This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jewish鈥揅hristian gospels article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know why the so-called Fayyum fragment should even be discussed on this page. It is not the oldest fragment of a non-canonical gospel found to this date, nor is it even certain that it is from a gospel at all, let alone a non-canonical one. Torkmusik ( talk) 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
With the recent merging templates, I believe it would be best to merge all the Jewish-Christian Gospels together into this article (including authentic Matthew). There is a lot of repeated content, often very POV and fringe. Putting the articles together will help achieve a neutral and helpful article. -- Ari ( talk) 04:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Presumably by "all" Ari would be refering to:
These articles are still out there with a mass of duplication. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I generally like your changes. Showing the dates of the original printing is a good thing as long as the reader knows that the the book is still in print. It is important to show the reader that this debate has been going on for a long time. I also like the background you provide for the authors.
Regarding the term "paralipomena" at first I was going to let the deletion stand. But after doing some reading, I realized that there were several problems with your edit.
Please note I am not being picky or disruptive, and remain open to other suggestions. Keep up the good work. All the best - Ret.Prof ( talk) 11:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The way we should approach this difficult topic and write a NPOV article is:
I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions. The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic.
As this topic is so very difficult, I think it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source and a Google Link. Also references should be varied ie old, new, conservative, liberal, etc in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also keeping good humour and not deleting material until after a discussion would be helpful. Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Paralipomena was there when I merged the articles. I have seen this term in scholarly texts. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask where do these GHeb-1 GHeb-2 numbers come from? In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Really interesting. Not the numbering, but the history. This edit warring goes back along way. Melissa, Ril, etc. did a lot of damage . . . the drama, the sock puppets, the insults, the silly game playing etc. It is not what Wikipedia is about. Both relied more on deceit than on references. That is why reaching consensus on the talk page is important. I must admit I do have concerns about dramatic statements such as "bogus" "genuine Schneemelcher", "laughably bad references". It is why have temporarily stopped editing these articles. Please, let us not repeat the mistakes of the past!
I do wish you the best and look forward to working with you. Thanks and happy editing. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 11:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest the way we should approach this difficult topic and write a NPOV article is:
I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions.
The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic. As this topic is so very difficult, I think it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source and a Google Link. Also references should be varied ie old, new, conservative, liberal, etc in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also keeping good humour and not editing material until after consensus is reached is important.
I hope this proposal addresses your concerns. All the best - Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Any objections? In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
To illustrate the point, I've made a token start on one citation by duplicating Melissa from Bangkok's GHeb-40 in where it is academically known, GHeb-3 under Gospel of the Hebrews. Now, which gets deleted? Melissa from Bangkok's number or the standard academic number? In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged the article as OR. Not just the GHeb numbering system, but the whole tenor of the article. In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone familiar with mainstream academic scholarship please review this deletion by Ret Prof and salvage some or all of it. Thanks In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Here:
This category of extra-canonical sayings is later and therefore less credible. They are from the Gospel Parallels [119]
* GHeb- 101 鈥淭he doctrine of Judaism cannot be joined to the doctrine of Christ. What connection can there be between the agreement of the Gospel of the Hebrews and the agreement of the Holy Gospels?鈥 [120] * GHeb- 102 The Hebrew Gospel has not 鈥渢o the Holy City,鈥 rather 鈥渢o Jerusalem鈥. * GHeb- 103 The words, 鈥渨ithout cause鈥 are omitted in the Hebrew Gospel and other manuscripts. * GHeb- 104 The Hebrew Gospel reads here: 鈥淚f you be in My heart and do not the will of My Father who is in Heaven, I will cast you away from My heart.鈥 * GHeb- 105 The Hebrew Gospel has 鈥渕ore wise than snakes鈥. * GHeb- 106 The Hebrew Gospel has 鈥渢he Kingdom of Heaven is plundered鈥. * GHeb- 107 The Hebrew Gospel states, 鈥淚 am grateful to you鈥. * GHeb- 108 The Hebrew Gospel does not have, 鈥渢hree days and three nights鈥. * GHeb- 109 The Hebrew Gospel has, 鈥淐orban is what you should gain from us鈥. * GHeb- 110 The Hebrew Gospel states 鈥渟on of John鈥 for 鈥淏ar-Jona鈥. * GHeb- 111 The Hebrew Gospel states immediately after the seventy times seven: 鈥淔or in the prophets, after they were anointed with the Holy Spirit,there was found in them sin speech.鈥 * GHeb- 112 The Hebrew Gospel has, 鈥淎nd he denied and swore and cursed鈥. * GHeb- 113 The Hebrew Gospel has, 鈥淎nd he delivered to them armed men, that they might sit over against the cave and guard it day and night鈥.
In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
References
Some non-enthusiast mainstream editors are needed here to allow that e.g. the mainstream Schneemelcher numbering system and majority point of view needs to take precedence over Melissa from the Bangkok internet cafe and other enthusiastic OR NPOV contributions:
In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not just Nicholson and Edwards but all of the following that go against your POV.
The work of these scholars over the years can be summed up as follows:
In a topic where there are many strange ideas ranging from "Jesus as alien being" to "Jesus as a mythical God", Occam's razor states the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one. In other words, Jesus was probably a 'Jewish' rabbi and one of his followers wrote some 'stuff' about him in the 'local dialect'.
The simplest explanation is also supported by the historical evidence. During the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link
During the formative years of Early Christianity 0 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Gospel of the Ebionites in circulation. Also it is listed in 0 ancient catalogs. Indeed there is no historical evidence from either Christian or non Christian sources that the Ebionites ever composed a gospel. The Church Fathers all state that the Ebionites only used one gospel which was composed by Matthew in Hebrew and was referred to by "most people" as the Authentic Gospel of Matthew or less frequently the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Therefore Schneemelcher's "imaginary" Gospel of the Ebionites is a non existent gospel or as Edwards politely puts it a scholarly neologism
Schneemelcher's "numbering" has also been weighed, measured and found wanting for the following reasons.
Finally, I may have been a little hard Schneemelcher, as
Therefore I strongly oppose any change to the present numbering. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I do agree that it would be a mistake to renew the old edit war between User:-Ril- and User:Melissadolbeer of six years ago (or for that matter six months ago). Therefore I am going to delete the numbering that you object to. From now on let us work for consensus in good faith! I would suggest reading Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth to gain an interesting perspective of the challenges that confront us. Truly wishing you all the best in your editing - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Rather than "compromise" simply please identify a space in the articles where mainstream scholarship can be stated without facing deletion. In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear RetProf, yes. I am using the talk page. Do you see me edit-warring or reversing the deletions of contributions to the article? I am glad to see the invented GHeb numbers removed here. Though I do not think the NPOV tag should have been removed yet. In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
The article continues to be overweight with OR and single source theories. Whether mainstream scholarship is right or wrong (how would any of us editing know? myself included) majority mainstream scholarship is what an encyclopedia article should be reflecting. Propose that the article be edited to
Please note that in the article, I have added some references that show that Philip Vielhauer and Schneemelcher once were considered the "standard" but this is no longer the case. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 16:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Ret.Prof you have deleted the below, again:
This taken with your other edits this puts a minority view ahead of the mainstream majority scholarship of the last 80 years In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Ictu, it is not that you are wrong, it is that you are simply not right. In other words, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Let me give a brief summary of what is happening in the academic world:
Most scholars in the last century have followed Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker (in Hennecke and Schneemelcher NTApoc), and more recently AFJ Klijn (1992), in extrapolating from the Church Fathers three distinct extra-canonical Jewish gospels: the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Gospel of the Ebionites, and the Gospel of the Hebrews (composed in Greek). 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聽( talk聽路 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
|
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聽( talk聽路 contribs) |
|
Since then, Schmidt has been joined by such noted scholars as James Edwards, James Tabor and Jeffrey J. B眉tz. Biblical scholars and most lay people are aware of these facts and your edit warring is turning this article into little more than a farce. I know this seems harsh, but your editing warring is seriously undermining Wikipedia credibility. Please take the time to read carefully and update yourself in this area.
Citations re New Consensus |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof聽( talk聽路 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. B眉tz & James Tabor, 2010====
|
Please take the time to study carefully the aforementioned. If I have made any mistakes, I will gladly correct them. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
As I said, this deletion taken with your other edits this puts a minority view ahead of the mainstream majority scholarship of the last 80 years It doesn't matter whether the mainstream view is right or wrong, it gets to be heard first because of W:Weight. In ictu oculi ( talk) 19:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC) NB I've removed the Not Wrong / New Consensus line divider. In ictu oculi ( talk) 19:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
At the first usage of the name 'Jerome' I have made it a link and added his approximate birth year and known death year. Wurmanx ( talk) 21:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)wurmanx
Your kind contribution, while well intentioned, actually made it difficult to revert the delete. But in any case the date is there, along with the strikethrough above. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:23, 13 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. At the Gospel of Matthew 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) 03:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is one of the problem set pages affected by Authentic Gospel of Matthew:
"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)" 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. At the Gospel of Matthew 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) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
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. My problem is not with what you have written! Rather, it is that any reference that does not support your theology is cleansed from Wikipedia.
There was a time when Ictu's anti Hebrew Gospel beliefs prevailed. Indeed, most scholars in the last century 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聽( talk聽路 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. Schmidt's 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聽( talk聽路 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. B眉tz.
Citations re New Consensus |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof聽( talk聽路 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. B眉tz & James Tabor, 2010
|
Here on Wikipedia, scholars such have as E.B. Nicholson, James Edwards, James Tabor, Peter Lebrecht Schmidt and Jeffrey J. B眉tz 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. B眉tz are reputable scholars |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof聽( talk聽路 contribs) |
The Gospel According to the Hebrews - by Edward Byron Nicholson 1879 (POD 2009) "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
The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings - by Jeffrey J. B眉tz & James Tabor, 2010
|
The main issue is "Did Matthew, follower of the Jewish Rabbi Jesus write a Hebrew Gospel?" As has been pointed out in the references above, the answer is probably yes, as there is a lot of historical data confirming this position. To exclude all these reliable sources is the worst kind of POV pushing. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Mainstream view found in standard SBL type works removed again. I'm a little bit tired of restoring it. In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Suggest the article needs some structure.
Lede
SCHOLARSHIP o 1.1 Several Gospels view o 1.2 Unified Hebrew Gospel view
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE
o 9.1 Patristic citations --- move to PATRISTIC EVIDENCE 1. JEROME WIKILINK o 9.2 The Fayum Fragment --- relevance? o 9.3 Sayings recording by Justin Martyr --- relevance? o 9.4 The Oxyrhynchus Gospels --- relevance? o 9.5 Extra-canonical sayings from Cyril of Jerusalem through the Dark Ages ---- PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.CYRIL
In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is a list of 2GH advocates (although Klauck equivocates more than he advocates). Petri Luomanen (2012) offers a step-by-step critical review of the 3GH hypothesis of Vielhauer & Strecker that is devastating. He argues their entire conjecture is based on a logical fallacy because they started with a predetermined hypothesis of what they hoped to see and forced the data into it. This Bayesian approach only works if you are sure the prior information is true. It's the same logical fallacy that befell the Q project, which Mark Goodacre demolished with The Case Against Q, i.e. Given that Q existed --> lots of words --> we therefore conclude that Q existed. Ignocrates ( talk) 01:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I added the 7th edition of the New Testament Apocrypha (in German) to Further Reading. Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha (2nd ed.) is current up through the 6th German edition. This article depends upon Schneemelcher as the critical text (also the Gospel of the Ebionites article), so this is not a small deal. For example, the Judaikon readings from the marginal notes of manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew are included in brackets in the Gospel of the Nazoraeans. Ignocrates ( talk) 01:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
No article on this topic would be complete without mentioning the contribution of Hans Waitz, who first published the 3GH in the New Testament Apocrypha 2nd German Edition (1924). The New Testament Apocrypha 1st German Edition (1904) mentions only two Jewish-Christian Gospels: the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Ebionites. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Alfred Schmidtke made a seminal contribution to the field of Jewish-Christian Gospel studies by being one of the first scholars to describe a Greek Gospel of the Ebionites as a distinct text from an Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, which he interpreted to be a targumic translation of the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Ignocrates ( talk) 03:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Schmidtke was the first to combine the Judaikon sayings from the marginal notes of copies of the Gospel of Matthew with the Aramaic text used by the Nazoraeans known to Jerome. This construction was incorporated by Waitz in his 3GH hypothesis as the Gospel of the Nazoraeans. Waitz considered the Gospel of the Nazoraeans to be a translation of the canonical Gospel of Matthew similar to Schmidtke's conception of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Bernhard Pick's book Paralipomena also had two only Jewish-Christian Gospels: a Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Ebionites. Pick's version of the Gospel of the Ebionites was based solely on the quotations preserved by Epiphanius, and it is the same as the modern consensus version. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Nicholson provides a good representative example of the traditional view of a single Jewish-Christian Gospel known as the Gospel of the Hebrews. Nicholson envisioned that the difficulties in assigning the fragments could be explained as multiple recensions of the same Gospel. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I changed the order of presentation to alphabetical order instead of using the V&S order. GE is a stand-alone topic, so it makes sense to cover this first. GH/GN should be covered sequentially since the relationship between them is uncertain, and GN may ultimately turn out to be a construct of modern scholars. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The GN article needs a major upgrade to GA-level (details to be discussed there) before much more can be said in this overview article. In particular, what is missing is a historiography of scholarship on this topic and how the thinking about the J-C gospels has changed over the last 120 years. Details from the 7th German edition of the NT Apocrypha (2012) need to be incorporated here and in the GN article. Ignocrates ( talk) 20:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jewish鈥揅hristian gospels article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know why the so-called Fayyum fragment should even be discussed on this page. It is not the oldest fragment of a non-canonical gospel found to this date, nor is it even certain that it is from a gospel at all, let alone a non-canonical one. Torkmusik ( talk) 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
With the recent merging templates, I believe it would be best to merge all the Jewish-Christian Gospels together into this article (including authentic Matthew). There is a lot of repeated content, often very POV and fringe. Putting the articles together will help achieve a neutral and helpful article. -- Ari ( talk) 04:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Presumably by "all" Ari would be refering to:
These articles are still out there with a mass of duplication. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I generally like your changes. Showing the dates of the original printing is a good thing as long as the reader knows that the the book is still in print. It is important to show the reader that this debate has been going on for a long time. I also like the background you provide for the authors.
Regarding the term "paralipomena" at first I was going to let the deletion stand. But after doing some reading, I realized that there were several problems with your edit.
Please note I am not being picky or disruptive, and remain open to other suggestions. Keep up the good work. All the best - Ret.Prof ( talk) 11:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The way we should approach this difficult topic and write a NPOV article is:
I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions. The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic.
As this topic is so very difficult, I think it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source and a Google Link. Also references should be varied ie old, new, conservative, liberal, etc in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also keeping good humour and not deleting material until after a discussion would be helpful. Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Paralipomena was there when I merged the articles. I have seen this term in scholarly texts. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask where do these GHeb-1 GHeb-2 numbers come from? In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Really interesting. Not the numbering, but the history. This edit warring goes back along way. Melissa, Ril, etc. did a lot of damage . . . the drama, the sock puppets, the insults, the silly game playing etc. It is not what Wikipedia is about. Both relied more on deceit than on references. That is why reaching consensus on the talk page is important. I must admit I do have concerns about dramatic statements such as "bogus" "genuine Schneemelcher", "laughably bad references". It is why have temporarily stopped editing these articles. Please, let us not repeat the mistakes of the past!
I do wish you the best and look forward to working with you. Thanks and happy editing. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 11:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest the way we should approach this difficult topic and write a NPOV article is:
I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions.
The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic. As this topic is so very difficult, I think it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source and a Google Link. Also references should be varied ie old, new, conservative, liberal, etc in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also keeping good humour and not editing material until after consensus is reached is important.
I hope this proposal addresses your concerns. All the best - Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Any objections? In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
To illustrate the point, I've made a token start on one citation by duplicating Melissa from Bangkok's GHeb-40 in where it is academically known, GHeb-3 under Gospel of the Hebrews. Now, which gets deleted? Melissa from Bangkok's number or the standard academic number? In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged the article as OR. Not just the GHeb numbering system, but the whole tenor of the article. In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone familiar with mainstream academic scholarship please review this deletion by Ret Prof and salvage some or all of it. Thanks In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Here:
This category of extra-canonical sayings is later and therefore less credible. They are from the Gospel Parallels [119]
* GHeb- 101 鈥淭he doctrine of Judaism cannot be joined to the doctrine of Christ. What connection can there be between the agreement of the Gospel of the Hebrews and the agreement of the Holy Gospels?鈥 [120] * GHeb- 102 The Hebrew Gospel has not 鈥渢o the Holy City,鈥 rather 鈥渢o Jerusalem鈥. * GHeb- 103 The words, 鈥渨ithout cause鈥 are omitted in the Hebrew Gospel and other manuscripts. * GHeb- 104 The Hebrew Gospel reads here: 鈥淚f you be in My heart and do not the will of My Father who is in Heaven, I will cast you away from My heart.鈥 * GHeb- 105 The Hebrew Gospel has 鈥渕ore wise than snakes鈥. * GHeb- 106 The Hebrew Gospel has 鈥渢he Kingdom of Heaven is plundered鈥. * GHeb- 107 The Hebrew Gospel states, 鈥淚 am grateful to you鈥. * GHeb- 108 The Hebrew Gospel does not have, 鈥渢hree days and three nights鈥. * GHeb- 109 The Hebrew Gospel has, 鈥淐orban is what you should gain from us鈥. * GHeb- 110 The Hebrew Gospel states 鈥渟on of John鈥 for 鈥淏ar-Jona鈥. * GHeb- 111 The Hebrew Gospel states immediately after the seventy times seven: 鈥淔or in the prophets, after they were anointed with the Holy Spirit,there was found in them sin speech.鈥 * GHeb- 112 The Hebrew Gospel has, 鈥淎nd he denied and swore and cursed鈥. * GHeb- 113 The Hebrew Gospel has, 鈥淎nd he delivered to them armed men, that they might sit over against the cave and guard it day and night鈥.
In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
References
Some non-enthusiast mainstream editors are needed here to allow that e.g. the mainstream Schneemelcher numbering system and majority point of view needs to take precedence over Melissa from the Bangkok internet cafe and other enthusiastic OR NPOV contributions:
In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not just Nicholson and Edwards but all of the following that go against your POV.
The work of these scholars over the years can be summed up as follows:
In a topic where there are many strange ideas ranging from "Jesus as alien being" to "Jesus as a mythical God", Occam's razor states the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one. In other words, Jesus was probably a 'Jewish' rabbi and one of his followers wrote some 'stuff' about him in the 'local dialect'.
The simplest explanation is also supported by the historical evidence. During the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link
During the formative years of Early Christianity 0 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Gospel of the Ebionites in circulation. Also it is listed in 0 ancient catalogs. Indeed there is no historical evidence from either Christian or non Christian sources that the Ebionites ever composed a gospel. The Church Fathers all state that the Ebionites only used one gospel which was composed by Matthew in Hebrew and was referred to by "most people" as the Authentic Gospel of Matthew or less frequently the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Therefore Schneemelcher's "imaginary" Gospel of the Ebionites is a non existent gospel or as Edwards politely puts it a scholarly neologism
Schneemelcher's "numbering" has also been weighed, measured and found wanting for the following reasons.
Finally, I may have been a little hard Schneemelcher, as
Therefore I strongly oppose any change to the present numbering. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I do agree that it would be a mistake to renew the old edit war between User:-Ril- and User:Melissadolbeer of six years ago (or for that matter six months ago). Therefore I am going to delete the numbering that you object to. From now on let us work for consensus in good faith! I would suggest reading Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth to gain an interesting perspective of the challenges that confront us. Truly wishing you all the best in your editing - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Rather than "compromise" simply please identify a space in the articles where mainstream scholarship can be stated without facing deletion. In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear RetProf, yes. I am using the talk page. Do you see me edit-warring or reversing the deletions of contributions to the article? I am glad to see the invented GHeb numbers removed here. Though I do not think the NPOV tag should have been removed yet. In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
The article continues to be overweight with OR and single source theories. Whether mainstream scholarship is right or wrong (how would any of us editing know? myself included) majority mainstream scholarship is what an encyclopedia article should be reflecting. Propose that the article be edited to
Please note that in the article, I have added some references that show that Philip Vielhauer and Schneemelcher once were considered the "standard" but this is no longer the case. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 16:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Ret.Prof you have deleted the below, again:
This taken with your other edits this puts a minority view ahead of the mainstream majority scholarship of the last 80 years In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Ictu, it is not that you are wrong, it is that you are simply not right. In other words, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Let me give a brief summary of what is happening in the academic world:
Most scholars in the last century have followed Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker (in Hennecke and Schneemelcher NTApoc), and more recently AFJ Klijn (1992), in extrapolating from the Church Fathers three distinct extra-canonical Jewish gospels: the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Gospel of the Ebionites, and the Gospel of the Hebrews (composed in Greek). 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聽( talk聽路 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
|
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聽( talk聽路 contribs) |
|
Since then, Schmidt has been joined by such noted scholars as James Edwards, James Tabor and Jeffrey J. B眉tz. Biblical scholars and most lay people are aware of these facts and your edit warring is turning this article into little more than a farce. I know this seems harsh, but your editing warring is seriously undermining Wikipedia credibility. Please take the time to read carefully and update yourself in this area.
Citations re New Consensus |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof聽( talk聽路 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. B眉tz & James Tabor, 2010====
|
Please take the time to study carefully the aforementioned. If I have made any mistakes, I will gladly correct them. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
As I said, this deletion taken with your other edits this puts a minority view ahead of the mainstream majority scholarship of the last 80 years It doesn't matter whether the mainstream view is right or wrong, it gets to be heard first because of W:Weight. In ictu oculi ( talk) 19:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC) NB I've removed the Not Wrong / New Consensus line divider. In ictu oculi ( talk) 19:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
At the first usage of the name 'Jerome' I have made it a link and added his approximate birth year and known death year. Wurmanx ( talk) 21:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)wurmanx
Your kind contribution, while well intentioned, actually made it difficult to revert the delete. But in any case the date is there, along with the strikethrough above. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:23, 13 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. At the Gospel of Matthew 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) 03:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is one of the problem set pages affected by Authentic Gospel of Matthew:
"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)" 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. At the Gospel of Matthew 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) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
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. My problem is not with what you have written! Rather, it is that any reference that does not support your theology is cleansed from Wikipedia.
There was a time when Ictu's anti Hebrew Gospel beliefs prevailed. Indeed, most scholars in the last century 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聽( talk聽路 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. Schmidt's 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聽( talk聽路 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. B眉tz.
Citations re New Consensus |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof聽( talk聽路 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. B眉tz & James Tabor, 2010
|
Here on Wikipedia, scholars such have as E.B. Nicholson, James Edwards, James Tabor, Peter Lebrecht Schmidt and Jeffrey J. B眉tz 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. B眉tz are reputable scholars |
---|
References adduced by Ret.Prof聽( talk聽路 contribs) |
The Gospel According to the Hebrews - by Edward Byron Nicholson 1879 (POD 2009) "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
The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings - by Jeffrey J. B眉tz & James Tabor, 2010
|
The main issue is "Did Matthew, follower of the Jewish Rabbi Jesus write a Hebrew Gospel?" As has been pointed out in the references above, the answer is probably yes, as there is a lot of historical data confirming this position. To exclude all these reliable sources is the worst kind of POV pushing. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Mainstream view found in standard SBL type works removed again. I'm a little bit tired of restoring it. In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Suggest the article needs some structure.
Lede
SCHOLARSHIP o 1.1 Several Gospels view o 1.2 Unified Hebrew Gospel view
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE
o 9.1 Patristic citations --- move to PATRISTIC EVIDENCE 1. JEROME WIKILINK o 9.2 The Fayum Fragment --- relevance? o 9.3 Sayings recording by Justin Martyr --- relevance? o 9.4 The Oxyrhynchus Gospels --- relevance? o 9.5 Extra-canonical sayings from Cyril of Jerusalem through the Dark Ages ---- PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.CYRIL
In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is a list of 2GH advocates (although Klauck equivocates more than he advocates). Petri Luomanen (2012) offers a step-by-step critical review of the 3GH hypothesis of Vielhauer & Strecker that is devastating. He argues their entire conjecture is based on a logical fallacy because they started with a predetermined hypothesis of what they hoped to see and forced the data into it. This Bayesian approach only works if you are sure the prior information is true. It's the same logical fallacy that befell the Q project, which Mark Goodacre demolished with The Case Against Q, i.e. Given that Q existed --> lots of words --> we therefore conclude that Q existed. Ignocrates ( talk) 01:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I added the 7th edition of the New Testament Apocrypha (in German) to Further Reading. Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha (2nd ed.) is current up through the 6th German edition. This article depends upon Schneemelcher as the critical text (also the Gospel of the Ebionites article), so this is not a small deal. For example, the Judaikon readings from the marginal notes of manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew are included in brackets in the Gospel of the Nazoraeans. Ignocrates ( talk) 01:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
No article on this topic would be complete without mentioning the contribution of Hans Waitz, who first published the 3GH in the New Testament Apocrypha 2nd German Edition (1924). The New Testament Apocrypha 1st German Edition (1904) mentions only two Jewish-Christian Gospels: the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Ebionites. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Alfred Schmidtke made a seminal contribution to the field of Jewish-Christian Gospel studies by being one of the first scholars to describe a Greek Gospel of the Ebionites as a distinct text from an Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, which he interpreted to be a targumic translation of the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Ignocrates ( talk) 03:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Schmidtke was the first to combine the Judaikon sayings from the marginal notes of copies of the Gospel of Matthew with the Aramaic text used by the Nazoraeans known to Jerome. This construction was incorporated by Waitz in his 3GH hypothesis as the Gospel of the Nazoraeans. Waitz considered the Gospel of the Nazoraeans to be a translation of the canonical Gospel of Matthew similar to Schmidtke's conception of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Bernhard Pick's book Paralipomena also had two only Jewish-Christian Gospels: a Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Ebionites. Pick's version of the Gospel of the Ebionites was based solely on the quotations preserved by Epiphanius, and it is the same as the modern consensus version. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Nicholson provides a good representative example of the traditional view of a single Jewish-Christian Gospel known as the Gospel of the Hebrews. Nicholson envisioned that the difficulties in assigning the fragments could be explained as multiple recensions of the same Gospel. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I changed the order of presentation to alphabetical order instead of using the V&S order. GE is a stand-alone topic, so it makes sense to cover this first. GH/GN should be covered sequentially since the relationship between them is uncertain, and GN may ultimately turn out to be a construct of modern scholars. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The GN article needs a major upgrade to GA-level (details to be discussed there) before much more can be said in this overview article. In particular, what is missing is a historiography of scholarship on this topic and how the thinking about the J-C gospels has changed over the last 120 years. Details from the 7th German edition of the NT Apocrypha (2012) need to be incorporated here and in the GN article. Ignocrates ( talk) 20:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)