentary on Mt 12:13, etc.). For this reason the references by Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew are by many scholars regarded as referring to this Hebrew Gospel which the Jewish Christians employed, and which they thought to be the work of the evangelist (compare for fuller details See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, XII, article "Matthaeus der Apostel"). Just what the original Hebrew. Mathew was to which Papias refers (assuming it to have had a real existence) must, with our present available means, remain an unsolved riddle, as also the possible connection between the Greek and Hebrew texts. Attempts like those of Zahn, in his Kommentar on Matthew, to explain readings of the Greek text through an inaccurate understanding of the imaginary Hebrew original are arbitrary and unreliable. There remains, of course, the possibility that the apostle himself, or someone under his care (thus Godet), produced a Greek recension of an earlier Aramaic work.

The prevailing theory at present is that the Hebrew Matthean document of Papias was a collection mainly of the discourses of Jesus (called by recent critics Q), which, in variant Greek translations, was used both by the author of the Greek Matthew and by the evangelist Luke, thus explaining the common features in these two gospels (W.C. Allen, however, in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Matthew, disputes Luke's use of this supposed common source, Intro, xlvi ff). The use of this supposed Matthean source is thought to explain how the Greek Gospel came to be named after the apostle. It has already been remarked, however, that there is no good reason for supposing that the "Logia" of Papias was confined to discourses.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ret.Prof (talk • contribs) 13:52, 31 August 2013‎ (UTC)

WP:NPOV

A special thanks to PiCo for allowing Papias into the article. It seems that the main conflict is no longer about scope. Our article now has a good section about Papias and trustworthiness. However, there is a POV problem in that all the sources in support of the trustworthiness of Papias (ie Casey, Ehrman etc) have been deleted from the article. NPOV is central to Wikipedia and CANNOT even be overridden by consensus. Therefore I have restored the following paragraph:

• Today, some modern scholars believe the Papias reference, preserved by Eusebius to be fairly trustworthy and usually interpret it to mean Jesus' disciple Matthew had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic. Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect, and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ret.Prof (talk • contribs) 13:52, 31 August 2013‎ (UTC)

References

Request to Add new Sub-Title to Current Article

The editors of this article may wish to consider adding a new sub-title entitled, "Jewish Exegeses in Jesus' Teachings," which, by the nature of its title, requires a brief look into some of his teachings, and approached from the standpoint of "Source Criticism." This, I think, would be most appropriate to an article treating on the Gospel of Matthew. In fact, IMHO, it is the essence of the Gospel itself. Of course, all of the editors can be involved in its making, citing references which explain some of his, otherwise, esoteric sayings. Having such a sub-topic will greatly enhance the article. In my opinion, it would not have to be long, nor cover the entire Book of Matthew. We can discuss what teaching/saying might be appropriate in this regard and show where it has been diacritically analyzed, thereby bringing to our readers a more enlightened understanding. Davidbena (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

David, have you looked at the section "Themes in Matthew"? Look over that, then read the books cited as sources, and see if you might refine your suggestion in that light. (Personally I think the Themes section could be more detailed). PiCo (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, PiCo. I'll take a look at your suggestion. Davidbena (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Scope

Extended content

The scope of an article is the topic or subject matter, which is defined by reliable sources. I am now willing to concede to user:John Carter that reliable tertiary sources would be helpful in this regard. Verification Verifiability: Remember other people have to be able to check that editors didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. NOTE:verifiability, not truth. Tertiary sources such as encyclopedias and dictionaries remain difficult to verify. With the downturn in the global economy many libraries do not have the most recent encyclopedias etc. Inter library loans policy generally does not cover encyclopedias etc. POD is generally not available for encyclopedias etc. Google books is generally prohibited from most reference books. Many editors are not in a position to buy an encyclopedia to verify a fact. Therefore, verification has become a practical problem. Also because of the internet, publishers have had to cut costs which means that many "new" Encyclopedias etc are already out of date. Also, Online Encyclopedias ie The Net Bible must be handled with care. Yesterday, I undertook the tedious task of going to the seminary library and reading through the Biblical companions, study Bibles, commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias etc. The good news is that reliable sources are united on one point. In their articles or sections on the Gospel of Matthew, they refer to Papias and "his trustworthiness". He is considered important as he provides the earliest information about the composition of Matthew. (See Google list 1 Google list #2 Note also many reliable reference books do not have a Google preview, therefore a trip to the library will be necessary) Also page numbers tend to be movable depending on the edition of a work. Also different libraries tend to have different editions of reference works. To verify one must go to the Gospel of Matthew section found in the reference work. Blackwells (2010) p 301, Encyclopaedia of the historical Jesus (2008) p 256, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003) p 357 ESV Study Bible (2012) p 1815, Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (1990) p 558 The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (2013) p 891, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. p 281 Over 179 reference books in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew, devote a section to Papias, and the trustworthiness of his testimony re Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303 I have chosen Blackwell as my main tertiary source as it is 1) up to date, 2) has an online preview to verify 3) is representative of tertiary sources on topic. 4) has been vetted as a reliable source at Wikipedia. Author and Setting: The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together [text variant “wrote”] the sayings [logia] in Matthew the Hebrew [Hebraiois] dialect [dialecto ̄] and each one translated them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. 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, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302) By saying, "and each one translated them as he was able," gives allowance for Greek translations to be made with omissions and/or mistranslations, as well as paraphrases, in the text. Hmmmmmmm. I wonder now about our current canonical text of Matthew.Davidbena (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC) I've wondered about that for some time myself, but, unfortunately, without sources indicating what material might be added or deleted, and without any real sources wondering is all we can do. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus actually does a great job indicating all the ways the text of the NT could be, and in some ways pretty much has been verified to have been, changed. But, in a sense, by the same token, there is perhaps also a question as to whether the author of the original Matthew himself were necessarily the ideal source, and whether in some cases the editing to whatever the original was might not have been in some ways improved, particularly if they were based on, for instance, the word of people who had been direct witnesses to things the author of Matthew himself might not have been witness to. This is unfortunately a line of speculation which can't ever be taken to a real, conclusive, end, though, and on that basis this probably isn't the best place to dwell too much on it. John Carter (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC) John, yes, we can only speculate about the matter, since the oldest manuscript of the Gospels is John Rylands P52, and it is merely a fragment. Still, no scholar worth his salt can be numb to the fact that (1) “The books [canonical gospels] are not heard of till 150 A.D., that is, till Jesus had been dead nearly a hundred and twenty years. No writer before 150 A.D. makes the slightest mention of them.” - Bronson, C. Keeler, “A Short History of the Bible;” and (2) “In AD 303... the pagan emperor Diocletian had undertaken to destroy all Christian writings that could be found. As a result Christian documents- especially in Rome- all but vanished. When Constantine commissioned new versions of these documents, it enabled the custodians of orthodoxy to revise, edit, and rewrite their material as they saw fit, in accordance with their tenets. It was at this point that most of the crucial alterations in the New Testament were probably made and Jesus assumed the unique status he has enjoyed ever since. The importance of Constantine's commission must not be underestimated. Of the five thousand extant early manuscript versions of the New Testament, no complete edition pre-dates the fourth century. The New Testament, as it exists today, is essentially a product of fourth-century editors and writers – custodians of orthodoxy, ‘adherents of the message’, with vested interests to protect.” - Michael Baigent, “Holy Blood, Holy Grail,” pp. 388-389. I have actually seen a book in Hebrew which approaches the subject from Textual criticism of the N.T. gospel, pointing out translation errors in Matthew's Gospel. I do not possess a copy of that Hebrew source, although I read it once. When I find again its name and author, I will quote it here for our readers.Davidbena (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC) The only real comment I can make here is that I am really, really astounded that you seem to think Michael Baigent's sensationalist drivel would even remotely qualify as anything remotely reliable, considering virtually every published work he has has been more or less laughed at from publication on. Maybe it is just a personal opinion, but if there is any single individual out there who writes about early Christianity who should be, basically, completely ignored, it's him. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC) If this interpretation of Papias is correct, there are several historical problems. First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (see Chapter 15, "The Synoptic Problem," in this volume). This theory requires that the author of Matthew knew and used Greek versions of Mark and Greek Q as sources. Third, the gospel contains sayings and sayings collections, but is itself not a collection of sayings such as Proverbs or The Gospel of Thomas. In short, Papias' description does not correspond well with the New Testament. — Duling, p. 302 Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC) I beg to differ for the following reasons: - Papias' opinion about the authorship of the original Matthew and, subsequently, later translations of the Aramaic text, is not bound by what modern scholars think or do not think about the canonical Gospel's authorship. The two are not necessarily connected. - As for "specialists in language" who examined the canonical text of the Gospel of Matthew, their findings may have indeed been true about the canonical Gospel of Matthew (the Greek Evangelion). A Greek speaker may have transcribed it and may have been familiar with proper Greek usages and idioms in light of the Aramaic text. This, too, has no real bearing on the original book of Matthew which Papias spoke about. As a professional translator, I have often translated Hebrew idioms into a colloquial English that could be understood by the reader, rather than translate idioms verbatim, and which would be senseless to the reader. It is not inconceivable to think that the author of the canonical Gospel of Matthew did the same thing (IMHO). - As for the "Synoptic Problem," and the author's acquaintance with at least the Gospel of Mark and/or the Gospel of Luke, this problem can only be ascribed to the author who spoke Greek and who transcribed the book from his available sources - be they Greek, Latin or Aramaic sources. Again, the author of the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew cannot be linked to this "Synoptic Problem," since the Synoptic Problem is only concerned with the relationship between the Greek Gospels themselves, and no more. I do not understand what you mean by saying the Gospel is not a "collection" of sayings. What is its significance? On a lighter note, gentlemen, have any of you seen this enlightened article? Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research. While I might not agree with all that is stated therein, it still brings down invaluable sources which can help us all to better understand this matter.Davidbena (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC) You have to decide if you consider that source reliable or unreliable. It certainly cannot be both at the same time. Besides, if you will continue with pushing original research arguments you will get a topic ban. Papias' testimony means nothing as long as he speaks of the disciple called Matthew while there is a broad academic consensus that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew. There is a board scholarly consensus that the author of the Gospel of Matthew was anonymous and that the gospel was written in Greek, i.e. it was not a translation. You have expressed apologies for your behavior at WP:ANI but you still continue with the same problematic behavior you had to apologize for. That's why the topic ban is getting closer. Nobody has anything against a newbie who does not know the rules, but you are obviously a newbie who is unwilling to learn the rules and abide by them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC) David, please remember we are not all men. And those of us who are, don't necessarily claim to be gentlemen.--Rbreen (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Just another liberal rag attempt to discredit the Bible

So do you Bible hating liberals ever get tired of writing only your own views and pretending they are facts? Odd that not one view other then the Liberal "The Bible was written later then the Apostles because it is all made up" crap is ever seen on Anti-Christpedia. FACT - Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and it was written before 70 AD. but since you liberals can't muster the faith to believe that Jesus could actually predict the Destruction of the temple then you make up lies and justify it by adding the world "Most Biblical Scholars believe" Well only the lame liberal morons that reject the Bible think that, but you are to bigoted to allow any other view point such as the writings of Walvoord, Moody, Bruce etc. You know actual BIBLE SCHOLARS THAT TEACH THE BIBLE AT CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITIES. Typical liberal Free speech means MY SPEECH NOT YOURS. Do me a favor and prove me wrong by going to the Koran site and attack the Muslim Book with the same liberal hate that you use on the Bible. You won't because 1) you are a coward and 2) you don't hate Allah as much as you hate JESUS and Christianity. OK quick, delete this because it disagrees with you and the Christaphobic bigot rules of Anti-Christapedia. I added some things to the Article but I'm sure you will remove it all because it doesn't attack the Bible like the rest of the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

..............Like I said, my addition was up for 3 mins before one of the Christian-haters took it down. No wonder Wikipedia is now a joke and not accepted as a legitimate source by any professional teacher. To bad, it started out to be a good thing u but like everything that liberals control, they destroyed it and made it a joke. So let me ask a real question. If a white person tried to rewrite all of Black history and refused to post anything by black authors because they were considered just POV wouldn't that be called RACISM? so what is it called when Anti-Christs and liberals who don't believe the Bible rewrite Bible history?????? I call it Christaphobic Bigotry. Whatever you call it, it is just as evil a Racism!--69.14.97.53 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The article on the Quran says in the lede: "However, major textual variations and deficiencies in scripts mean the relationship between the text of today's Quran and an original text is unclear." That is a reflection of the scholarship on the issue, and certainly does not accord with a certain Muslim belief. No one is attacking the Bible, we are just trying to the best of our ability to represent the scholarship on the issues. We are just volunteers who enjoy this topic. Our criteria for inclusion and representation of points of view are not based on what or who is "liberal" and what or who is "conservative". If you wish to see a relevant policy, please go to WP:V. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit misrepresents what the reliable sources say (e.g., they do not say merely that Liberal scholars believe that it is anonymous; they say that it is anonymous). Your only source for the other material you included was a .gif of unknown provenance which does not support most of the claims you included. You have to supply a reliable source for a challenged claim. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You want sources then try anything written by Bible Believing Scholars at any of the 1000s of Biblical Universities. Try any book published by Moody Press, Eerdmans Press, Zondervan Press - you know all the publishers that you Liberal Bible haters are afraid to reference. The fact is that Wikipedia is run and controlled by Anti-theists and will use any excuse to keep their articles as Christaphobic as possible. I wonder if Richard Dawkins isn't the Commander & Chief of Wikipedia. For instance, what is you view of God - I would bet my life that if you told the truth, you are a Anti-Theist or you wouldn't be a editor here. No matter what a REAL BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN wrote, Wikipedia would delete it as just a POV because you view belief in God as just a POV. The Koran post above proves nothing. Try saying that the Koran was written 300 years after Mohamed was dead and that he copied it all from someone else and see how long you live. Fact is Wikipedia treats the Bible with pure HATE unlike it's treatment of other so-called Holy Text. OK you can ban me now and delete all this for speaking out against the GREAT LIBERAL RAG of Anti-Christapedia - like always happen. I guess another library IP address will be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW since Liberals are to lazy to look up facts, here are a few (just a few) references for you:

R.T. France, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 1, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 2007)

William L. Lane, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 2, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1974)

Norval Geldenhuys, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 3, The Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1983)

Everett F. Herrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1964)

Robert G Gromacki, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House., 1979)

Irving L. Jensen, Jensen's Survey of the New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981)

Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Handbook (Chicago: Moody Press, 1967)

Let me guess, since these are Christian Bible Believing Scholars that can't be trusted. well before you look foolish I looked up just one of the authors GELDENHUYS and he served at both Princeton & Cambridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so here is the report from a book published by Eerdmans:

The author of the Gospel does not identify himself within the narrative. ... In this commentary the anonymous author of the Gospel will be referred to interchangeably as "the author of Matthew," "the author of the Gospel," of "Matthew".

— Saldarini, "Matthew" in Dunn & Rogerson (eds.), Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Eerdmans, 2003), p. 1000.

In your latest edit [10] you've supplied a bunch of sources, but no page numbers. Would you mind telling me where the claims you have included occur in these works? These works are from over five hundred pages long to over one thousand pages long (as in the case of the France); it is a bit hard to find the support for your claims without knowing where to look. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

OK I give up. Like I said, you anti-theists will do anything or say anything to get your way. What happens after I SUPPLY YOU WITH THE PAGE #. WHAT EXCUSE WILL YOU USE THEN?? FORGET IT, JUST DELETE EVERYTHING LIKE WE BOTH KNOW YOU WILL ANYWAY. YOU CAN'T WIN WITH ANTI-THEISTS FASCISTS and let me be clear, you are Fascists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

With full sincerity I can assure you that I am not a fascist. It is just hard for me to verify your claims when I have to go through around five thousand pages of material in order to find it; I am liable to miss something. Since you know where the claims are, it would be helpful to me and others if you just gave the page number for the different claims. For example, on which page in which work is there the claim that disputes that the Gospel of Matthew is anonymous? I haven't seen anything in the France 2007 yet (he didn't dispute this in the introduction where he talks about authorship, where I imagine he would say it, since the rest is just commentary on the text), but there are over one thousand pages, and I haven't started with the other works. If you just tell me where you read it, then I won't have to go through so many pages. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

didn't even bother to read your bull story. Like I said. I knew when I started this post that Anti-Christapedia would never allow any Conservative Bible Believing stuff on the site that is run by Fascist christaphobic bigots. but you do help to prove one thing, Jesus was right when he said Christians will be treated like this. Don't worry one day soon all you Christaphoblcs will be allowed to murder us Christians at will just like the Nazi's killed the Jews. Seems that is always where fascism & Socialism end up. Like I said having Anti-theist rewrite Christian History is like having the KKK write Black History - it is the same evil.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm sorry if you feel that way. You and everyone else are always welcome to contribute positively. There are inevitably many biases in this encyclopedia as in perhaps any, and it's always nice to have people to offer verifiable information to help correct any. This can only be done with collaboration however, and we would actually have to read one another's questions and comments in order to have collaboration. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In a way, the IP is right: the bulk of the theological and historical research has become increasingly liberal (by theological standards) and Wikipedia is forced by its policies to reflect and give due weight to the mainstream view, which happens to be liberal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

For why is it so see 3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship by Peter Enns. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well before the Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis lie was birthed in hell, even the most moronic person knew that one couldn't be a Christian and reject the Bible. After the lie was pimped by all the fake Christians and pseudo-intellectuals in Germany, it closed the door on God and opened the door for the demonic invasion that gave Germany Hitler, Nazism and the Jewish Holocaust. In the 1950 the JEDP Liberal theology cam to America and began to infect Mainline cults like the Methodist church. Once again, God and His Word was rejected and that allowed for the Demonic cloud to descend over her and gave us the Holocaust on the Unborn. Soon usher in the judgment of God just as every nation that choose to love self and Gnosticism over the True Word of God. Well just like in Germany of the 1930s there were 100's of true Christians that have never bowed a knee to Baal so in America there are 1000's that know that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and that these Anti-theist Fascists will one day bow their knee to Jesus as His word says. Well I actually sopke the truth so I'm sure this post will soon disappear just like any post that speaks the truth about the Wikipedia god Obama.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is bound by its policies to side with the academia, meaning mainstream, secular universities, mostly from the Western world since most of the significant research happens there. As you perhaps know, secular does not mean atheist. I do not wish to repeat the same arguments over and over in talk pages, so I wrote WP:ABIAS instead of telling again the same story, you might want to read it in order to understand that the mainstream views of the academia get the lion's share inside Wikipedia. As Enns said, historical-critical scholarship still rules in theological and historical departments of mainstream universities, so it is futile to argue that it does not belong in Wikipedia because most fundamentalist Christians do not like it. Just for the record, Wikipedia is written and read by people with diverse religious persuasions, e.g. Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Shintoists, Confucianists, Taoists, Wiccans, agnostics, atheists and so on, so it is an extremely subjective argument that every knee will bow down to Jesus instead of, say, Zeus or Krishna. What I mean is that Wikipedia renders objective facts and objective facts about opinions, it does not pretend that subjective views would be objectively true. Unless you understand the difference between a subjective view and an objective fact, you will have a hard time editing Wikipedia. So, you would have to begin with showing proof that you understand this difference, otherwise you are doomed as an editor according to Wikipedia:Competence is required#Bias-based. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you say that Wikipedia is bound to side with secular universities. If there is valid scholarship coming out of religious universities then it is perfectly within the bounds of reason to use it in religious articles, if not more so because the competence of religious Biblical scholars exceeds that of secular ones who might have an agenda of deconstructing the Christian faith. That being said, we still need to stand on reliable secondary sources from reputable publishers, which excludes blogs, self-published websites, self-published vanity press, and other Mickey-Mouse operations likely to be run by one independent pastor out of his garage chapel. But our IP interlocutor has a valid point that Wikipedia is dominated by secularists who would rather write religious articles from an atheistic viewpoint. Wikipedia policies are firmly against this kind of skew, and requires all valid viewpoints to be represented with due weight. In my opinion, that is going to mean that religious articles must adequately represent the preponderance of religious scholarship working within their own faith. I am not much of a Bible scholar and I don't have access to a vast library, so I can't comment on the particulars of the IP's additions, but his talk page presence is nothing but blatant POV-pushing and his behavior in the article has verged on edit-warring, so this needs to stop and quickly. Elizium23 (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely NOT true that Wikipedia is "bound by its policies to side with the academia, meaning mainstream, secular universities". Throwing this out is simply a red herring and is counter-productive to the thread discussion. Statements like this only CREATE the same silly arguments that litter Talk pages of Biblical topics all over Wikipedia. Ckruschke (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

It is true, according to WP:RNPOV, in matters of theology, all notable views have to be rendered. In matters of history, the mainstream view receives the lion's share. History is not the same as theology, and what is vanilla in theology could be fringe in history and therefore may fall under WP:UNDUE (as history, not as theology). Theology decides what should be believed by a given church, while historical facts should not depend on the religious persuasion of the audience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

In history there could be a consensus view or a mainstream view, in theology there is no mainstream or consensus view, since most of theology depends upon the church membership of the theologian. Historical scholarship aims at universality and objectivity, while theology makes no such claims. It is true that there are millions who believe that JEDP was birthed in hell (or would believe it if they knew what JEDP means), so in principle their view is notable, but as Enns said, it is a fringe view in the academe, even among scholars who actually disagree with JEDP. The sources used to build Wikipedia are academic sources, therefore JEDP and its 20-21st century offspring are given by default the weight they have inside the academia, while the view of the fundamentalists is treated according to WP:UNDUE. This does not mean that Wikipedia could say that the fundamentalists are theologically wrong (Wikipedia has no theology of its own), but it is entitled to say that inside historical scholarship they are a fringe view. Of course, this does not exclude serious scholarship done at religious faculties, since as Ehrman said in one of his bestsellers, US mainline Protestant and Catholic theological seminaries and divinity schools do teach mandatory historical criticism classes. So, in a sense, scholars from such faculties are thoroughly acquainted with historical criticism and built their careers upon its assumptions. Only fundamentalist seminaries and divinity schools choose to default against historical criticism. They are free to do this, but this cuts against their claims of being mainstream historians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Ckruschke: I explained below your answer what I meant by it and I add this: historical scholarship does not depend upon the religious persuasion of the audience, it aims to present facts which hold for all religious persuasions, meaning that they are independent of religious persuasions. Theology does not work that way, so I did not claim that the claim about "mainstream, secular universities" would hold for theology. But we, as Wikipedia editors may say that history which would be seen as ludicrous in most mainstream, secular universities should be considered fringe and handled according to WP:UNDUE. Most theological claims are only acceptable to persons which are members of a given church and are invalid for those who do not belong to this or that church, that's why theology isn't written in order to persuade mainstream, secular universities and should be taught to institutions affiliated to a certain church. I mean one does not graduate with a MDiv in Adventist theology at a Catholic faculty, nor in Baptist theology at a Mormon faculty. Each church teaches its own theology to members of its own. But history is taught regardless of church membership and we get a good picture of mainstream history from what is being taught at mainstream, secular universities, and especially from what is principally unfit to be taught in such universities. So, theology relies on preaching to the choir, but this does not hold for history. Theology is subjective, since it changes according to one's church membership, but history aims at objectivity, meaning that it should not depend upon one's church membership, and this is what makes it fit for being taught at mainstream, secular universities, appreciated and cultivated there. I mean one can attend courses in the history of Christianity without demanding that he/she is a Christian and facts about the history of Christianity should hold regardless of one's religious persuasion. A Wikipedia article about Christian history should be informative for agnostics, atheists, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. We cannot give special treatment to the theology of one church, since all other churches and religions would feel discriminated. And I pointed to Enns's blog because he is very close to the evangelical position (which the IP seemingly shares), but he can be trusted that the claim that historical criticism would be a thing of the past simply does not reflect what is happening in the academia (fundamentalist faculties excepted). In matters of history, Wikipedia has to go with the mainstream view, I think this is already settled by Wikipedia policies and we are not going to change it. So, if mainstream history has gone theologically liberal, Wikipedia is forced to go with this view, of course, without implying that one theology is better than another theology, but simply in as far as it describes facts pertaining to the history of Christianity. I think this is the honest answer, at least we should not delude our readers that Wikipedia panders to fundamentalist theology. Since they are intelligent enough to notice that Wikipedia does not reflect their theology and their fundamentalist views of history. I mean Wikipedia cannot claim that theologically fundamentalism would be wrong, but in matters of historical facts it should uncompromisingly render the mainstream view, even when this offends fundamentalist sensibilities. The way pictures are kept in the article Muhammad is more than telling that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of religious sensibilities, be them Christian or Muslim or whatever. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I respect your long, polite, and well-thought answer. I know I've hijacked the conversation so I'm going to simply agree to disagree and stop. Ckruschke (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

"Saint Matthew" etc.

Potential changes to MOS:SAINTS at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERA

An IP editor has changed "CE" to "AD" here, but I don't want to revert it, because the edit history indicates that "AD" has been the preferred usage in this article over the years. (This particular use of CE had been added in 2012, when the rest of the article had had "AD", thus making the article inconsistent. Other occurrences of "AD" were removed in favour of a plain date, but this had remained.) StAnselm (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the era entirely to be consistent with the rest of the article. StAnselm (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)