![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Other editors, Please take an interest: Ret Prof proposes: "A third group of scholars lead by Nicholson, Edwards, Tabor and Butz support the position of Erhman in that they argue the Gospel of Matthew is not authentic. However, they then go on to say that the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, Ebionites and other Hebrew Christians is the Authentic Gospel of Matthew (Matthaei Authenticum). There are also numerous variations of the aforementioned scholarly positions" Firstly, as a Wikipedia:Fringe theories view this does not belong in the lede. Secondly. Inaccuracies.
But the real issue is Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Rather than addressing the Messianic/HebrewPrimacy POV in the 2 sections it is now being pulled into the lede. Other editors, please take an interest. In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I am very disappointed, but it now appears that after weeks of trying, we have totally failed to resolve our differences. Outside help is needed to ascertain if:
Until these issues are resolved, I do not see any way forward. Still keeping an open mind. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This user is in awe of the classic and epic struggle between WP:Burden and WP:Preserve ! |
Ok folks, I'm not really sure where we are with this, since we seem to get diverted and bogged down with great regularity. Anyway, I've assumed (or presumed) that everyone accepts the proposal I put for a new paragraph on the traditional authorship. That's now at the head of the "Composition" section. What follows here is a proposal for the remainder of that section. It draws on 2 sources, both reliable - one is Blackwells, the other is Delbert Burkett's "Introduction to the New Testament etc". Blackwell's is a tertiary source, Burkett a secondary source - generally I prefer tertiary sources, but Burkett looks pretty good.
As before, this is separated into sentences, each this time having its source attached to it. Here it is:
Please check: (a) that the source supports what I say it supports; (b) that everything that needs to be covered in terms of authorship and community, is covered. And in general, can we now finish the Composition/Authorship section and move on? There's lots more to cover. PiCo ( talk) 11:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Consensus at Wikipedia is not about voting. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear RetProf. Since this concerns duplicate contributions to Talk:Gospel of Matthew, Talk:Canonical gospels, Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus, Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament I make the comment here (as per archive) to make it clear, the concern is twofold: 1. Some of the claims in the below section [e.g. most easily identifiable that the Acts church "revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php "] were introduced into the text of Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews on a claimed "merge" of Authentic Gospel of Matthew - yet the content is not found in either article. 2. Re the duplication of this section verbatim on several pages:
There is no need for this to be duplicated verbatim on several Wikipedia pages. I suggest in the friendliest possible manner than perhaps you first decide which page this content belongs on, and then submit to the review of peers there. Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Consensus at Wikipedia is not about voting. And how did my oppose get put below. Ictu are you now voting on my behalf? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
As I explained to you before, I actually agree, therefore I fixed the duplication from the articles - which you now seem to be undoing?? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Ictu has been dramatically saying that he is upset over what he calls "cut and paste concerns". As a good will gesture, I was going to replace the "material he found so very upsetting" with the material from Blackwell's article on the Gospel as it covers the same points as in the article but with different wording. He rejected this compromise. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that most of his concerns, even those that sound good are a cover for his POV pushing. This is not acceptable for Wikipedia articles must be written from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I see that my position is being misrepresented (See reflections). My primary concern is that the Gospel of Matthew must be written from NPOV. This is not happening! There are several different aspects that come up when writing about this topic:
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 compose a NPOV article. (See Reflections at User talk:Ret.Prof) Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Keeping Ictu Honest: It is not about canvassing or alternate accounts but references. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 02:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ret.Prof Well it does mean something, by the 3RRR it means 20 reverts to 2 reverts. I note you restored the duplicate cut and paste sections from Gospel of the Hebrews written by yourself on all pages.
Other editors, As before, if anyone supports or opposes they should add support or oppose at:
etc. Or other editors may do as Ret.Prof is doing and forgo voting for use of the undo function. Or alternatively if you believe this section genuinely needs to be on multiple articles on Wikipedia then please say so and I will desist in proposing that the duplication be removed. Regards In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The disputes above have become unwieldy to sort through. Could someone please provide a short summary of the main points of contention so that additional editors can be solicited to weigh in? Eusebeus ( talk) 09:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
This page has become the object of dispute, laid out in the section above. For the purposes of bringing some clarity to this issue, this section should be reserved for outside editors only who can thereby weigh in on the relative merits of the dispute. In ictu oculi ( talk · contribs) and Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) have offered plenty of back and forth above (and are welcome to continue), but let's please reserve this space solely for those who are not involved in the dispute.
There are three basic questions.
Please include comments or any additional insights below. Thanks. Eusebeus ( talk) 07:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The dispute is largely between InInct and RetProf, and although I've had some involvement it hasn't been nearly so intense, so I'll post here.
The section under dispute concerns the authorship of the gospel. If we follow In Ictu's suggestion, then we need to consider just one issue: should this section include several hundred words on Matthew the Evangelist? Did he write this gospel? If he's the author, then the section belongs; if he's not, if he's just a figure to whom an anonymous work became attached at a later date, then it's much harder to justify.
There's certainly a tradition that he did, dating back to the 2nd century, but, and I quote Blackwell's Introduction to the New Testament, "Most scholars doubt this tradition." ( Blackwell's Introduction etc, p.174). Even Edwards, one of the modern scholars RetProf quotes in support of the idea that Matthew wrote Matthew, actually says he didn't - he calls the idea that he did "a mistake", one "very easy to make". ( Edwards, "Hebrew Gospel", p.252)
RetProf probably accepts that most scholars today don't think Matthew wrote the gospel that has his name, but his position, as I understand, is that we should give equal weight to traditional sources, sources from the 2nd century to the 18th, which is when the tradition began to be questioned. I wouldn't call these sources "fringe" - Eusebius and Jerome are far from that. "Fringe" just isn't the appropriate term. The correct question is, do they have equal authority with modern scholars? I'd say no: our task in scholarly articles is to show the reader the current consensus on questions. That said, I certainly think the ancient tradition should be mentioned - it's part of the history of the subject - but we need to make clear that modern scholarship, in this case, shares a very different idea about the authorship of this gospel.
(Actually, in all modesty, I'd like to point to the proposed draft for a new section that I pasted in an earlier thread, not too far above this one - short, comprehensive, and balanced, IMHO). PiCo ( talk) 07:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
First off, since Edward's work is being bandied about quite a bit, the reviews are starting to trickle in and they are fairly lukewarm regarding his thesis. (See DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0922.2010.01448_22.x; DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9418.2010.00630.x; doi: 10.1177/0014524610364908.) From the latter, Professor Foster's concluding comment reflects the general tenor: "overall its plausibility fails, the evidence on which so many of its inter-related theories are constructed is too slender, and the way the Patristic evidence is fitted to the Procrustean bed of his ‘Hebrew Gospel’ theory means that in all probability these ideas will be seen as an idiosyncratic proposal, rather than a compelling challenge to any of the major proposed solutions to the synoptic problem." Per WP:RS, Wikipedia articles should not be presenting fringe views that have failed to attract general consensus.
With respect to the authorship question, and I agree we should tackle this straight off, it should certainly be noted that the early Christian tradition ascribed authorship to Matthew. No serious modern scholarship, however, accepts this view. I agree with PiCo - what should be elaborated in this article is the prevailing views about why this authorship was so ascribed, not treat it as a serious alternative. As such, the section on Matthew should be eliminated and a summary overview of the prevailing scholarly consensus be provided, with relevant links provided to our articles on Papias, etc.... Eusebeus ( talk) 08:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I think both In ictu oculi and RetiredProf are very good editors. My suggestion: Nobody does anything until Monday, so everyone will calm down, and a new week begins. I will not even bother to read the details of the debate, because heated debates are usually not the best. So 3-4 days will not make a difference to a document that is 2,000 years old. I actually have no interest in the details of teh debate, but I do think that this effort can be put to better use in improving articles that need real help if 3-4 days are allowed to pass. History2007 ( talk) 12:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I am finally starting to feel good about this article. It also appears that Ictu is prepared to meet me half way. His pleasant and polite attitude is the example we must all follow. I plan to try to meet all his concerns. Don't get me wrong. There a still major differences that will take a while to work out. I have looked at other articles and taken the liberity of formatting. Please note it is not written in stone and is open to improvements. I have also contacted Admin. User:Jayjg and asked for his help through the difficult patches as he is a skilled diplomat. I look forward to working with you in the weeks (and months? ahead) - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The Gospel According to Matthew ( Greek: κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον, kata Matthaion euangelion, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον, to euangelion kata Matthaion), commonly shortened to the Gospel of Matthew or simply Matthew, is one of the four canonical gospels and is the first book of the New Testament. This synoptic gospel is an account of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It details his story, from his genealogy through to his Great Commission. [1] [2]
The Gospel is well written. Its rhythmical and often poetical prose [3] make it suited for public reading, and it remains a popular liturgical choice. [4] Certain details of the Infancy Narrative and the Church (or ecclesia) are mentioned only in Matthew. [5]
The Gospel of Matthew is closely aligned with 1st-century Judaism and can be broken down into five distinct sections: the Sermon on the Mount (ch 5-7), the Mission Instructions to the Twelve (ch 10), the Three Parables (ch 13), Instructions for the Community (ch 18), and the Olivet Discourse (ch 24-25). Some believe this was to reflect the five books of the Pentateuch. [6] [7] The Gospel of Matthew stresses how Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy and also emphasizes obedience to and preservation of the Jewish Law. [8] [5]
The authorship and composition of the Gospel of Matthew continues to be the subject of heated debate. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations is that the Apostle Matthew composed the Gospel of Matthew. Scholars such as Craig Blomberg, F. F. Bruce and Gregory Boyd support the position of Matthean authenticity. [9] [10] [11] However, this position has been challenged by leading scholars such as Bart Erhman. They argue that the Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew but rather it was composed by an unknown redactor, in Greek, long after the time of Matthew. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] A third group of scholars lead by Nicholson, Edwards, Tabor and Butz support the position of Erhman in that they argue the Gospel of Matthew is not authentic. However, they then go on to say that the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, Ebionites and other Hebrew Christians indeed was written by Matthew. [18] [19] There are also numerous variations of the aforementioned scholarly positions.
Pretty good, but I'd prefer leaving the Lead till last - otherwise we'll get bogged in petty squabbles before we even touch on the article itself. PiCo ( talk) 02:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
(NB: If any editor objects to the posting of this edit, they may temporarily revert the edit pending consensus)
Place draft edit here______________________
Please start with the worst section - This Talk is getting pulled off track by the Jewish-Christian Gospels. Talk on Gospel of Matthew should start with the problem with this article. The worst section is Gospel_of_Matthew#Matthew_the_Evangelist
Ictu, would you honor us by doing the first draft of the proposed edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
1. As PiCo points out, print encyclopedias don't have wikilinks to enable the reader to click through to
Also
2. The section PiCo tried to delete (and I supported) is a DUPLICATE cut and paste to/from the Matthew article and other articles:
This is all basically, after the first 3 lines, what is technically known as total hogwash. But can be deleted anyway, hogwash or not, since it is just cut and paste from an article which can be wikilinked.
So Repeat proposal. :) Delete all duplication, except 1st 3 lines. Check 1st 3 lines' sources actually support statements, then go to couch, pour a Martini, put on some Bach, have some cheese and crackers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
For reference, I have deleted all but first 2 lines from Talk:Saint Matthew and proposed editing of partially duplicate material at Talk:Gospel/ Talk:Canonical gospels. Part of the duplicate material issues in edits here, but I am slightly confused by one thing. The duplicate material "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php " enters the Gospel of the Hebrews article on 1-3 October but back on the Authentic Gospel of Matthew before merge has no mention of "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php " I could easily be confused, the trail here is very hard to follow... In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Anyway, don't let that distract from the proposal to delete cut and paste content. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=100&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&um=1&tbo=u&tbs=bks%3A1&tab=wp&q=Torah%20Shebichtav&spell=1&sa=X
Re CUT AND PASTE DUPLICATION, please note much of the duplication has already been fixed, but Jesus and other aspects of this article will be duplicated in other articles because they are both important and relevant. I actually share your concerns and am prepared to rework it. Still, I have been researching the topic, and most articles include at the beginning of their "composition" section:
I still think the above is important to the topic, but only as how it relates to the composition of the gospel. I am willing to work on an edit that meets your concerns. Don't get me wrong . There still may be hogwash, but it will be well-referenced hogwash from a neutral point of view. Are you still willing to meet meet me half way. Now I am about to go to couch, pour some Merlot, put on some Bach, and have some imported cheese (but no crackers ;) Have a good weekend - Ret.Prof ( talk) 07:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC) PS - Please explain how worship at the Temple and the Oral tradition equal Messianic POV content?
Dear Ret Prof, it is just my opinion that the statement that the part of the duplicate material that says of the the Acts church "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh" sounds like Messianic POV content to me, i.e. that is my opinion. Could you please answer the question as to the origin of this material:
What is the origin of this duplicate material? ___________________________________________ Please. In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually at wikipedia it is not a reasonable question. (See Relections on my talk page). At Wikipedia it is not important who wrote something or if it reflects my point of view. The only issue is references. So the answer is that it is solidly supported by the reliable sources. The Torah Shebiktav is the Written Torah. According to tradition, God dictated the entire Torah (except for the very last part of the book of Deuteronomy) to Moses in the Sinai desert. See Google Link for a list reliable sources. The Torah Shebeal Peh is the Oral Law. See Google Link for a list reliable sources. So please stop playing games and find some references that support your position. I hope that was not too harsh. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 23:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Confused by this Talk page? I certainly am. I read through the thread immediately above this and couldn't make head or tail of it.
And so, in an heroic though possibly doomed attempt to create a useful discussion on the article, I offer the following. The idea is that it would replace the existing section headed "Composition," which is far too long and turgid. Exactly how long and turgid it needs to be is a matter of taste, but I certainly think that less would be better - our audience is the general reader with an interest in the subject but no academic background therein, not bible scholars with PhDs up to their elbows. (Try citing Wikipedia in your next paper to the SBL and see what reception you get).
I've separated it out into sentences to make it easier to comment, but they should be read sequentially. The four sentences make up the first paragrpah, and deal with the traditional authorship (and the reference is Dennis C. Duling, Gospel of Matthew, in Aune, David E., (ed) "The Blackwell companion to the New Testament" (Blackwell Publishing, 2010), pp. 301-2
I don't want to overburden everyone with any more at this stage, so please, comments on this as the first paragraph of the proposed section. PiCo ( talk) 08:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
PiCo and Ictu, thanks for looking at my references. Ictu has won me over. I agree with Ictu to revise and in some places remove duplication and although this source on the Gospel of Matthew is liberal, it does cover the standard points. It further confirms that such issues as the "Oral tradition", "Sitz im Leben" "the destruction of Temple in 70 CE", etc are not only important but standard aspects that need to be covered. Now with Ictu on board we have neared consensus. I had no trouble with PiCo excerpts mentioned above. In addition I found the following excerpts from The Blackwell companion helpful.
I will continue on the draft and I am hopeful Ictu will be pleased. I will track Blacks very closely. When I am finished you and others will make further revisions and when we reach consensus, we will then post the edit. Thanks to both PiCo and Ictu for all the hard work and good will. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I will continue on the draft and I am hopeful Ictu will be pleased. I will track Blacks very closely. When I am finished you and others will make further revisions and when we reach consensus, we will then post the edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit hard to keep track, but I gathered there was agreement to my proposal for replacing the "Composition" section with something a little shorter, so I've actioned that.
RetProf, I agree that the bullet-points you quote from Blackwells are important and useful and I want to use at least some of them, but I think you're biting off quite a big mouthful here. I do like your idea of replacing the section title "Matthew the Evangelist" with "Author and setting" - let me work something up that would replace that existing section. PiCo ( talk) 01:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I increased the frequency of archiving on this page because the discussion was rapid, the page was almost 250k, and it had 32 main threads and a similar number of sub-threads. It was simply too big to load, and too long to read. Automated archiving reduced the size of the page to 90k, which is still very long, but at least readable. The automated archiving was, however, reverted - but the archived material was not removed from the archives, nor were the new archives merged. As a result, further archiving would have duplicated the material in the archives.
I'm fine with the change of the archiving rate of stale threads from 3 days to 7, but the simple reversion of this archiving was done improperly and was completely inappropriate, given the length of the page and the number of stale threads. The page is now long, but still useable, and all information is available in the archives. Please do not unarchive this page again. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The presumptive tone and authoritative text of the following astounded me. "Matthew, a Galilean and the son of Alpheus[19] collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas.[20][21][22] Matthew was "called" by a Jewish rabbi named Jesus to be one of the Twelve Disciples.[19][21][23][24][25] As a disciple, Matthew followed Christ, and was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension. It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish."
The identity of a specific "Matthew" as the author of the gospel is not an established fact.
Jesus as a "rabbi" needs clarification in that he may have been widely known as a teacher, but it would take a great deal of evidence (with very little available) to establish him as a priest of the Temple in the common meaning of the word.
Most readers consider the chosen 12 to be "apostles" and the scores of others as "disciples."
Typically and commonly the women were witnesses to the resurrection. The Apostle Matthew was one of a group, among many groups, who saw the resurrected Jesus. In Corinthians, Paul describes Jesus as first appearing to Peter and then the other Apostles. Gospel of Luke has Cleopas and a companion as the first witnesses. Gospel of Mark lacks an ending and the apocryphal verses are not trusted.
It is a very large presumption to assert that Matthew (the presumed author of the Gospel), Mary (which of the 3 or 4???), James the brother of Jesus, and other close followers were Jewish. To the average reader looking up a gospel in Wikipedia, these people very clearly believed in Jesus and were the earliest Christians.
It requires knowledge of apocryphal (non-canonical) writings such as Gospel of Hebrews and Gospel of Thomas to perceive any validity to these concepts.
In my opinion, this paragraph (and much that follows it) are in many respects very contradictory to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox teachings, unnecessarily so.
Wurmanx ( talk) 22:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)wurmanx
Mainstream users editing Gospel of Matthew should be aware of past attempts (apparently by mainstream users) to AfD Authentic Gospel of Matthew, article created by User:Poorman (a euphemism for "Ebionite") and User:Melissadolbeer ; apparently "When this article was merged and redirected, numerous sockpuppets appeared, to restore it." and a flurry of counter-sockpuppet accusations.
Something strange is evidently going on here, but it's quite clear from the history that 1 or 2 or 3 individuals have been populating Wikipedia with fringe material on "the Hebrew Gospel" (sic) since 2005 and resisting any attempts to revert/delete that material by changing identities. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I did a quick dig around. This is the first time I've done this on another user, and I'm perhaps stupid for not having done this before. And also surprised how easy it is. Okay so, from the above link you are User talk:207.81.154.64. Fine, editing under an IP is not a sock puppet. But your very first post 14 June 2010 (I'm assuming the one 2005 edit from that ISP on Stargate Atlantis was a previous subscriber) weighs straight into an Admin saying "I am the Anon from the Okanagan who you accused of vandalism. All my edits are good faith edits. Please explain. 207.81.154.64 ( talk) 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)" which indicates that you had been involved in edits at Gospel of the Hebrews which an Admin had identified as vandalism. We'd have to look at the day before, 13 June 2010, at Gospel of the Hebrews to work out exactly what the edits the Admin thought were vandalism were ( User_talk:207.81.154.64= User_talk:207.194.164.93 identify each other? Then User_talk:96.22.215.70). Your own logged in edits are fairly clean of involvement in Gospel of the Hebrews related controversy until 6 Feb 2009 when you added Gospel of the Hebrews material to James the Just while logged in as Ret.Prof. Whoops!. This isn't exactly the impression that is given on your talk page that you only got involved in Gospel of the Hebrews several months ago User_talk:Ret.Prof#Reflections "Several months ago I started my edit quest. Things got ugly when I finally came to the Gospel of the Hebrews. I have read the extensive edit history and this edit war has been around since 2004." It has hasn't it. I'm surprised that I hadn't bumped into this stuff before 1:37 1 Oct 2010 when i added some very bland mainstream academic sources, which survived exactly 3 hours till you next logged in and deleted it, your bad luck really that someone as bloody minded as myself walked in on your protected territory. I hadn't even looked at Schneemelcher for 15 years, been gathering dust with other reference books on a top shelf in the games room. And I don't even remember reading Vielhauer's "Jewish Gospels" section. The whole New Testament Apocrypha area is for fruitcakes imho (no offence to these worthy Tubingen scholars). And now look at me, I'm persistently trying to get their "critical" SBL views into your protected articles. Rather fortunate for me, and fortunate maybe for the articles, that you cannot accuse me of being a sockpuppet, given, shall we say, my rather distinctive interests in Polish Unitarianism, languages and Spanish renaissance music. I'd like to see a sockpuppet imitate that :D. Thanks by the way for introducing me to various dusty scholars to write bio-stubs on.
So, back to this article, Gospel of Matthew, given that you've got this long history of, shall we say, engagement for the Gospel of the Hebrews and Authentic Gospel of Matthew, perhaps that'd be a reason to be hands off while other editors decide what to do with this chunk of Gospel of the Hebrews that you have inserted into Gospel of Matthew here? Just a suggestion. I'm quite happy to walk far far away and let mainstream editors like PiCo and History2007 get on with a clean up here without obtaining your "consensus". Sound good? In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
To make sense of above, see before Ret.Prof refactor
Allegations of sock puppetry should not be made on the talk page of an article; please review WP:Sock puppetry#Handling suspected sock puppets. The references to sock puppetry are relevant to this discussion, but only after sock puppetry has been investigated and proven.
If a request for mediation hasn't been filed (on casual inspection, I don't see one), it would seem that this article needs it.
I came here because of a notice on a project page. My main and general observation is that you can't see the forest for the trees here. As example, let me point to the fact that in coming to this article, one sees the jargon "Markan priority" before being told that the Sermon on the Mount is part of this Gospel. From what I can see from an admittedly cursory look at the discussion, PiCo is aware of this problem. The article should first describe as simply as possible what this gospel is, and outline its content, before reducing it to a heap of scholarly jargon.
In short, this is an encyclopedia article for the sort of general reader who might look up Gospel of Matthew. Who might that be? Not a scholar, and not a serious student of religion, who will make direct use of the scholarly sources. It is not a college textbook, which is what you are trying to make of it. It should outline the exegetical questions raised by this gospel, not attempt to decide them. Its first aim, as always, is to describe; please review WP:NPOV#Explanation of the neutral point of view. See also the essay Wikipedia:Describing points of view. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Question: Is there anyone who wants to see the cut-and-paste Section 1.1 remain in the body of the article? In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
In the paragraph entitled "Instructions to the Church", in a reference to the Protestant interpretation, it is assumed or asserted that Greek was used in the conversation. Actually, both parties were probably speaking in Aramaic. This makes the remarks about Greek grammar a total waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.45.120 ( talk) 09:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
PiCo, per Encyclopedia of World Religions Johannes P. Schadé 2006 "He strongly opposed adoptionism (dual sonship of Christ), resulting in his condemnation of the teachings of Archbishop Elipandus of Toledo, Spain. Adrian II (792-872) Pope from 867 to 872." If so, and it sounds like it is so, then this would confirm that Howard W. Clarke should probably not be taken as a main source in this article. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The dispute between editors relates entirely to the composition of the gospel. We discussed earlier a heavy revision of the section that would make it much shorter and still touch on all the major points - but without going into detail and scholarly jargon that will simply turn away our readers. I had a proposal on Talk before that seemed to be acceptable, and now I've used it to replace the Composition section. I don't think we need to be any longer than this, and I think it touches on everything we need to touch on - the Matthew tradition, how that tradition probably came about, the Jewish roots of the gospel-writer and his community, his sources, the probable date and place of composition. I welcome discussion, but I'd be grateful if we don't simply revert. PiCo ( talk) 11:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The text now seems reasonably general and makes the valid points about authorship and provenance. It seems as if some of the transitions between topics could be less abrupt.
The mention of Jerome describes him, parenthetically, of the 5th century. That is only partially accurate since he flourished to a great extent in the 4th century. How about the actual dates, c. 347 to 420 C.E., in the parentheses. It's also interesting that his comments about having worked from a Hebrew text of "sayings" is not included. However, possibly, that's the intro. to another very unsettled scholarly controversy, best left on the sidelines.
The comment about "insider baseball" is highly appropriate, but there are genuine, modern, scholarly, vehement differences of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wurmanx ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Deception plays a major factor in Ictu's editing strategy. One of his favorite ploys is to "suggest" to a good faith editor that he would be "quite happy to walk far far away and let mainstream editors like PiCo and History2007 get on with a clean up" or Will you join me and just walk away and let other editors edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC) When the good faith editor agrees to step back from editing the article in question, Ictu sneeks back to the article and continues his POV pushing.
I am getting wiser in the ways of our wiki-warrior. At the Gospel of the Hebrews it took me several weeks to call him on his playing the con. This time I caught his deception right away. It again confirms what I have said on my talk page. Deceit, deception and dishonesty do hurt Wikipedia. My hope is that the Admins who looking into Ictu's violations of Wikipedia policy are taking the time to carefully analize Ictu's edits, for he is crafty and cunning and has often turned the tables on the good faith user. A wiser Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I've had a personal message from RetProf (on my talk page) saying he would like to withdraw from editing this article. If In Ictu Oculi would like to do likewise, I think it might be the best hope for getting a way to move forward.
This is the exchange:
There have actually been quite a number of editors around in recent weeks - CLIMAX, Ckruschke ( talk, and others. I certaibnly don't want to be the only one doing editing - I'd be very happy to leave it to others. As I said to Ret Prof, I'm a writer, not a scholar. But I do think that Wikipedia needs a decent article on this subject. PiCo ( talk) 07:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Deception above - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi PiCo - I note your edit comment (→Jewish elements: What's the relevance to the Gospel of Matthew?) on a delete in edit history. Looking at the whole section:
I deleted the Genealogy section from this article and moved it to the Talk page of Genealogy of Jesus. The rationale is that it takes up a lot of room here, and it's more efficient to refer readers via hyperlink to the main article - this article just needs a very brief mention.
All in all, I'm working towards having the summary of the Gospel follow the outline given at the top of the section - it will be easier for readers to follow.
Comments? PiCo ( talk) 11:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Notwithstanding Ictu'a deceit (see Deception above) I will continue to step back from editing this article. My life experience has taught me that honesty and integrity are alway best in the long term. (See my talk page)
My greatest disappointment is that Ictu has been successful at making this debate about discrediting me, rather than scholarly debate on the references.
Ictu, it is not that you are wrong, it is that you are simply not right. The references you cite are legitimate, but only tell half the story.
There was a time when the Catholic view prevailed - which said that the Gospel of Matthew was merely a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. Modern scholars have more or less disproved this position, and called the testimony of the Church Fathers into question. Indeed most scholars in the last century have followed Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker (in Hennecke and Schneemelcher NTApoc), and more recently AFJ Klijn (1992), as Ictu has pointed out. It should be noted that their were always some dissenting voices such as W. R. Schoemaker, Cassels, Parker and Nicholson.
Citations from W. R. Schoemaker, Cassels, Parker and Nicholson |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
"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
|
By 1988, cracks cracks started to form. (See Ray A. Pritz.) Then, in 1998 Peter Lebrecht Schmidt, called this near consensus into question. Critically assessing the discussion from Schmidtke to Klijn, Schmidt showed that originally there was only one Jewish gospel, called the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," which was subsequently translated into Greek and Latin. This work was powerful, well sourced and thought provoking. By the turn of the century it had become obvious "that the state of the scholarly question had been thrown into the air and there is simply no consensus" (Please read pages 245 - 246, Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries by Oskar Skarsaune & Reidar Hvalvik Hendrickson Publishers, 2007)
Citations re New Consensus |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
Google Link Google Link Google Link
This new consensus argues that there was remarkable agreement among the Church Fathers.
Finally, Schmidt et al point out that in 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. |
Since then, Schmidt has been joined by such noted scholars as James Edwards, James Tabor and Jeffrey J. Bütz.
Citations re New Consensus |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition - by James R Edwards, 2009====
Links: p 259 p 260 p 117 pp 121 - 123 The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings - by Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, 2010
|
Here on Wikipedia, scholars such have as E.B. Nicholson, James Edwards, James Tabor, Peter Lebrecht Schmidt and Jeffrey J. Bütz have had their reputations called into question. These smears against noted scholars are unfounded. In real world they are considered "reliable sources" and are respected.
E.B. Nicholson, James Edwards, James Tabor, Peter Lebrecht Schmidt and Jeffrey J. Bütz are reputable scholars |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
"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 The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition - by James R Edwards, 2009
|
In closing, let me say that there two issues that we as editors must be aware:
This is what the all reliable sources say in varying degrees depending on their point of view. Since there is serious disagreement among Biblical scholars, we must work together for both clarity and NPOV in our article. This has not been a pleasant time for me as I have tried to reflect fairly what the references say. As I step back, it is time for good faith editors and admistrators to do their duty. All my best to everyone. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I thank Ret.Prof. for his admirably clear description of the three possible positions on this. But I deny that #1 is the Catholic position; conservative it undoubtedly is. It was held in all varieties of Christianity at the time of Baronius; it was not distinctively Catholic then. For the opposite reason, it is not distinctively Roman Catholic now; far too many Catholics disagree with it.
From the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd ed, Catholic University of America, 2003) "The Gospel according to Matthew", Vol. 9, p. 358):
A Catholic source, both current and reliable; and yet it says that position #1 "is no longer held".
The distinction between #2 and #3 is a matter of degree; the issue, after all, is the similarity between the Gospel of Matthew as we have it and a text in a different language which does not survive. One intermediate position is that the Fathers (or some of them; are they all writing of the same text?) saw a Gospel in Hebrew which included the Sayings of Jesus or Q which may have been in Hebrew or Aramaic, with Matthew read in Greek. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't recognize the literature I am familiar with in any of your synthetic remarks. 'The first issue is "did Matthew write a Gospel?'
The Roman Catholic and conservative position is that the Gospel of Matthew is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Gospel;
Liberal scholars argue that the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Greek, and therefore could not be based on the Hebrew Gospel, but rather it was composed much later by an unknown redactor.
The third position agrees with liberal scholars that the Gospel of Matthew is not genuine. However, they argue that the Hebrew Gospel was authentic and the basis for the other gospels in varying degrees.
Welcome to the two above editors. Unfortunately this talk page is now confusing again due to another large refactor boosting one editor's (though several IPs) convinced view to the end of the talk page, and shifting the discussion on cleaning up the article further up. There's some hope for this article as the number of mainstream editors attracted here is now it seems quite sufficient. That leaves other articles where the above POV can be advanced, including Authentic Gospel of Matthew and Canonical gospels which are basically private blogs, and Jewish-Christian Gospels and Gospel of the Hebrews which are closed to "liberal" (i.e. mainstream/scholarly/academic/properly sourced) content. In ictu oculi ( talk) 21:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to turn this section into a description of structure and content, not an exegisis. So I've deleted the following, but would like to keep it on hand in case it can be recycled:
PiCo ( talk) 23:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm also moving this here, as it might be reused later
This section is now pretty much done, although I'd like to revise the summary of the Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection - a well-known story, and it's difficult to decide how much to put in and what to leave out. Anyway, please offer any comments and suggestions, or make your own edits. (And please bear in mind that the aim has been to provide a summary of the contents of the gospel, keeping explanations and comment to a minimum). PiCo ( talk) 03:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added some headings under "Themes". They're taken from this collectyion of essays by Luz, and I think should give us a structure to work with. Does anyone have other suggestions on what themes we need to include? PiCo ( talk) 00:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm moving the bulk of the lead to the Talk page. This is because there's a tendency to get bagged down with refining the lead, but it really makes more sense to get the article right first and then use that as a basis for the lead. But I don't want to lose the lead entirely, so I'm pasting it here for future use. PiCo ( talk) 01:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC) +++
The Gospel of Matthew is closely aligned with 1st-century Judaism and has been linked to the Jewish-Christian Gospels. It stresses how Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecies. [5] Certain details of Jesus' life, of his infancy in particular, are related only in Matthew; it is the only Gospel to mention the Church or ecclesia. [5] Matthew also emphasizes obedience to and preservation of Biblical law. [8] The Gospel's rhythmical and often poetical prose [3] make it well-suited for public reading, and it is a popular liturgical choice. [4]
Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed in the latter part of the 1st century by a Jewish Christian. [12] Papias of Hierapolis (c. 110–130) records that "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew dialect." Modern scholars believe that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek [24] by a non-eyewitness whose name is unknown to us. [14] This redactor depended on sources like the Gospel of Mark and Q, [15] [16] [17] a position known as Markan priority. However, scholars such as Craig Blomberg disagree variously on these points and believe Matthew did write the Gospel. [17] [25] [9] [26]
The Gospel of Matthew can be broken down into five distinct sections: the Sermon on the Mount (ch 5–7), the Mission Instructions to the Twelve (ch 10), the Three Parables (ch 13), Instructions for the Community (ch 18), and the Olivet Discourse (ch 24–25). Some believe this was to reflect the five books of the Pentateuch, but most do not. [27] [28]
Amyp373
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
citation}}
: Text "Darrell L. Bock" ignored (
help)
![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Other editors, Please take an interest: Ret Prof proposes: "A third group of scholars lead by Nicholson, Edwards, Tabor and Butz support the position of Erhman in that they argue the Gospel of Matthew is not authentic. However, they then go on to say that the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, Ebionites and other Hebrew Christians is the Authentic Gospel of Matthew (Matthaei Authenticum). There are also numerous variations of the aforementioned scholarly positions" Firstly, as a Wikipedia:Fringe theories view this does not belong in the lede. Secondly. Inaccuracies.
But the real issue is Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Rather than addressing the Messianic/HebrewPrimacy POV in the 2 sections it is now being pulled into the lede. Other editors, please take an interest. In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I am very disappointed, but it now appears that after weeks of trying, we have totally failed to resolve our differences. Outside help is needed to ascertain if:
Until these issues are resolved, I do not see any way forward. Still keeping an open mind. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This user is in awe of the classic and epic struggle between WP:Burden and WP:Preserve ! |
Ok folks, I'm not really sure where we are with this, since we seem to get diverted and bogged down with great regularity. Anyway, I've assumed (or presumed) that everyone accepts the proposal I put for a new paragraph on the traditional authorship. That's now at the head of the "Composition" section. What follows here is a proposal for the remainder of that section. It draws on 2 sources, both reliable - one is Blackwells, the other is Delbert Burkett's "Introduction to the New Testament etc". Blackwell's is a tertiary source, Burkett a secondary source - generally I prefer tertiary sources, but Burkett looks pretty good.
As before, this is separated into sentences, each this time having its source attached to it. Here it is:
Please check: (a) that the source supports what I say it supports; (b) that everything that needs to be covered in terms of authorship and community, is covered. And in general, can we now finish the Composition/Authorship section and move on? There's lots more to cover. PiCo ( talk) 11:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Consensus at Wikipedia is not about voting. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear RetProf. Since this concerns duplicate contributions to Talk:Gospel of Matthew, Talk:Canonical gospels, Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus, Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament I make the comment here (as per archive) to make it clear, the concern is twofold: 1. Some of the claims in the below section [e.g. most easily identifiable that the Acts church "revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php "] were introduced into the text of Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews on a claimed "merge" of Authentic Gospel of Matthew - yet the content is not found in either article. 2. Re the duplication of this section verbatim on several pages:
There is no need for this to be duplicated verbatim on several Wikipedia pages. I suggest in the friendliest possible manner than perhaps you first decide which page this content belongs on, and then submit to the review of peers there. Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Consensus at Wikipedia is not about voting. And how did my oppose get put below. Ictu are you now voting on my behalf? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
As I explained to you before, I actually agree, therefore I fixed the duplication from the articles - which you now seem to be undoing?? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Ictu has been dramatically saying that he is upset over what he calls "cut and paste concerns". As a good will gesture, I was going to replace the "material he found so very upsetting" with the material from Blackwell's article on the Gospel as it covers the same points as in the article but with different wording. He rejected this compromise. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that most of his concerns, even those that sound good are a cover for his POV pushing. This is not acceptable for Wikipedia articles must be written from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I see that my position is being misrepresented (See reflections). My primary concern is that the Gospel of Matthew must be written from NPOV. This is not happening! There are several different aspects that come up when writing about this topic:
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 compose a NPOV article. (See Reflections at User talk:Ret.Prof) Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Keeping Ictu Honest: It is not about canvassing or alternate accounts but references. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 02:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ret.Prof Well it does mean something, by the 3RRR it means 20 reverts to 2 reverts. I note you restored the duplicate cut and paste sections from Gospel of the Hebrews written by yourself on all pages.
Other editors, As before, if anyone supports or opposes they should add support or oppose at:
etc. Or other editors may do as Ret.Prof is doing and forgo voting for use of the undo function. Or alternatively if you believe this section genuinely needs to be on multiple articles on Wikipedia then please say so and I will desist in proposing that the duplication be removed. Regards In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The disputes above have become unwieldy to sort through. Could someone please provide a short summary of the main points of contention so that additional editors can be solicited to weigh in? Eusebeus ( talk) 09:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
This page has become the object of dispute, laid out in the section above. For the purposes of bringing some clarity to this issue, this section should be reserved for outside editors only who can thereby weigh in on the relative merits of the dispute. In ictu oculi ( talk · contribs) and Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) have offered plenty of back and forth above (and are welcome to continue), but let's please reserve this space solely for those who are not involved in the dispute.
There are three basic questions.
Please include comments or any additional insights below. Thanks. Eusebeus ( talk) 07:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The dispute is largely between InInct and RetProf, and although I've had some involvement it hasn't been nearly so intense, so I'll post here.
The section under dispute concerns the authorship of the gospel. If we follow In Ictu's suggestion, then we need to consider just one issue: should this section include several hundred words on Matthew the Evangelist? Did he write this gospel? If he's the author, then the section belongs; if he's not, if he's just a figure to whom an anonymous work became attached at a later date, then it's much harder to justify.
There's certainly a tradition that he did, dating back to the 2nd century, but, and I quote Blackwell's Introduction to the New Testament, "Most scholars doubt this tradition." ( Blackwell's Introduction etc, p.174). Even Edwards, one of the modern scholars RetProf quotes in support of the idea that Matthew wrote Matthew, actually says he didn't - he calls the idea that he did "a mistake", one "very easy to make". ( Edwards, "Hebrew Gospel", p.252)
RetProf probably accepts that most scholars today don't think Matthew wrote the gospel that has his name, but his position, as I understand, is that we should give equal weight to traditional sources, sources from the 2nd century to the 18th, which is when the tradition began to be questioned. I wouldn't call these sources "fringe" - Eusebius and Jerome are far from that. "Fringe" just isn't the appropriate term. The correct question is, do they have equal authority with modern scholars? I'd say no: our task in scholarly articles is to show the reader the current consensus on questions. That said, I certainly think the ancient tradition should be mentioned - it's part of the history of the subject - but we need to make clear that modern scholarship, in this case, shares a very different idea about the authorship of this gospel.
(Actually, in all modesty, I'd like to point to the proposed draft for a new section that I pasted in an earlier thread, not too far above this one - short, comprehensive, and balanced, IMHO). PiCo ( talk) 07:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
First off, since Edward's work is being bandied about quite a bit, the reviews are starting to trickle in and they are fairly lukewarm regarding his thesis. (See DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0922.2010.01448_22.x; DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9418.2010.00630.x; doi: 10.1177/0014524610364908.) From the latter, Professor Foster's concluding comment reflects the general tenor: "overall its plausibility fails, the evidence on which so many of its inter-related theories are constructed is too slender, and the way the Patristic evidence is fitted to the Procrustean bed of his ‘Hebrew Gospel’ theory means that in all probability these ideas will be seen as an idiosyncratic proposal, rather than a compelling challenge to any of the major proposed solutions to the synoptic problem." Per WP:RS, Wikipedia articles should not be presenting fringe views that have failed to attract general consensus.
With respect to the authorship question, and I agree we should tackle this straight off, it should certainly be noted that the early Christian tradition ascribed authorship to Matthew. No serious modern scholarship, however, accepts this view. I agree with PiCo - what should be elaborated in this article is the prevailing views about why this authorship was so ascribed, not treat it as a serious alternative. As such, the section on Matthew should be eliminated and a summary overview of the prevailing scholarly consensus be provided, with relevant links provided to our articles on Papias, etc.... Eusebeus ( talk) 08:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I think both In ictu oculi and RetiredProf are very good editors. My suggestion: Nobody does anything until Monday, so everyone will calm down, and a new week begins. I will not even bother to read the details of the debate, because heated debates are usually not the best. So 3-4 days will not make a difference to a document that is 2,000 years old. I actually have no interest in the details of teh debate, but I do think that this effort can be put to better use in improving articles that need real help if 3-4 days are allowed to pass. History2007 ( talk) 12:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I am finally starting to feel good about this article. It also appears that Ictu is prepared to meet me half way. His pleasant and polite attitude is the example we must all follow. I plan to try to meet all his concerns. Don't get me wrong. There a still major differences that will take a while to work out. I have looked at other articles and taken the liberity of formatting. Please note it is not written in stone and is open to improvements. I have also contacted Admin. User:Jayjg and asked for his help through the difficult patches as he is a skilled diplomat. I look forward to working with you in the weeks (and months? ahead) - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The Gospel According to Matthew ( Greek: κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον, kata Matthaion euangelion, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον, to euangelion kata Matthaion), commonly shortened to the Gospel of Matthew or simply Matthew, is one of the four canonical gospels and is the first book of the New Testament. This synoptic gospel is an account of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It details his story, from his genealogy through to his Great Commission. [1] [2]
The Gospel is well written. Its rhythmical and often poetical prose [3] make it suited for public reading, and it remains a popular liturgical choice. [4] Certain details of the Infancy Narrative and the Church (or ecclesia) are mentioned only in Matthew. [5]
The Gospel of Matthew is closely aligned with 1st-century Judaism and can be broken down into five distinct sections: the Sermon on the Mount (ch 5-7), the Mission Instructions to the Twelve (ch 10), the Three Parables (ch 13), Instructions for the Community (ch 18), and the Olivet Discourse (ch 24-25). Some believe this was to reflect the five books of the Pentateuch. [6] [7] The Gospel of Matthew stresses how Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy and also emphasizes obedience to and preservation of the Jewish Law. [8] [5]
The authorship and composition of the Gospel of Matthew continues to be the subject of heated debate. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations is that the Apostle Matthew composed the Gospel of Matthew. Scholars such as Craig Blomberg, F. F. Bruce and Gregory Boyd support the position of Matthean authenticity. [9] [10] [11] However, this position has been challenged by leading scholars such as Bart Erhman. They argue that the Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew but rather it was composed by an unknown redactor, in Greek, long after the time of Matthew. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] A third group of scholars lead by Nicholson, Edwards, Tabor and Butz support the position of Erhman in that they argue the Gospel of Matthew is not authentic. However, they then go on to say that the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, Ebionites and other Hebrew Christians indeed was written by Matthew. [18] [19] There are also numerous variations of the aforementioned scholarly positions.
Pretty good, but I'd prefer leaving the Lead till last - otherwise we'll get bogged in petty squabbles before we even touch on the article itself. PiCo ( talk) 02:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
(NB: If any editor objects to the posting of this edit, they may temporarily revert the edit pending consensus)
Place draft edit here______________________
Please start with the worst section - This Talk is getting pulled off track by the Jewish-Christian Gospels. Talk on Gospel of Matthew should start with the problem with this article. The worst section is Gospel_of_Matthew#Matthew_the_Evangelist
Ictu, would you honor us by doing the first draft of the proposed edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
1. As PiCo points out, print encyclopedias don't have wikilinks to enable the reader to click through to
Also
2. The section PiCo tried to delete (and I supported) is a DUPLICATE cut and paste to/from the Matthew article and other articles:
This is all basically, after the first 3 lines, what is technically known as total hogwash. But can be deleted anyway, hogwash or not, since it is just cut and paste from an article which can be wikilinked.
So Repeat proposal. :) Delete all duplication, except 1st 3 lines. Check 1st 3 lines' sources actually support statements, then go to couch, pour a Martini, put on some Bach, have some cheese and crackers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
For reference, I have deleted all but first 2 lines from Talk:Saint Matthew and proposed editing of partially duplicate material at Talk:Gospel/ Talk:Canonical gospels. Part of the duplicate material issues in edits here, but I am slightly confused by one thing. The duplicate material "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php " enters the Gospel of the Hebrews article on 1-3 October but back on the Authentic Gospel of Matthew before merge has no mention of "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php " I could easily be confused, the trail here is very hard to follow... In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Anyway, don't let that distract from the proposal to delete cut and paste content. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=100&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&um=1&tbo=u&tbs=bks%3A1&tab=wp&q=Torah%20Shebichtav&spell=1&sa=X
Re CUT AND PASTE DUPLICATION, please note much of the duplication has already been fixed, but Jesus and other aspects of this article will be duplicated in other articles because they are both important and relevant. I actually share your concerns and am prepared to rework it. Still, I have been researching the topic, and most articles include at the beginning of their "composition" section:
I still think the above is important to the topic, but only as how it relates to the composition of the gospel. I am willing to work on an edit that meets your concerns. Don't get me wrong . There still may be hogwash, but it will be well-referenced hogwash from a neutral point of view. Are you still willing to meet meet me half way. Now I am about to go to couch, pour some Merlot, put on some Bach, and have some imported cheese (but no crackers ;) Have a good weekend - Ret.Prof ( talk) 07:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC) PS - Please explain how worship at the Temple and the Oral tradition equal Messianic POV content?
Dear Ret Prof, it is just my opinion that the statement that the part of the duplicate material that says of the the Acts church "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh" sounds like Messianic POV content to me, i.e. that is my opinion. Could you please answer the question as to the origin of this material:
What is the origin of this duplicate material? ___________________________________________ Please. In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually at wikipedia it is not a reasonable question. (See Relections on my talk page). At Wikipedia it is not important who wrote something or if it reflects my point of view. The only issue is references. So the answer is that it is solidly supported by the reliable sources. The Torah Shebiktav is the Written Torah. According to tradition, God dictated the entire Torah (except for the very last part of the book of Deuteronomy) to Moses in the Sinai desert. See Google Link for a list reliable sources. The Torah Shebeal Peh is the Oral Law. See Google Link for a list reliable sources. So please stop playing games and find some references that support your position. I hope that was not too harsh. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 23:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Confused by this Talk page? I certainly am. I read through the thread immediately above this and couldn't make head or tail of it.
And so, in an heroic though possibly doomed attempt to create a useful discussion on the article, I offer the following. The idea is that it would replace the existing section headed "Composition," which is far too long and turgid. Exactly how long and turgid it needs to be is a matter of taste, but I certainly think that less would be better - our audience is the general reader with an interest in the subject but no academic background therein, not bible scholars with PhDs up to their elbows. (Try citing Wikipedia in your next paper to the SBL and see what reception you get).
I've separated it out into sentences to make it easier to comment, but they should be read sequentially. The four sentences make up the first paragrpah, and deal with the traditional authorship (and the reference is Dennis C. Duling, Gospel of Matthew, in Aune, David E., (ed) "The Blackwell companion to the New Testament" (Blackwell Publishing, 2010), pp. 301-2
I don't want to overburden everyone with any more at this stage, so please, comments on this as the first paragraph of the proposed section. PiCo ( talk) 08:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
PiCo and Ictu, thanks for looking at my references. Ictu has won me over. I agree with Ictu to revise and in some places remove duplication and although this source on the Gospel of Matthew is liberal, it does cover the standard points. It further confirms that such issues as the "Oral tradition", "Sitz im Leben" "the destruction of Temple in 70 CE", etc are not only important but standard aspects that need to be covered. Now with Ictu on board we have neared consensus. I had no trouble with PiCo excerpts mentioned above. In addition I found the following excerpts from The Blackwell companion helpful.
I will continue on the draft and I am hopeful Ictu will be pleased. I will track Blacks very closely. When I am finished you and others will make further revisions and when we reach consensus, we will then post the edit. Thanks to both PiCo and Ictu for all the hard work and good will. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I will continue on the draft and I am hopeful Ictu will be pleased. I will track Blacks very closely. When I am finished you and others will make further revisions and when we reach consensus, we will then post the edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit hard to keep track, but I gathered there was agreement to my proposal for replacing the "Composition" section with something a little shorter, so I've actioned that.
RetProf, I agree that the bullet-points you quote from Blackwells are important and useful and I want to use at least some of them, but I think you're biting off quite a big mouthful here. I do like your idea of replacing the section title "Matthew the Evangelist" with "Author and setting" - let me work something up that would replace that existing section. PiCo ( talk) 01:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I increased the frequency of archiving on this page because the discussion was rapid, the page was almost 250k, and it had 32 main threads and a similar number of sub-threads. It was simply too big to load, and too long to read. Automated archiving reduced the size of the page to 90k, which is still very long, but at least readable. The automated archiving was, however, reverted - but the archived material was not removed from the archives, nor were the new archives merged. As a result, further archiving would have duplicated the material in the archives.
I'm fine with the change of the archiving rate of stale threads from 3 days to 7, but the simple reversion of this archiving was done improperly and was completely inappropriate, given the length of the page and the number of stale threads. The page is now long, but still useable, and all information is available in the archives. Please do not unarchive this page again. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The presumptive tone and authoritative text of the following astounded me. "Matthew, a Galilean and the son of Alpheus[19] collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas.[20][21][22] Matthew was "called" by a Jewish rabbi named Jesus to be one of the Twelve Disciples.[19][21][23][24][25] As a disciple, Matthew followed Christ, and was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension. It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish."
The identity of a specific "Matthew" as the author of the gospel is not an established fact.
Jesus as a "rabbi" needs clarification in that he may have been widely known as a teacher, but it would take a great deal of evidence (with very little available) to establish him as a priest of the Temple in the common meaning of the word.
Most readers consider the chosen 12 to be "apostles" and the scores of others as "disciples."
Typically and commonly the women were witnesses to the resurrection. The Apostle Matthew was one of a group, among many groups, who saw the resurrected Jesus. In Corinthians, Paul describes Jesus as first appearing to Peter and then the other Apostles. Gospel of Luke has Cleopas and a companion as the first witnesses. Gospel of Mark lacks an ending and the apocryphal verses are not trusted.
It is a very large presumption to assert that Matthew (the presumed author of the Gospel), Mary (which of the 3 or 4???), James the brother of Jesus, and other close followers were Jewish. To the average reader looking up a gospel in Wikipedia, these people very clearly believed in Jesus and were the earliest Christians.
It requires knowledge of apocryphal (non-canonical) writings such as Gospel of Hebrews and Gospel of Thomas to perceive any validity to these concepts.
In my opinion, this paragraph (and much that follows it) are in many respects very contradictory to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox teachings, unnecessarily so.
Wurmanx ( talk) 22:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)wurmanx
Mainstream users editing Gospel of Matthew should be aware of past attempts (apparently by mainstream users) to AfD Authentic Gospel of Matthew, article created by User:Poorman (a euphemism for "Ebionite") and User:Melissadolbeer ; apparently "When this article was merged and redirected, numerous sockpuppets appeared, to restore it." and a flurry of counter-sockpuppet accusations.
Something strange is evidently going on here, but it's quite clear from the history that 1 or 2 or 3 individuals have been populating Wikipedia with fringe material on "the Hebrew Gospel" (sic) since 2005 and resisting any attempts to revert/delete that material by changing identities. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I did a quick dig around. This is the first time I've done this on another user, and I'm perhaps stupid for not having done this before. And also surprised how easy it is. Okay so, from the above link you are User talk:207.81.154.64. Fine, editing under an IP is not a sock puppet. But your very first post 14 June 2010 (I'm assuming the one 2005 edit from that ISP on Stargate Atlantis was a previous subscriber) weighs straight into an Admin saying "I am the Anon from the Okanagan who you accused of vandalism. All my edits are good faith edits. Please explain. 207.81.154.64 ( talk) 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)" which indicates that you had been involved in edits at Gospel of the Hebrews which an Admin had identified as vandalism. We'd have to look at the day before, 13 June 2010, at Gospel of the Hebrews to work out exactly what the edits the Admin thought were vandalism were ( User_talk:207.81.154.64= User_talk:207.194.164.93 identify each other? Then User_talk:96.22.215.70). Your own logged in edits are fairly clean of involvement in Gospel of the Hebrews related controversy until 6 Feb 2009 when you added Gospel of the Hebrews material to James the Just while logged in as Ret.Prof. Whoops!. This isn't exactly the impression that is given on your talk page that you only got involved in Gospel of the Hebrews several months ago User_talk:Ret.Prof#Reflections "Several months ago I started my edit quest. Things got ugly when I finally came to the Gospel of the Hebrews. I have read the extensive edit history and this edit war has been around since 2004." It has hasn't it. I'm surprised that I hadn't bumped into this stuff before 1:37 1 Oct 2010 when i added some very bland mainstream academic sources, which survived exactly 3 hours till you next logged in and deleted it, your bad luck really that someone as bloody minded as myself walked in on your protected territory. I hadn't even looked at Schneemelcher for 15 years, been gathering dust with other reference books on a top shelf in the games room. And I don't even remember reading Vielhauer's "Jewish Gospels" section. The whole New Testament Apocrypha area is for fruitcakes imho (no offence to these worthy Tubingen scholars). And now look at me, I'm persistently trying to get their "critical" SBL views into your protected articles. Rather fortunate for me, and fortunate maybe for the articles, that you cannot accuse me of being a sockpuppet, given, shall we say, my rather distinctive interests in Polish Unitarianism, languages and Spanish renaissance music. I'd like to see a sockpuppet imitate that :D. Thanks by the way for introducing me to various dusty scholars to write bio-stubs on.
So, back to this article, Gospel of Matthew, given that you've got this long history of, shall we say, engagement for the Gospel of the Hebrews and Authentic Gospel of Matthew, perhaps that'd be a reason to be hands off while other editors decide what to do with this chunk of Gospel of the Hebrews that you have inserted into Gospel of Matthew here? Just a suggestion. I'm quite happy to walk far far away and let mainstream editors like PiCo and History2007 get on with a clean up here without obtaining your "consensus". Sound good? In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
To make sense of above, see before Ret.Prof refactor
Allegations of sock puppetry should not be made on the talk page of an article; please review WP:Sock puppetry#Handling suspected sock puppets. The references to sock puppetry are relevant to this discussion, but only after sock puppetry has been investigated and proven.
If a request for mediation hasn't been filed (on casual inspection, I don't see one), it would seem that this article needs it.
I came here because of a notice on a project page. My main and general observation is that you can't see the forest for the trees here. As example, let me point to the fact that in coming to this article, one sees the jargon "Markan priority" before being told that the Sermon on the Mount is part of this Gospel. From what I can see from an admittedly cursory look at the discussion, PiCo is aware of this problem. The article should first describe as simply as possible what this gospel is, and outline its content, before reducing it to a heap of scholarly jargon.
In short, this is an encyclopedia article for the sort of general reader who might look up Gospel of Matthew. Who might that be? Not a scholar, and not a serious student of religion, who will make direct use of the scholarly sources. It is not a college textbook, which is what you are trying to make of it. It should outline the exegetical questions raised by this gospel, not attempt to decide them. Its first aim, as always, is to describe; please review WP:NPOV#Explanation of the neutral point of view. See also the essay Wikipedia:Describing points of view. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Question: Is there anyone who wants to see the cut-and-paste Section 1.1 remain in the body of the article? In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
In the paragraph entitled "Instructions to the Church", in a reference to the Protestant interpretation, it is assumed or asserted that Greek was used in the conversation. Actually, both parties were probably speaking in Aramaic. This makes the remarks about Greek grammar a total waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.45.120 ( talk) 09:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
PiCo, per Encyclopedia of World Religions Johannes P. Schadé 2006 "He strongly opposed adoptionism (dual sonship of Christ), resulting in his condemnation of the teachings of Archbishop Elipandus of Toledo, Spain. Adrian II (792-872) Pope from 867 to 872." If so, and it sounds like it is so, then this would confirm that Howard W. Clarke should probably not be taken as a main source in this article. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The dispute between editors relates entirely to the composition of the gospel. We discussed earlier a heavy revision of the section that would make it much shorter and still touch on all the major points - but without going into detail and scholarly jargon that will simply turn away our readers. I had a proposal on Talk before that seemed to be acceptable, and now I've used it to replace the Composition section. I don't think we need to be any longer than this, and I think it touches on everything we need to touch on - the Matthew tradition, how that tradition probably came about, the Jewish roots of the gospel-writer and his community, his sources, the probable date and place of composition. I welcome discussion, but I'd be grateful if we don't simply revert. PiCo ( talk) 11:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The text now seems reasonably general and makes the valid points about authorship and provenance. It seems as if some of the transitions between topics could be less abrupt.
The mention of Jerome describes him, parenthetically, of the 5th century. That is only partially accurate since he flourished to a great extent in the 4th century. How about the actual dates, c. 347 to 420 C.E., in the parentheses. It's also interesting that his comments about having worked from a Hebrew text of "sayings" is not included. However, possibly, that's the intro. to another very unsettled scholarly controversy, best left on the sidelines.
The comment about "insider baseball" is highly appropriate, but there are genuine, modern, scholarly, vehement differences of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wurmanx ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Deception plays a major factor in Ictu's editing strategy. One of his favorite ploys is to "suggest" to a good faith editor that he would be "quite happy to walk far far away and let mainstream editors like PiCo and History2007 get on with a clean up" or Will you join me and just walk away and let other editors edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC) When the good faith editor agrees to step back from editing the article in question, Ictu sneeks back to the article and continues his POV pushing.
I am getting wiser in the ways of our wiki-warrior. At the Gospel of the Hebrews it took me several weeks to call him on his playing the con. This time I caught his deception right away. It again confirms what I have said on my talk page. Deceit, deception and dishonesty do hurt Wikipedia. My hope is that the Admins who looking into Ictu's violations of Wikipedia policy are taking the time to carefully analize Ictu's edits, for he is crafty and cunning and has often turned the tables on the good faith user. A wiser Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I've had a personal message from RetProf (on my talk page) saying he would like to withdraw from editing this article. If In Ictu Oculi would like to do likewise, I think it might be the best hope for getting a way to move forward.
This is the exchange:
There have actually been quite a number of editors around in recent weeks - CLIMAX, Ckruschke ( talk, and others. I certaibnly don't want to be the only one doing editing - I'd be very happy to leave it to others. As I said to Ret Prof, I'm a writer, not a scholar. But I do think that Wikipedia needs a decent article on this subject. PiCo ( talk) 07:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Deception above - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi PiCo - I note your edit comment (→Jewish elements: What's the relevance to the Gospel of Matthew?) on a delete in edit history. Looking at the whole section:
I deleted the Genealogy section from this article and moved it to the Talk page of Genealogy of Jesus. The rationale is that it takes up a lot of room here, and it's more efficient to refer readers via hyperlink to the main article - this article just needs a very brief mention.
All in all, I'm working towards having the summary of the Gospel follow the outline given at the top of the section - it will be easier for readers to follow.
Comments? PiCo ( talk) 11:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Notwithstanding Ictu'a deceit (see Deception above) I will continue to step back from editing this article. My life experience has taught me that honesty and integrity are alway best in the long term. (See my talk page)
My greatest disappointment is that Ictu has been successful at making this debate about discrediting me, rather than scholarly debate on the references.
Ictu, it is not that you are wrong, it is that you are simply not right. The references you cite are legitimate, but only tell half the story.
There was a time when the Catholic view prevailed - which said that the Gospel of Matthew was merely a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. Modern scholars have more or less disproved this position, and called the testimony of the Church Fathers into question. Indeed most scholars in the last century have followed Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker (in Hennecke and Schneemelcher NTApoc), and more recently AFJ Klijn (1992), as Ictu has pointed out. It should be noted that their were always some dissenting voices such as W. R. Schoemaker, Cassels, Parker and Nicholson.
Citations from W. R. Schoemaker, Cassels, Parker and Nicholson |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
"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
|
By 1988, cracks cracks started to form. (See Ray A. Pritz.) Then, in 1998 Peter Lebrecht Schmidt, called this near consensus into question. Critically assessing the discussion from Schmidtke to Klijn, Schmidt showed that originally there was only one Jewish gospel, called the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," which was subsequently translated into Greek and Latin. This work was powerful, well sourced and thought provoking. By the turn of the century it had become obvious "that the state of the scholarly question had been thrown into the air and there is simply no consensus" (Please read pages 245 - 246, Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries by Oskar Skarsaune & Reidar Hvalvik Hendrickson Publishers, 2007)
Citations re New Consensus |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
Google Link Google Link Google Link
This new consensus argues that there was remarkable agreement among the Church Fathers.
Finally, Schmidt et al point out that in 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. |
Since then, Schmidt has been joined by such noted scholars as James Edwards, James Tabor and Jeffrey J. Bütz.
Citations re New Consensus |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition - by James R Edwards, 2009====
Links: p 259 p 260 p 117 pp 121 - 123 The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings - by Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, 2010
|
Here on Wikipedia, scholars such have as E.B. Nicholson, James Edwards, James Tabor, Peter Lebrecht Schmidt and Jeffrey J. Bütz have had their reputations called into question. These smears against noted scholars are unfounded. In real world they are considered "reliable sources" and are respected.
E.B. Nicholson, James Edwards, James Tabor, Peter Lebrecht Schmidt and Jeffrey J. Bütz are reputable scholars |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof ( talk · contribs) |
"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 The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition - by James R Edwards, 2009
|
In closing, let me say that there two issues that we as editors must be aware:
This is what the all reliable sources say in varying degrees depending on their point of view. Since there is serious disagreement among Biblical scholars, we must work together for both clarity and NPOV in our article. This has not been a pleasant time for me as I have tried to reflect fairly what the references say. As I step back, it is time for good faith editors and admistrators to do their duty. All my best to everyone. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I thank Ret.Prof. for his admirably clear description of the three possible positions on this. But I deny that #1 is the Catholic position; conservative it undoubtedly is. It was held in all varieties of Christianity at the time of Baronius; it was not distinctively Catholic then. For the opposite reason, it is not distinctively Roman Catholic now; far too many Catholics disagree with it.
From the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd ed, Catholic University of America, 2003) "The Gospel according to Matthew", Vol. 9, p. 358):
A Catholic source, both current and reliable; and yet it says that position #1 "is no longer held".
The distinction between #2 and #3 is a matter of degree; the issue, after all, is the similarity between the Gospel of Matthew as we have it and a text in a different language which does not survive. One intermediate position is that the Fathers (or some of them; are they all writing of the same text?) saw a Gospel in Hebrew which included the Sayings of Jesus or Q which may have been in Hebrew or Aramaic, with Matthew read in Greek. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't recognize the literature I am familiar with in any of your synthetic remarks. 'The first issue is "did Matthew write a Gospel?'
The Roman Catholic and conservative position is that the Gospel of Matthew is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Gospel;
Liberal scholars argue that the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Greek, and therefore could not be based on the Hebrew Gospel, but rather it was composed much later by an unknown redactor.
The third position agrees with liberal scholars that the Gospel of Matthew is not genuine. However, they argue that the Hebrew Gospel was authentic and the basis for the other gospels in varying degrees.
Welcome to the two above editors. Unfortunately this talk page is now confusing again due to another large refactor boosting one editor's (though several IPs) convinced view to the end of the talk page, and shifting the discussion on cleaning up the article further up. There's some hope for this article as the number of mainstream editors attracted here is now it seems quite sufficient. That leaves other articles where the above POV can be advanced, including Authentic Gospel of Matthew and Canonical gospels which are basically private blogs, and Jewish-Christian Gospels and Gospel of the Hebrews which are closed to "liberal" (i.e. mainstream/scholarly/academic/properly sourced) content. In ictu oculi ( talk) 21:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to turn this section into a description of structure and content, not an exegisis. So I've deleted the following, but would like to keep it on hand in case it can be recycled:
PiCo ( talk) 23:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm also moving this here, as it might be reused later
This section is now pretty much done, although I'd like to revise the summary of the Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection - a well-known story, and it's difficult to decide how much to put in and what to leave out. Anyway, please offer any comments and suggestions, or make your own edits. (And please bear in mind that the aim has been to provide a summary of the contents of the gospel, keeping explanations and comment to a minimum). PiCo ( talk) 03:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added some headings under "Themes". They're taken from this collectyion of essays by Luz, and I think should give us a structure to work with. Does anyone have other suggestions on what themes we need to include? PiCo ( talk) 00:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm moving the bulk of the lead to the Talk page. This is because there's a tendency to get bagged down with refining the lead, but it really makes more sense to get the article right first and then use that as a basis for the lead. But I don't want to lose the lead entirely, so I'm pasting it here for future use. PiCo ( talk) 01:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC) +++
The Gospel of Matthew is closely aligned with 1st-century Judaism and has been linked to the Jewish-Christian Gospels. It stresses how Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecies. [5] Certain details of Jesus' life, of his infancy in particular, are related only in Matthew; it is the only Gospel to mention the Church or ecclesia. [5] Matthew also emphasizes obedience to and preservation of Biblical law. [8] The Gospel's rhythmical and often poetical prose [3] make it well-suited for public reading, and it is a popular liturgical choice. [4]
Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed in the latter part of the 1st century by a Jewish Christian. [12] Papias of Hierapolis (c. 110–130) records that "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew dialect." Modern scholars believe that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek [24] by a non-eyewitness whose name is unknown to us. [14] This redactor depended on sources like the Gospel of Mark and Q, [15] [16] [17] a position known as Markan priority. However, scholars such as Craig Blomberg disagree variously on these points and believe Matthew did write the Gospel. [17] [25] [9] [26]
The Gospel of Matthew can be broken down into five distinct sections: the Sermon on the Mount (ch 5–7), the Mission Instructions to the Twelve (ch 10), the Three Parables (ch 13), Instructions for the Community (ch 18), and the Olivet Discourse (ch 24–25). Some believe this was to reflect the five books of the Pentateuch, but most do not. [27] [28]
Amyp373
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
citation}}
: Text "Darrell L. Bock" ignored (
help)