![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Ictu, please respond at the Gospel of the Hebrews talk page immediately. Thank you. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the duplication across several articles of the same POV material, you took a simple and natural #redirect Gospel#Canonical gospels and inserted an essay style article pushing the oral/Talmudic content James R. Edwards (2009) "controversial" (his own website) theory Canonical Gospels (but greatly overweight to lost Hebrew Gospel theory) which was picked up by other editors as being POV, proposed for deletion and survived, but retains a lot of duplicate material you have been adding at Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels Talk:Gospel of the Nazarenes and the essay-like pages Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament Talk:Criteria of authenticity and the historical Jesus Talk:Jesus in the Talmud, cf. Talk:Historicity of Jesus and so on. In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ret Prof. As regards your proposed work tasks, I honestly think that the place for developing James R. Edwards' theory is on the article about the author, not on a major item like the main Gospel of Matthew page.
Regarding this sentence which I edited (since the citations don't support the content) you reverted:
Which one of these sources claims that the "Greek translation of Matthew" was "lost"? In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I reverted because we had not reached consensus.
Proposed compromise:
Although anonymous, [3] it was believed that the Gospel of Matthew was composed by Matthew, a disciple of Jesus. [4] Papias of Hierapolis (Bishop of Hierapolis) in Asia Minor wrote concerning Matthew, "Matthew put together the Logia (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." [5] [6] [7] Does this move us closer to consensus? Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I also think that you need to look at W:Consensus and see whether it gives the justification for this practice you have adopted for deleting first and discussing (or not discussing) second. We normally only revert edits which are uncited, vandalism, non-notable or where the claim is not matched by citation. The practice you have adopted of deleting anything you do not like, or which conflicts with your views on lost Hebrew Gospels etc. is not the meaning of W:Consensus. Particularly since where multiple viewpoints exist then more than one can be aired, and ref/sourced. The issue of W:Consensus allows to reflects the diversity that exists. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Ret Prof, you also need to to read up W:Edit Warring: "Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making ..."
So, are you going to undelete? In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just found the same section again under Nazarene (sect), complete with the "Greek Matthew was lost" sentence. Just how many times do the same POV/OR claims have to be repeated on Wikipedia? In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Please see my talk page - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
But this is okay, you can have these minority hypotheses represented. What is not okay is seeking to supress mainstream scholarship by deleting references to majority "critical" views. And the reason the "standard" (called "standard" in verifiable sources already given, you seem to have forgotten) scholarly edition of NTA only has short sections (intro, composition, extant text, bibliography) on each of the 3 Jewish-Christian Gospels is because it is a reference work. The sections on these Jewish Christian Gospels in other reference works, such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary, etc. are also shorter than Nicholson or Edwards' books. This is all by the by, since W:Consensus does not mean that you have to be convinced of the majority "critical" views before the article can contain sentences (with clear references) mentioning them. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Ictu, I addressed these concerns (see above) and used references. It is not that you are wrong, it is just that you are not right. In other words your references don't support your position. In any event, I will go to the library and attempt to supply you with other reliable sources. Please let us step back from an edit war. Also have you been canvassing other editors? Is a great crowd about to appear?? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC) - PS > See Wikipedia:Canvassing
The reference I have restored I chose in that it recognises both views: ^32 Daniel J. Harrington S.J. The Gospel of Matthew 1991 Liturgical Press 9780814659649 p10 "While it is plausible and now customary to place the composition of Matthew in Syria, a good case can also be made for Palestine as the place of origin. What stands in the way of this location is the old and poorly founded distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism. This distinction assumed that Palestine was a cultural backwater separated from the Hellenistic world, one in which the Greek language was seldom used. But recent discoveries and reflection on the literary sources indicate that Palestine was integrated into the economic, administrative, military and cultural life of the Hellenistic world. And the population of Palestine was not entirely Jewish. So there is no objection to some place in Palestine such as Caesarea Maritime or one of the cities of Galilee as the place for Matthew's composition. The chief argument for a Palestinian origin is the presence there of the opposing Jewish movement..." In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC) In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Apart from all else, the Composition section could be reduced to about a quarter its current length. You only need to state cases, not prove them. Begin with the majority position, then state any significant other views. (Problem with Herrington is that he's arguing a case - that's fine in his own context, but it's not what an encyclopedia is for). PiCo ( talk) 02:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
In the case of the Herrington note to the sentence giving two alternative main places of composition, the ref supports that both cases exist and states Syria is the majority view. i.e. Begin with the majority position, then state any significant other views. If someone can find a similar ref that does the same then please provide. More importantly the Composition section could be reduced to about a quarter its current length; The article needs pruning, not adding more content, even though some basic subjects are missing. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This section is a major area of cut and paste POV from other articles. I have reworded intro lede to be shorter and neutral, and blanked in this section DUPLICATE cut and paste content about "...Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh etc. blanked." etc. etc. etc. etc. If someone wants to restore for example Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh to view please explain first here why it is necessary to have this. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ret Prof immediately blanked the neutral lede and made visible again all the duplicate content on ... Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh etc. .... I undid, but then reverted myself. What is the point? Without mainstream editors taking an interest in the article all this POV duplication remains. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I've placed POV OR and DUPLICATION tags on the duplicate material section with the Messianic(or whatever it is?) content. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ret Prof. 1. You deleted the sources. 2. Blanking in brackets per W:Preserve of duplicate cut and paste content in brackets is not against Wikipedia policy if the blanking of duplicate cut and paste content is noted on the Talk page. Okay, I wish to remove the duplicate cut paste "Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh" as OR, you wish to preserve it.
There is no problem with restoring brackets. Re Wikipedia:Canvassing: In all (including email) how editors have you contacted? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 02:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I moved the subsection Matthew the Evangelist to the article on the evangelist. This is because the majority position among scholars is that Matthew didn't write the gospel (which should be enough reason in itself for nat having this material here). PiCo ( talk) 02:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
That seems to me to be a sensible move, so reversion undone.
Might be helpful to see W:Consensus#Level_of_consensus. Secondary as an issue is that what was moved was loaded with POV, but it's possible that editors at Matthew will clean it up. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Re. the Matthew content This bit isn't too bad for POV
This bit is POV/OR/duplicate
That whole list of statements, largely with primary sources (Jerome etc.) or no sources. "It is important that.." (who says?) is clearly POV/OR written from some kind of Messianic/HebrewChristianity perspective. Which doesn't make it wrong, but is still POV/OR. I suggest that PiCo's edit is restored except for the first 3 lines which can be saved, though "a Jewish rabbi named Jesus" is POV and "and was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension." needs "According to Acts" inserted. Otherwise Wikipedia is now a fundamentalist Christianpedia. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Added under Jerome quote box:
In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Having studied your concerns the issues that divide us are as follows:
First Issue - Duplication or Back to the Fountainhead
- Jerome explained "The New Testament, 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. [1] [2]
- Cassels, Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker, Butz, etc., are agreed, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, under various names, such as the Gospel according to Peter, according to the Apostles,the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians, etc., with modifications certainly, but substantially the same work, was circulated very widely throughout the early Church. [3] [4]
Second Issue - Matthaei authenticum
- Close to 75 ancient historical writings from the time of Jesus to the time of Jerome (c.385 C.E.), state Matthew wrote an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus called the Hebrew Gospel or sometimes the Gospel of the Hebrews. No ancient source either Christian or non-Christian disputes this. There are many scholars such a Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, who agree with the historical sources and explain why. Then there those who disagree such as Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.
Third Issue - Matthew and the Gospel of Matthew
- What is the relationship of Matthew to the Canonical Gospel of Matthew?
- The Roman Catholic position is that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible was written by Matthew and is authentic.
- Liberal scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew is a "false Matthew" written by an unknown redactor long after the time of Matthew.
- A third group believe the Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew (See Aramaic original) was used as one of the sources of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew.
We must work out these three issues. If we cannot, then we must seek outside help. We, as editors, must work together to blend all the sources into a NPOV article. (See Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof)
There is remarkable agreement among the secondary sources. The following are representative of the early secondary source material.
Summary by Epiphanius:
- They too accept Matthew's gospel, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. - Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7
Summary by Jerome:
- "In the Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel of the Apostles, or, as it is generally maintained, Matthew's Gospel, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find . . ." - Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2
Among the secondary sources to the time of Jerome, by both Christians and Non-Christians, no writer ever asserts either directly or indirectly that the Hebrew Gospel (aka the Gospel of the Hebrews) was ever composed in Greek. Jerome clarifies this on several different occasions.
Clarification by Jerome:
- Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. - Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3
Clarification by Jerome:
- In the gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call the Authentic Gospel of Matthew (or " Matthaei Authenticum " ) the . . . - Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2
Clarification by Jerome:
- And whoever accepts the Gospel circulating under the title "Gospel of the Hebrews", which we most recently translated, in which it is said by the Saviour, “Even now my mother, the Holy Spirit, carried me away by one of my hairs,” will not hesitate to say that the Word of God proceeds from the Spirit, and that the soul, which is the bride of the Word, has the Holy Spirit (which in " Hebrew " is feminine in gender, RUA). - Jerome, Commentary on Micah 7.6
Finally, it must be stated that among the sources to the time of Jerome there is no mention of a Gospel of the Ebionites or a Gospel of the Nazarenes nor is there any mention of either the Ebionites or the Nazarenes ever composing their own Gospel. The sources are in agreement that these Jewish groups used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.
This is where we run into trouble. Modern scholars do not have the Hebrew text, as it has been lost. There are also substantial differences of opinion. Also an enormous quantity has been written on the topic over the years.
"The Gospel according to the Hebrews: its fragments translated and annotated, first published 1879, is a highly creditable work. The list of fragments and of references has never been so completely made as by Nicholson" - Review of The Gospel according to the Hebrews 1879 by Robert Vaughan, The British quarterly review, Volume 71-72, Hodder and Stoughton, 1880. p 277 Google Link
There was only one Jewish Christian gospel.
- The reason these writings have come to be known under variant names such as the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Nazarenes is that the Church Fathers discussed them according to which groups used them, and this has given the false impression that there was more than one Jewish Christian gospel. It would seem most logical that there was just one Hebrew Gospel (written in the Aramaic dialect) and that this was the original version of Matthew . . .which most people consider the authentic version of Matthew . . . The title Gospel of the Hebrews is as descriptive a title as any by which to recognize this Jewish Christian Gospel, and the one we will adopt here. p 176
The Gospel of the Hebrews is the only gospel written by an eyewitness.
- The Gospel of the Hebrews was uniquely written in the first person, and claims to be written by Matthew himself, which would make it the only gospel directly written by one of the twelve. p 179
Kessinger Publishing Nabu Press BiblioBazaar If you have access to a major Biblical library, at a seminary or theological college then by all means use the material there. However, if you do not, then POD presses provide affordable access to the notable works on the topic. I am a great believer in POD, but I do agree that it is a good idea to have the first edition date along with the POD date.
It has been asserted that Nicholson, Edwards, Butz, etc., are "fringe" and "pulp", while Vielhauer, Schneemelcher are main line. I have carefully checked the material and found no references or sources to support this position. Indeed the reliable sources say quite the opposite (see above).
I promise not to edit this article either. If we do not follow Wikipedia guidelines we will waste our time edit-warring. If we can work out the three issues above, then your other concern I can live with. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
NB: Ret Prof Talk Page edit 17:46, 25 March 2011 Please note how Talk Pages are used:
Please note how Talk Pages are used
- This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
- Put new text under old text.
- Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ( In ictu oculi ( talk) ).
Ret Prof, don't get me wrong, occasionally it can be helpful to pull scattered talk topics together, I'm just highlighting that the "comprehensive reply" above is not totally a "comprehensive reply" but is a comprehensive repeat of posting of original sources under the request "Please stop posting large chunks of OR/Primary Sources (i.e. Jerome and Papias) on Talk.
The effect has been to push the current discussion back up the page. This is how the page was:
As it was
- 10 Duplication/POV across several articles
- 10.1 "Greek translation of Matthew" was "lost"?
- 10.2 Ret Prof deletions of sourced material
- 11 More Duplication of same POV/OR material
- 12 Concerns
- 13 Place of composition
- 14 Matthew the Evangelist linked to main article
- 15 Wikipedia:Canvassing
- 16 Matthew the Evangelist
- 17 User:Ret.Prof - Reply to PiCo
- 17.1 List of Secondary Sources
- 17.2 Other sources
o 17.2.1 List of more modern sources o 17.2.2 22. ^The Gospel According to the Hebrews - by Edward Byron Nicholson 1879 (POD 2009) o 17.2.3 23. ^The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition - by James R Edwards, 2009 o 17.2.4 24. ^The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings - by Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, 2010
- 17.3 Print on demand
- 17.4 Mainline or fringe
- 17.5 Duplicate material on Matthew moved to Matthew
o 17.5.1 Removing Matthew from Matthew
Ret Prof, The last section on Talk addressed to you ( here) was asking you to please explain your latest deletion:
So, can we please have a concise answer why both views were deleted? (Please do not post more primary sources (Jerome), This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject., please focus on the edit. Can you please explain the deletions for 1. and 2.)
Deletion line 1. According to the James R. Edwards' development of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis of Pierson Parker and others Jerome here refers to a "fountainhead" of a lost Hebrew Matthew behind the 4th Century Nazarene and Ebionite Jewish-Christian Gospels.ref Edwards. Hebrew Gospel 2009 /ref
Deletion line 2. The majority of modern critical scholars however consider that Jerome was mistaken and was simply engaged in translating a variant Hebrew text based on Greek Matthew back into Greek. ref Vielhauer in Schneemelcher NTA Vol.1.; Klijn, Ehrmann etc. /ref
01:08, 26 March 2011 In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)
Please see PiCo (below) as the way out of this mess. Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I have tried to fix the problems with the format. Ictu's formatting made your comments invisible. Please see "Refactor the talk page" on my talk page. I was beginning to suspect you were another account of banned User:CheeseDreams. I am sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
be "the statement is factually incorrect because _________ "
Your Hebrew Gospel hypothesis edit states According to the James R. Edwards' development of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis of Pierson Parker and others Jerome here refers to a "fountainhead" of a lost Hebrew Matthew behind the 4th Century Nazarene and Ebionite Jewish-Christian Gospels. - - It did not check out on p 123. Did you get the page wrong?? Please read my Comprehensive Reply above and discuss. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 21:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually agree with what you say. The reliable sources generally:
Many other sources go into the
I suggest we proceed as follows:
How does this sound? Cheers Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The following relates to the section "Having studied your concerns the issues that divide us are as follows:" above. # is the original, REPLY the reply:
Ans: No. It is a reliable source - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ans: No. You are in error. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ans: Arthur Lillie should be banned because he was Buddhist and British soldier but Vielhauer, and Schneemelcher are OK because they were soldiers who fought for Hitler and Nazi Germany?? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ans: Wrong, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Second Issue - Matthaei authenticum
Ans: Wrong Wrong - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ans: Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There are many scholars such a Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, who agree with the historical sources and explain why. Then there those who disagree such as Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.
Ans: Agreed Vielhauer and Schneemelcher will included as minority views. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ans: Again you have trouble with Nicholson because he was a distinguished Oxford librarian , but Vielhauer, and Schneemelcher are OK because they were soldiers who fought for Hitler and Nazi Germany??? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ans: Agreed - NPOV is a good thing. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC) We must work out these three issues. If we cannot, then we must seek outside help. We, as editors, must work together to blend all the sources into a NPOV article. (See Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof)
Ans: Strongly disagree. In areas of scholarly disagreement we must balance the sources and write an article from a NPOV - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Finish. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Finish. In ictu oculi ( talk) 21:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
RetProf.
Therefore please self-revert. And address item 3. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There is much deceit, dishonesty and deception on this talk page. Saying I have gone over the 3RR is just one example. Of greater concern is the issue of reliable sources. You both know the policy:
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary source material by Wikipedia editors.
Primary sources include original philosophical works, archeological artifacts, ancient works, religious scripture, etc. In our case the primary source is Matthew's Gospel. It can be used but only with care.
Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed. They rely on the primary source for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about it. Our policy is that Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source. Nor is the fact that a commentary on Matthew was written by Jerome a long time ago, transform it into a primary source. However one has to wonder why you are trying so very hard the keep the best historical sources from being heard?????
However, you have been told by other editors that your argument is foolish because all the information you are trying to repress is also in 21stC. sources. These modern references explain that during the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non-Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link Jerome and Epiphanius note Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was sometimes called the Gospel of the Hebrews. However, they clarify that in their time there was only one Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Link
Gospel of the Hebrews clarification by Epiphanius:
- They too accept Matthew's gospel, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. - Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7
Gospel of the Hebrews clarification by Jerome:
- "In the Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel of the Apostles, or, as it is generally maintained, Matthew's Gospel, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find . . ." - Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2
Among the secondary sources to the time of Jerome, by both Christians and Non-Christians, no writer ever asserts either directly or indirectly that the Hebrew Gospel (aka the Gospel of the Hebrews) was ever composed in Greek. Jerome clarifies this on several different occasions.
Language clarification by Jerome:
- Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. - Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3
Language clarification by Jerome:
- In this last he bore witness to the Gospel which I have recently translated . - Jerome, On Illustrious Men
Language clarification by Jerome:
- The Gospel called of the Hebrews, recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen often uses, states ... - Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 2
Language clarification by Jerome:
- In the gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call the Authentic Gospel of Matthew (or " Matthaei Authenticum " ) the . . . - Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2
Language clarification by Jerome:
- And whoever accepts the Gospel circulating under the title "Gospel of the Hebrews", which we most recently translated, in which it is said by the Saviour, “Even now my mother, the Holy Spirit, carried me away by one of my hairs,” will not hesitate to say that the Word of God proceeds from the Spirit, and that the soul, which is the bride of the Word, has the Holy Spirit (which in " Hebrew " is feminine in gender, RUA). - Jerome, Commentary on Micah 7.6
Finally, it must be stated that among the sources to the time of Jerome there is no mention of a Gospel of the Ebionites or a Gospel of the Nazarenes nor is there any mention of either the Ebionites or the Nazarenes ever composing their own Gospel. The sources are in agreement that these Jewish groups used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.
All this is in modern English Secondary sources.
But my question remains . . . Why are editors intentionally keep our readers ignorant of the scholarship in this area? Something feels very very wrong. See Reflections of an Old Geezer on my talk page. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 02:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
(Ckruschke, I've taken the liberty of turning your posting into a new thread, as I think it's important) At the risk of getting flamed, I'm wondering if you two are going to mediation some time...? I have read every single post and counter-post for the last 2 wks and you are no closer to resolving this. And yes, I will butt out now... Ckruschke ( talk) 03:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
PiCo, the problem with "mediation" to be honest is that I do not feel like going cap in hand to admins for permission to not be deleted for posting mainstream tertiary academic material, against Lost Original Gospels, Loch Ness Monster, Thomas in India, bits of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat. etc.etc.
Back to the original problem with this article there is evidently a duplication/POV/OR problem in the Matthew section. For example:
As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh.
As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh.
As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh.
As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh.
Someone has been busy... It's really up to mainstream editors who don't actually know much about the subject to clean it up. And if those editors don't exist, then fine, let Wikipedia get populated with Authentic Matthew, Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus, Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament etc. etc.
Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have read though your comments and although I often do not like your tone, we are not that far apart. The main difficulty seems to be over references. I do not like Schneemelcher and Vielhauer because I believe their scholarship shows Deutsche Christen tendencies and as I explained in "my reply" they are off topic. I made a serious effort to answer your questions:
You have expressed concern over:
Can you meet me half way and concede they are in?
Finally, as I explained above, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.
However, Wikipedia:PRIMARY sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyzes, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary source material by Wikipedia editors. Primary sources include original philosophical works, religious scripture, etc. In our case the primary source is Matthew's Gospel. It can be used but only with care.
Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed. They rely on the primary source for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about it. Our policy is that Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources, regardless of the date they were published. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source. Nor does the fact that a Commentary on Matthew was written by Jerome a long time ago, transform it into a primary source. Therefore the following should be included.
Also, I have been told by other editors that the information you are trying to repress is also in 21stC. sources. Thus all the disputed material is found in modern English Secondary sources. If you look at any article on the Gospel of Matthew, they generally include material from Papias, Jerome, Eusebius, etc. Google Link
The reliable sources generally:
Many other sources go into the
I suggest we proceed as follows:
How does this sound? If we can agree on this, then we are on our way to consensus. If not, then we are on our way to arbitration. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
* Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. [8] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. [9] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.
- Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.
In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Do we have an agreement? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC) 1.Please restore POV tags. They specifically say they are not to be removed.
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
2.Please explain the specific reason _____________________ for the 2 sentences I have asked repeatedly for you to explain deletion.
3.I do not wish to go arbitration with you. If there are no other Wikipedia users who support the following changes then there is no need to arbitrate.
(b) Gospel_of_Matthew#Church_Fathers addition of scholarly majority mainstream secondary sources. curtailment of use of primary sources. Addition of 2 views of Jerome's quote box.
4. I have repeatedly said you can use the scholars who support the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis in various forms. All I have been doing is (a) changing dates from Bibliobazaar 2011 to real publication years, (see Bernhard Pick ref in article), (b) stating that mainstream/majority/traditional scholarship should also be allowed so both views are represented.
6. Secondly anyone who wants to review your draft on the subject can go to Canonical gospels where you have already created an essay style article out of a REDIRECT to a Gospel#Canonical Gospels. The article you have created from where the REDIRECT was also contains the same POV-Messianic/HebrewPrimacy material: "As a disciple, Matthew followed Jesus, and would have been an eye witness to the rabbinical midrashic discourse of the "Rabbi from Nazareth". Matthew may have even participated in the development of the Torah Shebeal Peh as the Talmud mentions him as a follower of Jesus the Nazarene.[11][12][13] Matthew reduced this Logia into a written form in what would become known as the first Gospel.[14][15][16]"
Amy
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Cambridge3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Ictu, please respond at the Gospel of the Hebrews talk page immediately. Thank you. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the duplication across several articles of the same POV material, you took a simple and natural #redirect Gospel#Canonical gospels and inserted an essay style article pushing the oral/Talmudic content James R. Edwards (2009) "controversial" (his own website) theory Canonical Gospels (but greatly overweight to lost Hebrew Gospel theory) which was picked up by other editors as being POV, proposed for deletion and survived, but retains a lot of duplicate material you have been adding at Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels Talk:Gospel of the Nazarenes and the essay-like pages Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament Talk:Criteria of authenticity and the historical Jesus Talk:Jesus in the Talmud, cf. Talk:Historicity of Jesus and so on. In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ret Prof. As regards your proposed work tasks, I honestly think that the place for developing James R. Edwards' theory is on the article about the author, not on a major item like the main Gospel of Matthew page.
Regarding this sentence which I edited (since the citations don't support the content) you reverted:
Which one of these sources claims that the "Greek translation of Matthew" was "lost"? In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I reverted because we had not reached consensus.
Proposed compromise:
Although anonymous, [3] it was believed that the Gospel of Matthew was composed by Matthew, a disciple of Jesus. [4] Papias of Hierapolis (Bishop of Hierapolis) in Asia Minor wrote concerning Matthew, "Matthew put together the Logia (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." [5] [6] [7] Does this move us closer to consensus? Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I also think that you need to look at W:Consensus and see whether it gives the justification for this practice you have adopted for deleting first and discussing (or not discussing) second. We normally only revert edits which are uncited, vandalism, non-notable or where the claim is not matched by citation. The practice you have adopted of deleting anything you do not like, or which conflicts with your views on lost Hebrew Gospels etc. is not the meaning of W:Consensus. Particularly since where multiple viewpoints exist then more than one can be aired, and ref/sourced. The issue of W:Consensus allows to reflects the diversity that exists. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Ret Prof, you also need to to read up W:Edit Warring: "Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making ..."
So, are you going to undelete? In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just found the same section again under Nazarene (sect), complete with the "Greek Matthew was lost" sentence. Just how many times do the same POV/OR claims have to be repeated on Wikipedia? In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Please see my talk page - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
But this is okay, you can have these minority hypotheses represented. What is not okay is seeking to supress mainstream scholarship by deleting references to majority "critical" views. And the reason the "standard" (called "standard" in verifiable sources already given, you seem to have forgotten) scholarly edition of NTA only has short sections (intro, composition, extant text, bibliography) on each of the 3 Jewish-Christian Gospels is because it is a reference work. The sections on these Jewish Christian Gospels in other reference works, such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary, etc. are also shorter than Nicholson or Edwards' books. This is all by the by, since W:Consensus does not mean that you have to be convinced of the majority "critical" views before the article can contain sentences (with clear references) mentioning them. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Ictu, I addressed these concerns (see above) and used references. It is not that you are wrong, it is just that you are not right. In other words your references don't support your position. In any event, I will go to the library and attempt to supply you with other reliable sources. Please let us step back from an edit war. Also have you been canvassing other editors? Is a great crowd about to appear?? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC) - PS > See Wikipedia:Canvassing
The reference I have restored I chose in that it recognises both views: ^32 Daniel J. Harrington S.J. The Gospel of Matthew 1991 Liturgical Press 9780814659649 p10 "While it is plausible and now customary to place the composition of Matthew in Syria, a good case can also be made for Palestine as the place of origin. What stands in the way of this location is the old and poorly founded distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism. This distinction assumed that Palestine was a cultural backwater separated from the Hellenistic world, one in which the Greek language was seldom used. But recent discoveries and reflection on the literary sources indicate that Palestine was integrated into the economic, administrative, military and cultural life of the Hellenistic world. And the population of Palestine was not entirely Jewish. So there is no objection to some place in Palestine such as Caesarea Maritime or one of the cities of Galilee as the place for Matthew's composition. The chief argument for a Palestinian origin is the presence there of the opposing Jewish movement..." In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC) In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Apart from all else, the Composition section could be reduced to about a quarter its current length. You only need to state cases, not prove them. Begin with the majority position, then state any significant other views. (Problem with Herrington is that he's arguing a case - that's fine in his own context, but it's not what an encyclopedia is for). PiCo ( talk) 02:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
In the case of the Herrington note to the sentence giving two alternative main places of composition, the ref supports that both cases exist and states Syria is the majority view. i.e. Begin with the majority position, then state any significant other views. If someone can find a similar ref that does the same then please provide. More importantly the Composition section could be reduced to about a quarter its current length; The article needs pruning, not adding more content, even though some basic subjects are missing. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This section is a major area of cut and paste POV from other articles. I have reworded intro lede to be shorter and neutral, and blanked in this section DUPLICATE cut and paste content about "...Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh etc. blanked." etc. etc. etc. etc. If someone wants to restore for example Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh to view please explain first here why it is necessary to have this. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ret Prof immediately blanked the neutral lede and made visible again all the duplicate content on ... Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh etc. .... I undid, but then reverted myself. What is the point? Without mainstream editors taking an interest in the article all this POV duplication remains. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I've placed POV OR and DUPLICATION tags on the duplicate material section with the Messianic(or whatever it is?) content. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ret Prof. 1. You deleted the sources. 2. Blanking in brackets per W:Preserve of duplicate cut and paste content in brackets is not against Wikipedia policy if the blanking of duplicate cut and paste content is noted on the Talk page. Okay, I wish to remove the duplicate cut paste "Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh" as OR, you wish to preserve it.
There is no problem with restoring brackets. Re Wikipedia:Canvassing: In all (including email) how editors have you contacted? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 02:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I moved the subsection Matthew the Evangelist to the article on the evangelist. This is because the majority position among scholars is that Matthew didn't write the gospel (which should be enough reason in itself for nat having this material here). PiCo ( talk) 02:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
That seems to me to be a sensible move, so reversion undone.
Might be helpful to see W:Consensus#Level_of_consensus. Secondary as an issue is that what was moved was loaded with POV, but it's possible that editors at Matthew will clean it up. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Re. the Matthew content This bit isn't too bad for POV
This bit is POV/OR/duplicate
That whole list of statements, largely with primary sources (Jerome etc.) or no sources. "It is important that.." (who says?) is clearly POV/OR written from some kind of Messianic/HebrewChristianity perspective. Which doesn't make it wrong, but is still POV/OR. I suggest that PiCo's edit is restored except for the first 3 lines which can be saved, though "a Jewish rabbi named Jesus" is POV and "and was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension." needs "According to Acts" inserted. Otherwise Wikipedia is now a fundamentalist Christianpedia. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Added under Jerome quote box:
In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Having studied your concerns the issues that divide us are as follows:
First Issue - Duplication or Back to the Fountainhead
- Jerome explained "The New Testament, 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. [1] [2]
- Cassels, Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker, Butz, etc., are agreed, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, under various names, such as the Gospel according to Peter, according to the Apostles,the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians, etc., with modifications certainly, but substantially the same work, was circulated very widely throughout the early Church. [3] [4]
Second Issue - Matthaei authenticum
- Close to 75 ancient historical writings from the time of Jesus to the time of Jerome (c.385 C.E.), state Matthew wrote an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus called the Hebrew Gospel or sometimes the Gospel of the Hebrews. No ancient source either Christian or non-Christian disputes this. There are many scholars such a Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, who agree with the historical sources and explain why. Then there those who disagree such as Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.
Third Issue - Matthew and the Gospel of Matthew
- What is the relationship of Matthew to the Canonical Gospel of Matthew?
- The Roman Catholic position is that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible was written by Matthew and is authentic.
- Liberal scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew is a "false Matthew" written by an unknown redactor long after the time of Matthew.
- A third group believe the Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew (See Aramaic original) was used as one of the sources of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew.
We must work out these three issues. If we cannot, then we must seek outside help. We, as editors, must work together to blend all the sources into a NPOV article. (See Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof)
There is remarkable agreement among the secondary sources. The following are representative of the early secondary source material.
Summary by Epiphanius:
- They too accept Matthew's gospel, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. - Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7
Summary by Jerome:
- "In the Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel of the Apostles, or, as it is generally maintained, Matthew's Gospel, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find . . ." - Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2
Among the secondary sources to the time of Jerome, by both Christians and Non-Christians, no writer ever asserts either directly or indirectly that the Hebrew Gospel (aka the Gospel of the Hebrews) was ever composed in Greek. Jerome clarifies this on several different occasions.
Clarification by Jerome:
- Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. - Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3
Clarification by Jerome:
- In the gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call the Authentic Gospel of Matthew (or " Matthaei Authenticum " ) the . . . - Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2
Clarification by Jerome:
- And whoever accepts the Gospel circulating under the title "Gospel of the Hebrews", which we most recently translated, in which it is said by the Saviour, “Even now my mother, the Holy Spirit, carried me away by one of my hairs,” will not hesitate to say that the Word of God proceeds from the Spirit, and that the soul, which is the bride of the Word, has the Holy Spirit (which in " Hebrew " is feminine in gender, RUA). - Jerome, Commentary on Micah 7.6
Finally, it must be stated that among the sources to the time of Jerome there is no mention of a Gospel of the Ebionites or a Gospel of the Nazarenes nor is there any mention of either the Ebionites or the Nazarenes ever composing their own Gospel. The sources are in agreement that these Jewish groups used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.
This is where we run into trouble. Modern scholars do not have the Hebrew text, as it has been lost. There are also substantial differences of opinion. Also an enormous quantity has been written on the topic over the years.
"The Gospel according to the Hebrews: its fragments translated and annotated, first published 1879, is a highly creditable work. The list of fragments and of references has never been so completely made as by Nicholson" - Review of The Gospel according to the Hebrews 1879 by Robert Vaughan, The British quarterly review, Volume 71-72, Hodder and Stoughton, 1880. p 277 Google Link
There was only one Jewish Christian gospel.
- The reason these writings have come to be known under variant names such as the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Nazarenes is that the Church Fathers discussed them according to which groups used them, and this has given the false impression that there was more than one Jewish Christian gospel. It would seem most logical that there was just one Hebrew Gospel (written in the Aramaic dialect) and that this was the original version of Matthew . . .which most people consider the authentic version of Matthew . . . The title Gospel of the Hebrews is as descriptive a title as any by which to recognize this Jewish Christian Gospel, and the one we will adopt here. p 176
The Gospel of the Hebrews is the only gospel written by an eyewitness.
- The Gospel of the Hebrews was uniquely written in the first person, and claims to be written by Matthew himself, which would make it the only gospel directly written by one of the twelve. p 179
Kessinger Publishing Nabu Press BiblioBazaar If you have access to a major Biblical library, at a seminary or theological college then by all means use the material there. However, if you do not, then POD presses provide affordable access to the notable works on the topic. I am a great believer in POD, but I do agree that it is a good idea to have the first edition date along with the POD date.
It has been asserted that Nicholson, Edwards, Butz, etc., are "fringe" and "pulp", while Vielhauer, Schneemelcher are main line. I have carefully checked the material and found no references or sources to support this position. Indeed the reliable sources say quite the opposite (see above).
I promise not to edit this article either. If we do not follow Wikipedia guidelines we will waste our time edit-warring. If we can work out the three issues above, then your other concern I can live with. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
NB: Ret Prof Talk Page edit 17:46, 25 March 2011 Please note how Talk Pages are used:
Please note how Talk Pages are used
- This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
- Put new text under old text.
- Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ( In ictu oculi ( talk) ).
Ret Prof, don't get me wrong, occasionally it can be helpful to pull scattered talk topics together, I'm just highlighting that the "comprehensive reply" above is not totally a "comprehensive reply" but is a comprehensive repeat of posting of original sources under the request "Please stop posting large chunks of OR/Primary Sources (i.e. Jerome and Papias) on Talk.
The effect has been to push the current discussion back up the page. This is how the page was:
As it was
- 10 Duplication/POV across several articles
- 10.1 "Greek translation of Matthew" was "lost"?
- 10.2 Ret Prof deletions of sourced material
- 11 More Duplication of same POV/OR material
- 12 Concerns
- 13 Place of composition
- 14 Matthew the Evangelist linked to main article
- 15 Wikipedia:Canvassing
- 16 Matthew the Evangelist
- 17 User:Ret.Prof - Reply to PiCo
- 17.1 List of Secondary Sources
- 17.2 Other sources
o 17.2.1 List of more modern sources o 17.2.2 22. ^The Gospel According to the Hebrews - by Edward Byron Nicholson 1879 (POD 2009) o 17.2.3 23. ^The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition - by James R Edwards, 2009 o 17.2.4 24. ^The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings - by Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, 2010
- 17.3 Print on demand
- 17.4 Mainline or fringe
- 17.5 Duplicate material on Matthew moved to Matthew
o 17.5.1 Removing Matthew from Matthew
Ret Prof, The last section on Talk addressed to you ( here) was asking you to please explain your latest deletion:
So, can we please have a concise answer why both views were deleted? (Please do not post more primary sources (Jerome), This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject., please focus on the edit. Can you please explain the deletions for 1. and 2.)
Deletion line 1. According to the James R. Edwards' development of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis of Pierson Parker and others Jerome here refers to a "fountainhead" of a lost Hebrew Matthew behind the 4th Century Nazarene and Ebionite Jewish-Christian Gospels.ref Edwards. Hebrew Gospel 2009 /ref
Deletion line 2. The majority of modern critical scholars however consider that Jerome was mistaken and was simply engaged in translating a variant Hebrew text based on Greek Matthew back into Greek. ref Vielhauer in Schneemelcher NTA Vol.1.; Klijn, Ehrmann etc. /ref
01:08, 26 March 2011 In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)
Please see PiCo (below) as the way out of this mess. Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I have tried to fix the problems with the format. Ictu's formatting made your comments invisible. Please see "Refactor the talk page" on my talk page. I was beginning to suspect you were another account of banned User:CheeseDreams. I am sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
be "the statement is factually incorrect because _________ "
Your Hebrew Gospel hypothesis edit states According to the James R. Edwards' development of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis of Pierson Parker and others Jerome here refers to a "fountainhead" of a lost Hebrew Matthew behind the 4th Century Nazarene and Ebionite Jewish-Christian Gospels. - - It did not check out on p 123. Did you get the page wrong?? Please read my Comprehensive Reply above and discuss. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 21:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually agree with what you say. The reliable sources generally:
Many other sources go into the
I suggest we proceed as follows:
How does this sound? Cheers Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The following relates to the section "Having studied your concerns the issues that divide us are as follows:" above. # is the original, REPLY the reply:
Ans: No. It is a reliable source - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ans: No. You are in error. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ans: Arthur Lillie should be banned because he was Buddhist and British soldier but Vielhauer, and Schneemelcher are OK because they were soldiers who fought for Hitler and Nazi Germany?? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ans: Wrong, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Second Issue - Matthaei authenticum
Ans: Wrong Wrong - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ans: Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There are many scholars such a Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, who agree with the historical sources and explain why. Then there those who disagree such as Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.
Ans: Agreed Vielhauer and Schneemelcher will included as minority views. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ans: Again you have trouble with Nicholson because he was a distinguished Oxford librarian , but Vielhauer, and Schneemelcher are OK because they were soldiers who fought for Hitler and Nazi Germany??? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ans: Agreed - NPOV is a good thing. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC) We must work out these three issues. If we cannot, then we must seek outside help. We, as editors, must work together to blend all the sources into a NPOV article. (See Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof)
Ans: Strongly disagree. In areas of scholarly disagreement we must balance the sources and write an article from a NPOV - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Finish. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Finish. In ictu oculi ( talk) 21:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
RetProf.
Therefore please self-revert. And address item 3. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There is much deceit, dishonesty and deception on this talk page. Saying I have gone over the 3RR is just one example. Of greater concern is the issue of reliable sources. You both know the policy:
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary source material by Wikipedia editors.
Primary sources include original philosophical works, archeological artifacts, ancient works, religious scripture, etc. In our case the primary source is Matthew's Gospel. It can be used but only with care.
Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed. They rely on the primary source for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about it. Our policy is that Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source. Nor is the fact that a commentary on Matthew was written by Jerome a long time ago, transform it into a primary source. However one has to wonder why you are trying so very hard the keep the best historical sources from being heard?????
However, you have been told by other editors that your argument is foolish because all the information you are trying to repress is also in 21stC. sources. These modern references explain that during the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non-Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link Jerome and Epiphanius note Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was sometimes called the Gospel of the Hebrews. However, they clarify that in their time there was only one Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Link
Gospel of the Hebrews clarification by Epiphanius:
- They too accept Matthew's gospel, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. - Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7
Gospel of the Hebrews clarification by Jerome:
- "In the Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel of the Apostles, or, as it is generally maintained, Matthew's Gospel, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find . . ." - Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2
Among the secondary sources to the time of Jerome, by both Christians and Non-Christians, no writer ever asserts either directly or indirectly that the Hebrew Gospel (aka the Gospel of the Hebrews) was ever composed in Greek. Jerome clarifies this on several different occasions.
Language clarification by Jerome:
- Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. - Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3
Language clarification by Jerome:
- In this last he bore witness to the Gospel which I have recently translated . - Jerome, On Illustrious Men
Language clarification by Jerome:
- The Gospel called of the Hebrews, recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen often uses, states ... - Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 2
Language clarification by Jerome:
- In the gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call the Authentic Gospel of Matthew (or " Matthaei Authenticum " ) the . . . - Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2
Language clarification by Jerome:
- And whoever accepts the Gospel circulating under the title "Gospel of the Hebrews", which we most recently translated, in which it is said by the Saviour, “Even now my mother, the Holy Spirit, carried me away by one of my hairs,” will not hesitate to say that the Word of God proceeds from the Spirit, and that the soul, which is the bride of the Word, has the Holy Spirit (which in " Hebrew " is feminine in gender, RUA). - Jerome, Commentary on Micah 7.6
Finally, it must be stated that among the sources to the time of Jerome there is no mention of a Gospel of the Ebionites or a Gospel of the Nazarenes nor is there any mention of either the Ebionites or the Nazarenes ever composing their own Gospel. The sources are in agreement that these Jewish groups used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.
All this is in modern English Secondary sources.
But my question remains . . . Why are editors intentionally keep our readers ignorant of the scholarship in this area? Something feels very very wrong. See Reflections of an Old Geezer on my talk page. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 02:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
(Ckruschke, I've taken the liberty of turning your posting into a new thread, as I think it's important) At the risk of getting flamed, I'm wondering if you two are going to mediation some time...? I have read every single post and counter-post for the last 2 wks and you are no closer to resolving this. And yes, I will butt out now... Ckruschke ( talk) 03:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
PiCo, the problem with "mediation" to be honest is that I do not feel like going cap in hand to admins for permission to not be deleted for posting mainstream tertiary academic material, against Lost Original Gospels, Loch Ness Monster, Thomas in India, bits of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat. etc.etc.
Back to the original problem with this article there is evidently a duplication/POV/OR problem in the Matthew section. For example:
As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh.
As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh.
As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh.
As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh.
Someone has been busy... It's really up to mainstream editors who don't actually know much about the subject to clean it up. And if those editors don't exist, then fine, let Wikipedia get populated with Authentic Matthew, Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus, Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament etc. etc.
Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have read though your comments and although I often do not like your tone, we are not that far apart. The main difficulty seems to be over references. I do not like Schneemelcher and Vielhauer because I believe their scholarship shows Deutsche Christen tendencies and as I explained in "my reply" they are off topic. I made a serious effort to answer your questions:
You have expressed concern over:
Can you meet me half way and concede they are in?
Finally, as I explained above, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.
However, Wikipedia:PRIMARY sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyzes, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary source material by Wikipedia editors. Primary sources include original philosophical works, religious scripture, etc. In our case the primary source is Matthew's Gospel. It can be used but only with care.
Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed. They rely on the primary source for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about it. Our policy is that Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources, regardless of the date they were published. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source. Nor does the fact that a Commentary on Matthew was written by Jerome a long time ago, transform it into a primary source. Therefore the following should be included.
Also, I have been told by other editors that the information you are trying to repress is also in 21stC. sources. Thus all the disputed material is found in modern English Secondary sources. If you look at any article on the Gospel of Matthew, they generally include material from Papias, Jerome, Eusebius, etc. Google Link
The reliable sources generally:
Many other sources go into the
I suggest we proceed as follows:
How does this sound? If we can agree on this, then we are on our way to consensus. If not, then we are on our way to arbitration. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
* Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. [8] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. [9] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.
- Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.
In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Do we have an agreement? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC) 1.Please restore POV tags. They specifically say they are not to be removed.
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
2.Please explain the specific reason _____________________ for the 2 sentences I have asked repeatedly for you to explain deletion.
3.I do not wish to go arbitration with you. If there are no other Wikipedia users who support the following changes then there is no need to arbitrate.
(b) Gospel_of_Matthew#Church_Fathers addition of scholarly majority mainstream secondary sources. curtailment of use of primary sources. Addition of 2 views of Jerome's quote box.
4. I have repeatedly said you can use the scholars who support the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis in various forms. All I have been doing is (a) changing dates from Bibliobazaar 2011 to real publication years, (see Bernhard Pick ref in article), (b) stating that mainstream/majority/traditional scholarship should also be allowed so both views are represented.
6. Secondly anyone who wants to review your draft on the subject can go to Canonical gospels where you have already created an essay style article out of a REDIRECT to a Gospel#Canonical Gospels. The article you have created from where the REDIRECT was also contains the same POV-Messianic/HebrewPrimacy material: "As a disciple, Matthew followed Jesus, and would have been an eye witness to the rabbinical midrashic discourse of the "Rabbi from Nazareth". Matthew may have even participated in the development of the Torah Shebeal Peh as the Talmud mentions him as a follower of Jesus the Nazarene.[11][12][13] Matthew reduced this Logia into a written form in what would become known as the first Gospel.[14][15][16]"
Amy
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Cambridge3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).