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.

So there has been for some years now attempts to include as a significant minority view, the view that the canonical Gospel of Matthew (the subject of this article) was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (not Greek, at any rate). I believe I have asked multiple times during the past year for a single, reliable source ( WP:RS) which affirms this view, but I have never seen one. While I have seen lots of reliable sources mentioned in relation to this view (Edwards, Casey, Dunn, Ehrman, etc.), none of these sources affirm the view, and instead they affirm the opposite. While there is a current interest in formal processes, I want to make an informal request: For anyone who wishes to make such an attempt as mentioned, could you supply a single, reliable source which affirms this view, one which you take to be the most clearly reliable of all such sources? -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 07:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have also been thinking about this question, Atethnekos. Here are two sources to check:

• Metzger, Bruce M. (1997) [1987]. The Canon of the New Testament:Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford University Press. ISBN  978-0-19-160687-8.
• Petersen, William Lawrence (1994). Tatian's Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship. Brill. ISBN  978-90-04-09469-7.

Metzger is a late holdout for a single Hebrew gospel (surprisingly). What I can't remember is if he specifically equates that with an autograph of the Gospel of Matthew. Check on or around p.47 if you have access to the book. I didn't save my notes because I wasn't thinking specifically about this question at the time. Petersen definitely mentions it in his historiography of the Diatessaron somewhere on pp. 14-22 or 27-29, where he notes that prior to 1901, there was a scholarly consensus of a Hebrew Matthew and by 1946 (post-WWII) the consensus was that Matthew was originally composed in Greek. He somewhat ruefully asks how did we get from there to here without answering his own question. That is the question I am personally interested in: Was there a gradual changing of minds on this question between 1900 and 1946 or a well-defined tipping point? Almost none of the scholarship from that period was published in English (it's mostly in German), so that may be part of the reason it has not received wider attention. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a useful survey at this book: J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text - Critical Studies 1776-1976, pages 50 and following (the link opens at page 52, where it talks about the proto-Gospel hypothesis, same thing as what we're calling the Hebrew gospel hypothesis). Bo Rieke, the author, says there are four broad hypotheses about the formation of the synoptics:

• Utilization (meaning the authors of the various gospels had access to each other and so "utilized" each other in some configuration - Matthew influenced Mark and Luke, Luke influenced Matthew and Mark, etc).
• Proto-Gospel (the idea that a lost Aramaic/Hebrew gospel of Matthew lies behind all gospels - based on Papias, and comes in several variations - this is what we're calling the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis)
• Fragments hypothesis (gospels based on various lost written accounts of varying lengths)
• Tradition hypothesis (gospels based on oral tradition without written accounts)

Anyway, I found those few pages quite enthralling. I need to get out more. PiCo ( talk) 04:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It may be worth looking also into a book published by two of the world's leading scholars on NT text criticism, namely, Epp, Eldon (1993). Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Criticism. Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans., by co-authors Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D.Fee. I haven't yet read the book, but I have seen excerpts from the book online. Gordon D. Fee, in chapter 1 (Textual Criticism of the New Testament), p. 6, says in a general way:

"Patristic Citations - The final source of data for the textual critic is from the citations and allusions to the NT found in the writings of the early Church Fathers... When the painstaking work of reconstructing the NT text cited by one of the Fathers is done, it is of great value... Although such a witness is often considered tertiary to the Greek MSS and versions in the recovery of the original text, nonetheless when one has certainty with regard to a Father's text, it is of the same value as the MSS themselves. Moreover, the texts of the Fathers are of primary importance in tracing the history of textual transmissions."

If someone can get access to this book in a University library, perhaps there is something to be gained from reading ch. XXV, pp. 344-359, which specifically addresses the subject of patristic quotations. It is my view that most scholars have not fully divulged this subject, since it is still largely fallow ground in terms of research. Davidbena ( talk) 14:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Eldon Epp's book is a must-read for anyone with a serious interest in NT textual criticism. I frequently see references to it on academic e-lists like Synoptic-L. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The work of Philippe Rolland on this subject is first-rate. Of course, most of his publications are in French. There is a lot of published work on putative Hebrew proto-gospels or sayings sources. However, Atethnekos is asking about the published literature on a Hebrew autograph of the complete Gospel of Matthew, not sources that may have contributed to its formation. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I would add to this the following book by William L. Petersen, Patristic and Text Critical Studies - The Collected Essays of Wm. L. Petersen, [ [1]], pp. 94-ff. Davidbena ( talk) 20:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

An excellent book, thank you David. I especially liked his essay on the genesis of the Gospels - quite an eye-opener for me. PiCo ( talk) 22:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ditto! Please take a look at James Edwards 2009 who points out that Papias is supported by 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Twelve of the Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer, either Christian or Non Christian, challenged these two facts. Google Link The first 124 pages is a detailed, scholarly and meticulous evaluation of the historical evidence. (See box below) The academic community, even those who disagree about his position on Luke and Q, were awed by these 124 pages!

Simply put the position of Papias that, "Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi and one of his followers, Matthew wrote an account about him in the local dialect." is supported by considerable evidence. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 23:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If it would be so, you have to show why such "considerable evidence" failed to convince the scholars. As far as I know, "Papias meant our Gospel of Matthew" is considered false by the majority of scholars. So, it could be that "the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew" is a fringe view (as most editors here believe), or that it is a minority view (as you and Davidbena believe). Anyway, we could not trust Edwards to represent the majority view when he himself was advised by his mentors not to publish his book and stated that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is seen as a trap. No amount of original research would suffice to make it appear as the majority view, since Wikipedia does not establish the correctness of a scholarly view, it merely quotes mainstream scholars who support or refute it. So, it is futile to convince the Wikipedians of the correctness of Edwards's arguments, since it is not for Wikipedians to make that call, but for scholars who live by publish or perish. Wikipedians are merely the scribes of mainstream scholars. Wikipedia isn't a channel for publishing original research nor a discussion forum for boosting one's academic status nor an arena where scholars decide which should be the mainstream view. We trust the academia to pass such judgment, it is not Wikipedia's task to tell to the academia which new insight should become their majority view. As User:Benjiboi stated, "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your first big mistake is saying "As far as I know, 'Papias meant our Gospel of Matthew'" Please read what Papias said! If we cannot agree on what Papias said, then we can't go any further. Do you have sources to support your position?? - Cheers Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: have you had time to get a copy of Edwards' book?? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Ret.Prof. The evidence is quite conclusive, and this, mind you, by an author who met the criterion of publish or perish. Your citing of James Edwards, in The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Traditions, contrary to User:Tgeorgescu's personal view, does not constitute original research. The view that User:Tgeorgescu espouses to, viz., only "mainstream views" get to see publication on Wikipedia, doesn't make much sense - since "mainstream" is a relative term depending upon one's place and upbringing. The "mainstream view" in Israel is that Jesus was not Israel's Messiah. By User:Tgeorgescu's logic, the Israeli society should never publish or make known that there are some people who hold Jesus as the Messiah. The scope of knowledge available on Wikipedia files transcends local boundaries, and includes a broad spectrum of views. The simple fact that William Lawrence Petersen writes in his momentous work (Tatian's Diatessaron) that prior to 1901 there was a general scholarly consensus in the west over a proto-Hebrew Matthew, but by 1946 - without knowing how this change was affected - the consensus had drifted to where many thought it may have been composed in Greek, demands an answer. No reasons are given for this change of view, although the testimonies cited by James Edwards and Standford Rives, among others, still stand firm. Perhaps there is a hint in User:Tgeorgescu's words, who at the outset remarked how that a translation from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek would render the Greek Gospel "false." His premise is wrong. Why should a translation be considered "false," simply because it was rendered from one language into another!? The entire Hebrew Bible has been procured unto Greeks and foreigners by way of translation. I hope to go to the Hebrew University National Library in Jerusalem this coming Sunday to research this subject further. Until then, I would kindly ask of my colleagues to suspend all judgment in this issue until other evidence can be presented. Davidbena ( talk) 03:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"Jesus was Israel's Messiah" is not an empirical-analytical claim pertaining to history, it is a theological claim and no amount of historical research is going to prove it right or wrong. It is simply not a falsifiable statement, it can be believed or disbelieved, but it cannot be proven or falsified through historical evidence. The mere fact that it is an unpopular belief in Israel does not show that it would be false, as well as the fact that it is a popular belief in Romania does not show that it would be true. In matters of theology we have agreed to disagree, that's the only possible consensus. Just note that I am not opposed to stating that scholars have considered to centuries that Papias was right about our Gospel of Matthew, but we should also state that such view has been consensually rejected by scholars in the last half of a century. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the sources. But are we with them? Do any of the reliable sources mentioned affirm that the canonical Gospel of Matthew (the subject of this article) was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (not Greek, at any rate)? So far: Metzger 1987 doesn't. Petersen 1994 doesn't. In the Kranz and Verheyden 2011, Petersen says the opposite (chapter 24, "The Genesis of the Gospels", p. 410, note 96): "Where, in the serial development of the text we describe for the first and second centuries, does one "freeze" the process and say "this" is the "autograph"? Your author submits that is impossible, just as it is impossible to speak of the "autograph" of the Odyssey." Edwards 2006 says the opposite (p. 257): "Canonical Greek Matthew was almost certainly a Greek document from its inception." I've yet to look at the other sources. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 04:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Casey most certainly disagree. Do you have any references to back your position? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 05:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Look at Casey, Jesus of Nazareth (T&T Clark International, 2010), p. 87: "When applied to our Gospel of Matthew, this tradition [the Papias tradition] is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognized. Our Gospel is not only written in perfectly decent Greek, it was partly written by an author who was revising our Greek Mark into better Greek, including the removal of a number of features of Mark's Aramaic sources. It was therefore written in Greek." -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 05:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

RetProf, it's not Atethnekos' position that's at issue, it's yours. You need to find sources that say that a Hebrew gospel lies behind Greek Matthew. Not Papias, and not the early Church Fathers - you need modern, late 20th century scholars, because you're arguing (in mediation) that this is a point of view with enough life in it to warrant inclusion in our article. It seems that Casey, Metzger, Petersen, and even Edwards all say no. You need to find at least one source that says yes. PiCo ( talk) 05:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Atethnekos, you must read the whole section:

1. It is genuinely true that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew.
2. The tradition that the Gospel of Matthew was a translation of the Hebrew Gospel "is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognized."
3. The Gospel of Matthew is a composite of which the Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead.

@PiCo Will do! See Chart for now. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 05:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@RetProf, that chart is from a book published fifty years ago, and describes a position held by "many Roman Catholic scholars" at that time. Lord only knows if it's still valid today, but if you brought it up in mediation I'd have no difficulty attacking it. Also,did you read what that same book says on the same page? It talks about a theory put forward by someone called Pierson Parker to the effect that a Jewish Christian gospel was written before Mark and underlies both Mark and Matthew (not Luke). This is pretty much your Hebrew Gospel. But, says the book, this theory is unconvincing (I'm paraphrasing). Your job would be to find a modern author who holds to a modified (I presume) version.

Also, I wonder if you realise that Edwards' position is that the Hebrew Gospel underlies Luke, not Matthew? PiCo ( talk) 05:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean you now agree that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel existed? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 06:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don'tthink you're quite understanding the point. You're putting together, for mediation, an argument that this article, Gospel of Matthew, needs more material on the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. It already has almost a whole paragraph on it (first para of the section on composition), but you need to argue that this is incorrect, distorted, or inadequate. For this you need reliable sources, which means contemporary scholars. If Edwards is arguing that Hebrew Matthew lies behind the special material of Luke but not behind anything in Greek Matthew (which is what he does argue), then he's not much use to you (and if you do use him, I'll be forced to point it out). You need to find those sources. PiCo ( talk) 06:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's kind of right. Casey's view is that the apostle Matthew (not the evangelist) made a collection of sayings in Hebrew/Aramaic (not a "gospel" per se), this collection was the fountainhead for traditions, traditions which were edited and translated by an indeterminate number of people, and then these editions were used as a source by the author of the canonical Gospel of Matthew (he doesn't say that the Hebrew/Aramaic collection was the fountainhead for the canonical Gospel of Matthew). As your number 2 makes clear, none of that is the same as saying that the canonical Gospel of Matthew (the subject of this article) was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, which is what my question is about. Again, the quote I give from Casey is exactly what he says to that question: The author of the Gospel of Matthew was writing it in Greek, as he says. The fact that Casey thinks that an Aramaic sayings collection by the disciple Matthew existed, doesn't change his view about the original language of the canonical Gospel of Matthew. For Casey, they are two different texts, written by different people, in different languages, at different times. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 07:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No wonder that he makes people angry: the very sources Ret.Prof quoted in order to show that Papias was right about our Gospel of Matthew show that Papias was wrong about it. By original research I meant quoting a whole list of Church Fathers and simply ignoring the very verdict of the recent scholarly source which was quoting them. We are not impressed by how many Church Fathers considered Papias to be reliable, instead what would impress us would be mainstream historical scholarship explicitly claiming that Papias was right about our Gospel of Matthew. Ret.Prof's sources get debunked time after time and he still has the guts to misquote scholars in order to push a fringe view. We may say that Ret.Prof's claim fails verification by the very sources he decided to trust. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually Edwards is up to date and mainstream. His analysis (see box above) has impressed many scholars. There are sources that disagree with him but none that attack his scholarly credentials. Have you managed to get a copy of Edwards 2009? Do you have any sources that attack Edwards' scholarly credentials?? Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish to respond to Atethnekos' statement: "The fact that Casey thinks that an Aramaic sayings collection by the disciple Matthew existed, doesn't change his view about the original language of the canonical Gospel of Matthew. For Casey, they are two different texts, written by different people, in different languages, at different times." Think about the logic of what you've just stated here. If there were two different texts, written by different people in different languages (i.e. not a translation from Aramaic to Greek), how then will you explain the thematic similarities - almost word for word citations that are identical - between the patristic texts of Matthew's original Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel and our current Greek canonical texts? This could NEVER have happened had there not been a person looking at some early MS and making a translated copy of it. Davidbena ( talk) 17:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff David. You too PiCo. I am truly for the first time in a long time enjoying myself at Wikipedia. David's insight to our topic because of his background is invaluable. One note of concern: the comment by George "No wonder that he makes people angry: the very sources Ret.Prof..." is not acceptable at mediation. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I meant what others have pointed above: the sources you quoted (Ehrman, Casey, Edwards) don't corroborate your claim. So it is preposterous to claim that Ehrman, Casey and Edwards corroborate your story. Above you have framed the whole argument as an original research case: you have stated what primary sources said about the matter, but you have forgotten that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not on primary sources and that it is not for Wikipedia editors to make such call based upon your list of primary sources, it is for mainstream scholars to decide the matter and decided it they have. You were invited to find at least one mainstream work which explicitly claims that Papias meant our Gospel of Matthew. Please come back here after you have found such a source. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

David, yes, that's fine as an argument against Casey's view, whatever it's worth. I don't have any response for it apart from what Casey and others have already said. But how I would answer on Casey's behalf is irrelevant—I'm not Casey nor do I share his view, and any such response from me would only be original research ( WP:OR). But just as my argument would be irrelevant, so too your argument would be irrelevant, unless we can cite it to some reliable sources. And, essentially, that's what my question is about: What reliable sources affirm such a view? - Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 01:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources for the mediation

@ Ret.Prof, I'm getting worried that you haven't really understood what's at issue with the mediation. It's about this article, the Gospel of Matthew. You need sources that are specific to the Gospel of Matthew. None of the sources you've mentioned so far do this.

• Edwards 2009, whom you keep mentioning with approval, thinks there was a Hebrew Gospel that was called the Gospel of Matthew in ancient times, but denies that this was a version of our Matthew or that it had any influence on our Matthew (he thinks it supplied the special material in Luke, and that the "according to Matthew" ascription of our gospel is an error). Edwards doesn't think the Hebrew Matthew has any connection to our Matthew, therefore Edwards isn't relevant to the mediation.
• I singled Edwards out because you keep mentioning him. You also mention Casey, but Casey is like Edwards - he sees no connection between Papias's Matthew and our Matthew. Same for Metzger and Petersen.

In short, none of these sources are relevant, because none of them see a connection between Papias' Matthew and our Matthew. You need to find someone who does. You also need to be very precise about what you want from mediation - exactly what content do you want to see added to the article? Can I suggest that you begin with that - drafting a sentence or paragraph or section that you ask to have included? PiCo ( talk) 20:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have sent e-mails to Professor Bart D. Ehrman at the University of Chapel Hill (North Carolina) concerning this subject, as well as to the Professor of Theology, Dr. David Parker, in Birmingham University (England) concerning this issue, and I am hoping that they will answer me. Their input is vital. Davidbena ( talk) 20:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you David, that should be useful. PiCo ( talk) 20:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

We know what Ehrman thinks about Papias, I have offered twice a quote wherein he demolishes Papias's reliability. In a latter work he admitted that Papias would not tell a bald faced lie that he knew people who knew people associated with the apostles. This cannot be construed as a change of mind. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on the mediation: the issue is the extent to which the Hebrew Gospel of Papias should be reflected in the Gospel of Matthew article. RetProf has to do two things:

(a) he has to draft an explicit edit that he'd like to see made - the mediator will ask for this; and

(b) he has to back it up with reliable sources.

I have great concern that he'll have no reliable sources - so far as I know Edwards doesn't think Papias' Hebrew Matthew has any connection at all with our modern Matthew (call it Greek Matthew), yet he keeps referring to him. Casey, Petersen, Metzger, everyone who's been mentioned, all say the same - Papias wasn't talking about our Matthew. Perhaps there are other people out there who think otherwise, and if Ehrman can shed light, that's all to the good, because I want RetProf to make the best case possible. PiCo ( talk) 00:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but I received a reply from Professor of Theology, David C. Parker, of Birmingham University. I am pasting it here:

Dear David

Thank you for your message. I have some pressing family matters to deal with in these days so please excuse me not replying in detail and for now only to your email and not reading the dialogue. My own view is that the points you make are reasonable interpretations of the evidence. I agree that it looks like confusion in translation. But translation from Aramaic sources into Greek, orally or written, not necessarily the Gospel of Matthew but a source used for Matthew.

I don’t think that textual criticism necessarily deals with matters that help to resolve these questions, and have argued this in my book Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament.

So that is a very short reply. I cannot do more at present I am afraid.

Best wishes

David Parker

D.C. Parker, FBA, FSA

Edward Cadbury Professor of Theology

Director of the Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing

European Research Institute

University of Birmingham

Birmingham B15 2TT

U.K.

Tel. 0121-415 8341

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/itsee/index.aspx

Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament

David C. Parker

Available through all good bookshops, or direct from Oxford University Press at: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199657810.do

______

The content of my letter to Professor Parker was as follows: "...I wanted to ask you, based on your experience, if there is any definitive research and/or peer-review journals either written or conducted by scholars of NT text criticism and which point to their view that the Gospel of Matthew was originally penned by Matthew in the Aramaic tongue, and in Hebrew characters? I know that there is ample evidence which seem to point to this fact in various patristic testimonies (e.g. Jerome, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Origen and Epiphanius), including Papias who was quoted by Eusebius as saying, 'Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each translated them as best he could' (H.E. 3.39.16), but my question specifically concerns recent research by academics.

The reason why I ask you this question is because Wikipedia.org will not accept original research by editors, though they might espouse to the above views, and they tend to look down upon primary sources unless they too can be supported by reputable secondary sources. In my own private research, I have found when reading the Greek text of Matthew what appears to be telltale signs of a translation (from Aramaic into Greek)..." Davidbena ( talk) 01:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt that both professors could give us a list of fifty reliable sources discussing the matter published in the past 25 years. What I doubt it that these professors would be willing to obey Wikipedia guidelines, wherein experts and wannabes have equal rights to cite verifiable information based upon reliable sources. So, in a way, they could do the work for us, but shouldn't we do ourselves such work? Is it not enough that the very sources that Ret.Prof quoted contradict his view? Couldn't he, as a retired professor, provide us with such list of fifty reliable sources? But, of course, in order to prove Ret.Prof's point it would not be enough to say that they discuss Papias if they also state that Papias was unreliable or that he wasn't speaking of what we now know as the Gospel of Matthew. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Most recent reliable sources quoted in this debate do analyze what Papias said and how Church Fathers quoted Papias and after they analyze it, they dismiss it as irrelevant for our Gospel of Matthew. This way it can be shown what the consensus is in modern scholarship. It can't be shown through a list of quotes about Papias written by the Church Fathers, instead it can be shown with a list of quotes about Papias which voice the views of contemporary scholars. I.e. read what contemporary scholars believe about Papias having anything to say about what we now know as the Gospel of Matthew. This is what WP:VER means, it does not mean providing a list of primary sources, but only citing the judgments of present-day scholarship. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A lame refutation of Matthew didn't write Matthew, Luke didn't write Luke, etc., is available at [2]. An answer showing that it is a lame argument and that Ehrman is educating the public about the mainstream views of Biblical scholarship is available at [3]. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks David, and please pass on our group thanks to Professor Parker. Unfortunately this doesn't help RetProf - he needs those secondary sources, modern scholars saying there's some connection between a Hebrew/Aramaic version of Matthew and the Greek Matthew. PiCo ( talk) 02:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Leave it to David! Having the actual authors involved would be a blast! - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The great church historian of the fourth century, Eusebius, dismissed Papias by saying that he was “a man of very small intelligence” (Church History 3.39).

Intelligent or not, Papias is an important source for establishing the historical existence of Jesus. He had read some Gospels although there is no reason to think that he knew the ones that made it into the New Testament, as I will show in a moment. But more important, he had other access to the sayings of Jesus. He was personally acquainted with people who had known either the apostles themselves or their companions.

— Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? ch. 4

Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus’s life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus’s sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in scripture.

— loc.cit.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Good stuff! Papias knew of a collection of Jesus’s sayings made by Matthew, and this account by Matthew was not translated into the Gospel of Matthew. Indeed there were major discrepancies between the two. Jerome was one of the first to point out the discrepancies.

Jerome's letter addressed to Pope Damasus in 383 "I will now speak of the New Testament, which was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who was the first in Judea to produce a Gospel of Christ in Hebrew script. 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." >>>>>>>>>>> Jerome, Preface to the Four Gospels, Addressed to Pope Damasus in 383 Roland H. Worth, Bible translations: a history through source documents, McFarland & Co., 1992. p 28 James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 286 Up to this time most people believed the Gospel of Matthew to be a Greek translation of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Modern scholars have since vindicated Jerome and it is generally accepted that the Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible could not have been tranlated from the Hebrew Gospel. Henry Wace & Philip Schaff, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: St. Jerome: Letters and select works, Christian literature Company, 1893. Vol 6, p 488)

No letter from the early Church has been as hotly contested by Biblical scholars! Enjoyng the debate! - Ret.Prof ( talk) 02:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

In Jerome's day, the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew was more or less as we have it today, with all the interpolations and/or omissions made by the hands of the copyists. This will explain why Edwards, in his book, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 34, doesn't think that the Hebrew Matthew has any connection to our modern Matthew. However, what Edwards fails to point out here is the fact that the similarities between the so-called "Hebrew Gospel" (quoted by Jerome) are far greater than its dissimilarities, proving that one has been derived from the other. Using Edwards' own words: "...Finally, it is important to note that in Against the Pelagians 3.2 Jerome identifies the Hebrew Gospel ("euangelio iuxta Hebraeos") as the Gospel of Matthew ("iuxta Mattaeum"). Here Jerome is not simply ascribing the Hebrew Gospel to the apostle Matthew - an ascription that is ubiquitous in the patristic tradition - but equating it with a particular Gospel identified with Matthew. In the discussion of Epiphanius in the next chapter we shall again see multiple identifications of the Hebrew Gospel with the Gospel of Matthew. But like Epiphanius, Jerome does not correlate this Hebrew Gospel with canonical Greek Matthew." - Edwards.

Again, if we can establish by way of empirical evidence that changes (recensions) were made in the canonical texts of Matthew, we shall then have our proof that the current canonical Gospel of Matthew is a translation of the original Hebrew Gospel spoken of by Jerome. Davidbena ( talk) 07:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

We(Wikipedia editors) do not 'establish' anything 'by way of empirical evidence' in order to secure our proof of anything. In fact wikipedia's protocols on editing exp0licitly deny us the right to use any such WP:OR approach. This has been said any number of times. Unlike free-ranging wiki editors historians and textual critics have to deal with a very large range of problems associated with a theory: the importance for some Church theologians of establishing a Hebrew precedence in an environment where both Jewish and Christians competed for converts vigorously, where rabbinic hostility to Yeshua and ecclesiastical suppression of variant traditions deleted much of the then available evidence; the occasional gross incompetence of people like Jerome to read Hebrew. So, as requested, please stick to what scholars write, giving due weight to the various opionions found in sources and try not to dicker with the evidence to insinuate a private thesis. Nishidani ( talk) 10:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I know. I know. What I really meant to say was, hopefully, we at Wikipedia can bring down a reputable secondary source that has done this for us. One more thing: as far as oral tradition goes, neither Jerome nor Papias can be considered as "incompetent." In this field, sorry to say, we are the ones who are incompetent. Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 12:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

David is absolutely right! There is substantial scholarship that indicates that our Gospel of Matthew was translated from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Yet it is also true Casey presents evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was a composite work and that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was the Fountainhead. Mediation will allow us to work out a NPOV approach in which all the scholarship is presented fairly. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

About Papias being considered incompetent in almost every respect, that's actually what Ehrman affirms. About the "substantial scholarship":

since most of Ehrman’s textual arguments are essentially the well-established and long-accepted consensus views of just about every worthwhile critical biblical scholar not teaching at a Christian university, seminary, or school with the word “Evangelical” in the title... conservative scholars attempt to refute the biblical scholarship that is taught in every major university save the aforementioned conservative Christian schools.

— Robert Cargill, i stand with bart ehrman: a review of the ‘ehrman project’

Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Now I am confused. The third paragraph of Ehrman 2010 p 101 says the opposite of what you say. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Re Jerome above, he explains that most people of his time referred to the Hebrew Gospel as Authentic Matthew. Pope Damasus when needing to know what truly was said to Jesus would ask Jerome to research Authentic Matthew. For example:

Pope Damasus (To Jerome) To his most beloved son Jerome: DAMASUS, Bishop, sends greetings in the Lord. The orthodox Greek and Latin versions [of the Gospel of Matthew] put forth not only differing but mutually conflicting explanations of the saying 'Hosanna to the son of David'. I wish you would write...stating the true meaning of what is actually written in the Hebrew text.

LETTER 19 A letter of Pope Damasus to Jerome on Matthew 21.9

Philip Schaff, Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Eerdmans, 1989. p 22

James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 279

Henry Wace & Philip Schaff, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: St. Jerome: Letters and select works, Christian literature Company, 1893. Vol 6, p 22

Jerome (Reply) “Matthew, who composed his Gospel in Hebrew script, wrote, 'Osanna Barrama', which means 'Hosanna in the Highest.’”

LETTER 20: A letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus on Matthew 21.9

Philip Schaff, Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Eerdmans, 1989. p 22

James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 279

Bernhard Pick, Paralipomena: remains of gospels and sayings of Christ, Open court publishing company, 1908. p 8

Remember, there is no text without context! - Ret.Prof ( talk) 01:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Just stumbled on this debate. That letter is not in my copy of Schaff, but (assuming it is accurate), I don't think we want to be doing any WP:OR with it. All it shows, in my opinion, is that (1) Matthew used a Hebrew word (quoted from the Psalms), and (2) that there was a tradition of some kind of Aramaic precursor to Matthew. It doesn't show that Matthew was first written in Hebrew, and modern scholarship is in fact clear that Matthew was written in Greek. -- 101.119.29.163 ( talk) 07:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already offered a quote about Ehrman's view of Papias, I have repeated it twice, at WP:FTN and WP:ANI. "Incompetent in almost every respect" is Ehrman's inductive reasoning and he makes an exception for Papias knowing people how knew people... Anyway, the fact that Papias's writings were not copied in order to reach us it shows that the Church did not have a high regard for his works, for whatever reason that might have been. So using Papias in order to show that the Church was right with attributing the gospels it's kind of ironical: early Church had little use for his writings, they did not even think these could be used for apologetics and now these are appealed to in order to show that the Church was right. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that there's a solid consensus (with the exception of one editor) that Matthew was originally written in Greek (though it may have relied on older Aramaic source material). So what's this "mediation" about? -- 101.119.28.252 ( talk) 11:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. We haven't heard the final word yet. I will be going to the Hebrew University library this Sunday to read the views of several other authors. If you mean to say that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek, you are correct. However, if you mean to say that the Aramaic source material used to compose the Greek copy was not called "Matthew's Gospel," here we part ways and I strongly disagree! The primary sources - i.e. the Church Fathers (for what they are worth and as far as they are permitted to be used on Wikipedia) have called Matthew's original Aramaic Gospel by the name "According to the Hebrews," and judging by their citations of that Gospel, the wording follows more or less the same as the wording brought down in the canonical texts of Matthew, with the exception of minor words and phrases and the genealogical record now appended to the modern text. Davidbena ( talk) 14:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As per usual David nails it. He is going to be a formidable force at the mediation. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid my view of Davidbena's postings on Talk page is that he suffers the same WP:POV and WP:COMPETENCE issues evident in in your own posts. One of the things that mediation should aim for is a clampdown on WP:OR in all forms including WP:SYNTHESIS from WP:PSTS. We need to really drill down hard against all direct use of primary sources in these articles. Other than unredacted/uncommented plain in-context quotation of primary material upon which we have reliable secondary and tertiary sources. That means that rather than (in the example Davidbena is refering to but not identifying above, which is Eusebius), we may if really needed boxquote or footquote Eusebius but only when we quote a secondary source, eg. in this case Albertus Klijn "that Eusebius said that [the Ebionites] they used the Gospel according to the Hebrews." I would however advise against sucking in any Ebionite content since it has no direct relevance to the Gospel of Matthew. In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. The Ebionites, and whatever gospel or gospels they may have used, have no relevance here. Primary sources are subordinate to the secondary or tertiary sources that quote them. To do otherwise is a policy violation of WP:PRIMARY. Ignocrates ( talk) 04:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

David. You write:

If you mean to say that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek, you are correct. However, if you mean to say that the Aramaic source material used to compose the Greek copy was not called "Matthew's Gospel," here we part ways and I strongly disagree!

I.e.(a) The Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek

(b)it was composed on the basis of 'Aramaic source material'

(c)This Aramaic Urquelle was known as 'Matthew's Gospel'.

Therefore the Gospel of Matthew is a very much a translation of the Aramaic 'Matthew's Gospel'. If so, then you are implying Q - what is in Matthew, but not in Mark - is the Aramaic Matthew's Gospel, or else you are saying that Mark and Matthew even when they overlap, stem from the *Aramaic Matthew Gospel.' In either case you require not WP:OR but solid academic sources to justify these positions. Nishidani ( talk) 15:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comparing what David says to what our article says, the article says that the modern Greek Matthew has three sources, namely the Gospel of Mark, the Q source, and special material (material found nowhere but in Matthew). I believe that's the dominant modern view - if David and RetProf think it's not, they should produce sources (modern ones) saying so.

As for the nature of those 3 sources, I believe the article says that Mark and Q were both written sources and both in Greek. It's possible but not certain that at least some of Special Matthew was Aramaic. But, and this is a big but, absolutely no modern scholars see Hebrew Matthew (Matthew's putative Hebrew gospel) as forming Special Matthew. Of course, RetProf has to find a modern scholar who says it is - and Jerome is irrelevant. PiCo ( talk) 00:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on what I have read of their comments (e.g., see Nishidani's talk page), I think David and Ret.Prof intend to argue for the priority of primary sources on Wikipedia, i.e. they should have primacy over secondary sources because they are the authentic words of the Church Fathers, unadulterated by the interpretations of modern scholars. It should be an interesting debate in mediation and a pity it's privileged communication. I'm looking forward to it. Ignocrates ( talk) 01:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

David and RetProf, like all of us, need to remember what mediation is for: to improve an article, not to prove a point. PiCo ( talk) 02:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. Also I agree primary sources will be an important aspect of our debate. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 02:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You agree? Who with? PiCo ( talk) 03:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree we need to remember what mediation is for: to improve an article, not to prove a point. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree that WP:PRIMARY is a Wikipedia policy? Just wondering. Ignocrates ( talk) 04:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes and it will be an important part of mediation. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, do you agree with the following policy statements copied directly from WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY?

From WP:PRIMARY: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

From WP:SECONDARY: Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

Just wondering. Ignocrates ( talk) 04:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I see. No reply. Consider this diff your final warning. Ignocrates ( talk) 04:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

See Primary Sources below. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I will exercise my right on Wikipedia to post Primary Sources, based on the leeway given in the WP guidelines for Primary Sources and will not infringe the prohibition by interpreting them one way or the other, nor violate thereby WP:OR. I shall not interject any personal bias, but only present the primary sources, since they are relevant to our discussion. Because of the vast array of opinions in contemporary literature regarding this subject - often divergent one from the other, it is always a good idea to bear in mind the primary sources upon whose axis our entire debate hinges. For example: Jerome wrote (Dialogus adversus Pelagianos, in: Migne, Patr. Lat. 23, Parisiis 1883, III, 2): "In the Gospel 'According to the Hebrews,' which was written in the Chaldaic and Syriac language but with Hebrew letters, and is used up to the present day by the Nazoraeans, I mean that according to the Apostles, or, as many maintain, according to Matthew, which Gospel is also available in the Library of Caesarea, the story runs: 'See, the mother of the Lord and his brother said to him: John the Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins, let us go to be baptized by him, etc."

Likewise did Jerome write elsewhere: "Matthew, also called Levi, an apostle after having been a publican, was the first to compose a gospel of Christ in Judea in Hebrew letters and words for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. But who afterwards translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilius the martyr so diligently collected." - Jerome (On Illustrious Men).

Eusebius also wrote in Papias' name: "Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each translated them as best he could." - Eusebius, (H.E. 3.39.16); while Irenaeus has testified: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews in their own language, etc.," - Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1

Epiphanius, who wrote about the Jews who call themselves Ebionites and Nazoraeans and who make use of the same Gospel, writes in Panarion (Medicine Chest), and which words are repeated in Anacephalaiosis 13.1: "The beginning of the Gospel among them reads: 'It happened in the days of Herod the king of Judea (at a time when Caiaphas was high priest) that a certain John came, baptizing the baptism of conversion in the river Jordan. Of him it is said that he was from the family of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elisabeth. And all went out to him. […] It happened that John baptized and the Pharisees went out to him and were baptized and all Jerusalem. And John was dressed in a mantle of camel's hair and a leather belt was round his waist. And his food was, it is said, wild honey, of which the taste was that of manna, like cakes in olive oil.”

Eusebius in his Theophania - ed. MPG 24/ after 323), speaks somewhat about the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30: "Since the Gospel which has come to us in Hebrew letters directs its threat not against the one who has hidden [his talent] but against the one who lived in spendthrift – for he possessed three slaves, one who spent the fortune of his master with harlots and flute-girls, the second who multiplied his trade and the third who hid his talent; next the first was accepted, the second rebuked only, the third, however, was thrown into prison. I wonder whether the threat in Matthew which, according to the letter was spoken against the one who did nothing, applies not to him but to the first one who was eating and drinking with those who were drunken, by way of resumption."

Jerome, speaking about Matthew 27:51, wrote in his Commentarius in Epistulam 120:8 the following testimony: "But in the Gospel which is written in Hebrew letters we read that not the curtain of the temple but the upper-threshold (Latin: superliminare temple) of the temple, being of marvelous size, fell down." also

Jerome (Commentariorum in Mattheum Libri IV, ed. D. Hurst, ch. 27, 51) also writes: "In the gospel which we have already often mentioned, we read that the upper-threshold of the temple, of an enormous size, was broken and slit."

Jerome, in Commentariorum in Mattheum Libri IV, ed. D. Hurst, ch. 23, 35, speaks about Matthew 23:34-35 and says: "In the gospel which the Nazoraeans use, we find that there is written, 'son of Ioiada' (Yehoiada) in place of the 'son of Barachia.' " (cf. II Chron. 24: 20-21)

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

There are actually many, many more citations, but this will give the mediators an idea of the dispute at hand. Perhaps for the above quotations, co-authors Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri, in The Gospel of Matthew, p. 18, write:

"The Audience of Matthew - Christian scholarship has historically maintained that Matthew's Gospel was written for a Palestinian Christian audience.[3] The Jewish outlook of the book seemed to point in this direction, as did an ancient tradition that Matthew had originally written his Gospel in a Semitic language, either Hebrew or Aramaic. Since few Gentiles would have been interested in a work dominated by Jewish concerns, and few communities outside the land of Israel could have read it in a Semitic language, every indication was that Matthew's Gospel was intended for the early believers in Palestine." Davidbena ( talk) 18:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Unlike some of our colleagues, I personally don't mind it if you discuss primary sources on the talk page, as long as the discussion is about improving the article. However, you have been reminded of Wiki policy and provided with examples multiple times by other editors, including myself, of the appropriate way to use primary sources. You are out of excuses. If you paste primary sources into the article that are not clearly sourced back to reliable secondary or tertiary sources, I will request that you be blocked. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates, I would never do such a thing, since I have willfully decided NOT to touch the article of Gospel of Matthew. With that said, there is a place in Wikipedia for an occasional primary source, and if you persist in objecting to this view (outlined specifically in Wikipedia's policy), I think that Wiki administrators should decide about your case, whether you are infringing the rules it has laid out against "tendentious editing" = WP:TE. That will be for the administrators to decide, not for me. Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 20:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

David, I take you at your word that you would never do such a thing. In that case, what is the point of filling the talk page with all the primary source quotations? Wouldn't your time be better spent quoting scholarly opinions about these primary source quotations? That is what I find so hard to understand. As for all the rest, I probably have a posse of admins observing me, just as you do. Btw, please don't take any of this personally. Ignocrates ( talk) 23:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia prohibits original research. When there is a mainstream scholarly view about something, that's Wikipedia view of it and other views may only be rendered as expressing dissenting opinions, if they abide by scholarly standards. The problem with quoting Jerome is that Jerome may only speak for himself, he does not speak for present-day mainstream scholars. So, quoting Jerome could be used to state what Jerome believed about something, in so far as his views are germane to the topic, i.e. one may cite what Jerome believed in an article about him. We may quote Albert Einstein's views about world peace, since he had a right to his own opinion, but these cannot be conflated with scholarship about world peace. The problem with quoting Einstein about a topic, e.g. God, is that there are quotes which show that he was a pantheist and quotes which show that he was an agnostic. Deciding which view is right would be a matter or original research, and it should be left to scholars who study the religious views of Einstein. I cited an YouTube video with simplistic views of why Matthew wrote Matthew, Luke wrote Luke and so on. The problem with such arguments is that they are so simple-minded that every serious scholar could have foreseen such objections to the mainstream view. And yet the mainstream view is that Matthew did not write Matthew, Luke did not write Luke and so on. If simple-minded arguments were everything, the mainstream view would be the opposite. Simple-minded arguments failed to convince the scholars, that's why Wikipedia cannot be persuaded by simple-minded arguments to ignore mainstream scholarship. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't we preface that with "Most modern textual scholarship have concluded that..."? As good as the Q source theory may be at solving things, it is still a theory and not Gospel truth. 23haveblue ( talk) 04:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Also some serious concerns have been raised! We must work to be NPOV. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Or m:MPOV. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)