Jump to content

Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Matthew and Q

Scholarship has shown that our current Gospel of Matthew is probably dependent on Mark and the Sayings Gospel Q. Tradition says that Matthew was the first gospel written and modern scholarship says that it was Mark. The original Gospel of Matthew described by tradition is a sayings gospel written in Hebrew or Aramaic. This sounds a lot like Q. Maybe the original Gospel of Matthew was Q. Mark was next written independently. The editor of our current Gospel of Matthew combined Q with Mark plus birth and resurrection additions. The writer of Luke did something similar. That would explain the traditional priority of Matthew. Barney Hill (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Q seems to have been written in Greek. Leadwind (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Q seems to have been written in any language one wishes, since it is merely a hypothesis. There are no Q documents, and no mention of Q except in modern conjecture. The main evidences for Marcan priority and Q are inadequate. Since they are merely modern conjectures with no actual historical support, they should be dealt with based on the weights of the reasoning behind them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.79.210 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well on wikipedia, what you are suggesting is original research. We cannot discount sources based on your personal assessment of them. We can only simply follow our sources. We have to look at them and decide "how prevalent if the Q hypothesis" and then explain that and give each view due weight. If you don't like the most common, mainstream hypothesis, that's fine. But we can't change what the vast majority of scholars think based on what you don't personally like. I hope you understand, it isn't personal. It's just wikipedia isn't the place to publish original thought, or advocate pet theories or what have you. It's only here to summarize what's already out there. -Andrew c [talk] 02:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The truth is that "scholarship" has NOT in any way "shown that Matthew is probably dependent on Mark and the Sayings Gospel Q". Although some of those scholars (such as Ehrman) write AS IF that is an irrefutable fact that is "recognized" by the majority of experts, that is in truth only an assumption that is supported by not a single shred of real evidence.

The truth is that the only "reason" for thinking that there must have been a "Sayings Gospel Q" is because some of those experts had already staked their reputations on the idea that all of the earliest Christian writings were composed in Greek, and on the idea that Mark's Gentile gospel was first. Thus, when faced with passages that are common to both Matthew and Mark, and it is Matthew's version that is more "Jewish" in nature, or there are some other indications that Matthew's version of that passage preceded Mark... since those scholars had already "hung their hats" on the idea that Mark was first, they then had to invent another source to account for that.

The short answer is that the whole idea of a "Q" gospel is simply unnecessary. Why invent some mysterious early Jewish gospel to account for all of those "Jewish" sayings and parables, when it is already well-known that Matthew's gospel was (and is) just such a gospel, and when it is evident in practically every passage that Matthew's version preceded Mark!!!

If you are going to say something to the effect that something had been "shown by scholarship to be true", you should cite some of that scholarship. If you can find anything that proves that those Church fathers were wrong in maintaining that the very first gospel was that "Hebrew Gospel" that was authored by Matthew, I would like to know what that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.242.101 (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section

The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarise the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should be short, containing no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

This is easier said than done, therefore I welcome improvements to my attempt to to accomplish the aforementioned. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


Confusion

"Usually referred to simply as Matthew," has no citation and can be be confusing to the lay person. Matthew, should mean Matthew and the Gospel of Matthew should mean the Gospel of Matthew. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement, vigorous and serious

I'm referring to the changes to the last clause of the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the lead (which previously stated: although others disagree variously on those points.) It appears, though I'd hate to put words in anyone's mouth, that Ret.Prof believe we should include a statement regarding the severity of the disagreement. I went to our cited sources, and Amy-Jill Levine does not mention anything to necessarily support or imply these changes, but I don't have access to Graham N. Stanton. Part of my issue is that these adjectives are a bit colorful/emotional, and I prefer a more dry tone as it seems less sensationalist, and more objective/neutral to me. As stated, I'm also concerned whether we are following our sources or not. It seems a little odd to me to cite Brown stating what most scholars thing, and then follow it by saying there is vigorous and serious disagreement, because it undermines Brown's claim of a majority or consensus view. Seems like a contradiction, but perhaps our issue is not in trying to make these changes, but in citing Brown in the first place, if there really is such serious and vigorous disagreement.

Next, I have concerns regarding the grammatical structure. Both of the changes, the first of which I reverted, and the second of which is still live, introduced an inferior phrasing, "there is". Instead of saying "there is", we should be saying the subject of the clause. Who is doing the disagreeing. The previous wording, while not necessarily ideal, stated "others" i.e. other scholars, which paralleled the "most scholars" of the first clause's subject. Introducing "there is" changes the second clause so it doesn't parallel the formation of the first. So I would prefer a version that maybe specifically stated who was doing the disagreement, or at least didn't gloss over it with the ambiguous "there is".-Andrew c [talk] 01:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I tend to agree with you. I do not like any of the "wordings" so far. Maybe some fresh eyes would help. In other words I know what I do not like, but I am having difficulty making it better. I am going to take a break from Matthew for a couple of weeks. All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you think needs to be conveyed in the sentence, which currently isn't being conveyed? I don't like that we just say "others", and I wish we could be more specific, but Amy-Jill doesn't go into details. She has a large paragraph describing what is usual of "most biblical scholars", and a smaller one saying "some scholars do not agree". So, what sort of content would you like to add or remove from that sentence? -Andrew c [talk] 14:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I have sort of written myself into a corner. I do not like how this sentence reads.
However most scholars today believe that "canonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a non eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q." although others disagree variously on those points.
It is awkward but I can live with it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC) P. S. I have no trouble with content.

no idea where or if this should be in article

Matthew 27:52-53 states after Christ's resurrection many saints came out of their graves. This, as far as I know, is unique to this gospel. It should get a mention in this article. Nitpyck (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs a clarifying re-write

Carsten Peter Thiede redated the Magdalen papyrus, which bears a fragment from the Gospel of Matthew, to the late 1st century on palaeographical grounds, and thus the Gospel of Matthew was written by an eye-witness to Jesus.

How does the fact that the Magdalen papyrus was written around the year 100 prove Matthew was written by an eye witness?

It doesn't; it's a non sequitor

Good point. Most scholars do not believe that Matthew even wrote the Gospel of Matthew. However a substantial minority now agree with Thiede and therefore the logical non sequitor stands. see Thiede, Carsten Peter (EngTrans. D'Ancona), Eyewitness to Jesus: amazing new manuscript evidence about the origin of the Gospels, Doubleday, 1996, ISBN 0385480512 for a more detailed explanation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Consistency in miracles, parables, etc.

Help will be appreciated from those who are well versed in Gospel episodes. Please see:

The 3rd item includes a list of key episodes in the 4 Canonical Gospels. Suggestions about possible errors or omissions will be appreciated. Please leave messages on one of those 3 talk pages, and not here, in order to focus the discussion. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Composition: Incorrect synopsis of the Augustinian Hypothesis

"Traditionally, (see Augustinian hypothesis), Matthew was seen as the first Gospel written, that Luke then expanded on Matthew, and that Mark is the conflation of both Matthew and Luke.[13][14]"

That statement is simply incorrect (and contradictory to the Wiki article on the Augustinian Hypothesis). You have reversed the positions of Mark and Luke.

I might also note that I put this in a new section titled "Composition" because that is the heading used in the article itself. But if anyone has nothing better to do, there are at least two other sections on this discussion page (such as "authorship" and "Matthew vs. Q" that should be combined into one section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.242.101 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither source mentions the Augustinian hypothesis, and it appears only Levine mentions minority views that depart from two-source/Q. She doesn't mention the traditional view, but instead is discussing what some scholars think. I don't think either reference can really be used to support what our text in the article says. It isn't representative of a "traditional" view or the Augustinian hypothesis. I think we need different sources, or we need to remove the sentence outright. -Andrew c [talk] 03:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any source (or proposed solution to the synoptic problem) that states that Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke. My point was that regardless of whether or not one might consider the Augustinian hypothesis to be representative of "tradition" - that hypothesis states that Matthew was first, then Mark expanded/currupted Matthew, then Luke conflated/harmonized both Mark and Matthew. (That is essentially what the wiki article on that hypothesis says.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.170.98 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Working Together to Fix the Lead

I see that User:Ret.Prof has reverted my restoration of the lead, citing ~~REDUNDANT No need to say things Twice. I'm not sure Ret. Prof understands what a lead is. The entire purpose is to be redundant. It is to give a brief summary of the article. If someone wants to read about a topic, but doesn't have time to read the whole article, they should get the gist of the article by reading the lead. It is supposed to be a summary of the entire text.

The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.

I do not believe the current, super short lead fulfills it's purpose. I'd be curious to see if anyone else supports such a short lead, and why Ret. Prof made the edits in the first place. I could be missing something. But I really do not believe "saying things twice" is a valid rationale for deleting the lead, because that is the purpose.

After saying all that, I can see that the lead that was reverted was 6 paragraphs, and arguably a bit too long and too detailed. I'd be glad to work out a compromise that is longer than Ret. Prof's, but shorter than previous version. Paragraphs 3,4, and 6 could be mixed (and shortened), and 2 and 5 could also be mixed, leaving us with 3 paragraphs total. -Andrew c [talk] 15:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Working out a compromise lenght sounds good. Carlaude:Talk 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Andrew, Re the lead, you stated "The entire purpose is to be redundant." I do not agree. A good lead introduces an article in a way that stimulates interest and summarizes the important aspects of the subject of the article. It should be concise, explaining why the subject is interesting. Not an easy task! Give a it shot and you can count on my support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Although this discussion is nearly a year old, I would respectfully like not to let this last comment stand without correction. WP:LEDE currently says: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. … While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." Cynwolfe (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Organization in the Gospel

A relatively simple sentence has been turned into: Some commentators see the Gospel of Matthew as arranged into five sermons: the Sermon on the Mount (ch 5-7), the Mission Discourse (ch 10), the Collection of Parables (ch 13), Instructions for the Community (ch 18) and, finally, Teaching for the Future (ch 24-25). Others dispute that even some of these individual "sermons" are groups of different messages given at different times to different audiences. If this really is a point of contention, perhaps it shouldn't go in the lead. I thought it was simply describing the organization of the gospel. We present it in a matter of fact manner under the "overview" header, with no note of the controversy. Do we discuss the controversy elsewhere in the article? As it stands, we shouldn't add unsourced "he said, she said" content into the lead, that isn't explained further in the article. If it isn't a commonly agreed upon point regarding the 5 sermons, let's just axe it from the lead (and add contrary sources to the overview section). Who are these others who dispute the organization into 5 sermons?

I was curious, so I pulled out Koester (since I had it sitting next to my desk) to read "the speeches constitute the focus of Jesus' ministry... Matthew has created five large discourses:" He normally footnotes disputes and sources that give more detail, yet this section lacks any of that, so it doesn't appear to be something controversial to Koester. Similarly, Miller, Funk and the JS also identify the 5 discourses/sermons. On the other hand, I couldn't find Ehrman mentioning them, but his focus was a bit more broad. So I'm curious to know who disputes this organization into 5? -Andrew c [talk] 16:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe if we used the word "discourse" instead of sermon, it wouldn't necessarily imply that they were different messages given at different times to different audiences. It seems like an otherwise uncontroversial, and generally accepted, method of organizing/categorizing Matthew's presentation of Jesus' teachings/speeches. -Andrew c [talk] 16:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I favor moving this out of the lead.
The word "passages" would be better stilll to indicate that they weren't necessarily different messages given at different times to different audiences.
I will look for the reference that I read the dispute of 5 sermons in, at least if you think it would still be needed. Maybe we don't need it if we only say "passages". Carlaude:Talk 21:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe if we made it clear who was doing the organizing "Scholars organize the teachings of Jesus into 5 section/discourses", so we aren't implying "Jesus gave 5 separate sermons in relayed in the Gospel of Matthew". I think if this is a common method of organization, it may be helpful to summarize it in the lead. I like it. But I am also not familiar with the controversy, and if it isn't appropriate to use (as it's pushing a POV or whatever), I'd be ok (reluctantly) with removing it ;) Anyway, looking forward to hearing about your sources. -Andrew c [talk] 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"You cannot say it is the most common just because 3 or 4 scholars hold it as their view."

I'd like to respond to this comment. I think when you are citing basic college level textbooks on the subject, and those authors state what the scholarly consensus is, then I think it is OK to present scholarly consensus as they describe. Especially when we have such diverse scholars as Raymond Brown, Bart Ehrman, Jill-Amy Levine all in agreement (plus I just looked up Guthrie "Most scholars, however, reject apostolic Authorship" p. 53 of New Testament Introduction). I mean Gurthrie himself accepts apostolic Authorship, but can recognize the scholarly consensus. I don't think we need to shy away from this. These scholars are all in agreement in describing scholarly opinion, not their personal opinions.

I also think mentioning the Greek is important, especially because in lieu of minority Aramaic primacy and Hebrew Matthew theories, which we do discuss later in the article.-Andrew c [talk] 05:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok that is fine.
It was not clear to me the soures were clearly stating what "most scholars" hold. Can you add this or another direct quote to a reference? Thanks.
Can the mentioning of the Greek be done in a separate sentance? Carlaude:Talk 05:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
One of the longer versions of the lead has a sentence or two describing the various aspects of composition. I just recently came across a sentence in Brown where he describes the most common position regarding that stuff in one sentence, which what I added a few days ago. However, that quote has been removed and the content split up into a couple sentences again. Maybe introducing the quote wasn't the best idea, but when I read it I thought "wow, this covers all the main points, and is just one sentence long" and felt is was perfect and concise for the lead. But I'll keep working on it, and hopefully others will also help out and improve my edits. We'll get something workable soon for sure! -Andrew c [talk] 14:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand now why you included the quote-- but not why you did not put quotation marks. Can you find the quote from a few days ago and then we can retain it inside the reference note? Do you follow?

Making changes

I am making the authorship sections more balanced. It seems that my cited changes are being removed because some people you just don't like themRomanHistorian (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As a Christian, I like your editing, but many of your edits show a Christian POV. Remember at Wikipedia we must fairly reflect the scholarship in reliable sources. Keep up the good work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it HIGHLY ironic that RomanHistorian wrote in an edit summary You can't just delete cited claims because you don't like them., but then deleted "The consensus view of the contemporary New Testament scholars is that the Gospel of Matthew was originally composed in Greek not Hebrew or Aramaic[1], and that the apostle Matthew did not write the Gospel that bears his name.[2]" The funny thing is, Carson/Moo on pg. 66 call the anonymous circulation prior to c. 125 view a "consensus" as well, one that has been challenged by Hengel, but something that "most scholars" assume. Therefore, I feel you are giving Carson undue weight, especially in the context of your deletion of Ehrman and Brown. Balance, on Wikipedia, does not mean to present all sides as equal, but instead to give each view "due weight". I don't think someone that has recently challenged the mainstream consensus deserves the weight you have given it.-Andrew c [talk] 16:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess if I am going to make changes, I have to delete something.
It did originally circulate anonymously, which is a different issue entirely from who the original author was. The view "Matthew didn't write it" isn't held by most scholars. There are wide variations, including the possibility of Matthew being behind it though not writing it. My problem was simply that the article made it sound like scholars mostly agree Matthew didn't write it, making it something akin to a forgery, when scholars don't actually agree on that. And those who disagree with this view are not a small minority either.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
RomanHistorian, my POV is similar to yours. However, Andrew is right. In 2010, the scholarship strongly supports the Gospel of Matthew being written after the time of Matthew by an unknown redactor. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Then find sources to elaborate on your point and cite them. The books I am using are not fringe publications. They do mention the scholarly debate and uncertainty, but also that there isn't (and probably never will be) a uniform consensus. I don't deny that many share your view, but many don't too.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
You make a lot of bold, yet unsourced assertions in your 17:40 comment. And I'd be curious to see the sources behind the claims. The point is, we are already citing Ehrman and Brown who are making claims regarding the consensus or majority views. I'd be glad to transcribe the relevant passages for you. I've briefly looked at Carson/Moo, and they do not appear to be making any such claims about the majority position (outside of what I already stated above). It would be helpful if you added page numbers, instead of whole chapter citations, for specific claims. If you want to transcribe some of your sources briefly here where they are making statements concerning the majority view, or lack there of, it would be appreciated. If we do have two equally scholarly and reliable sources making opposite claims, we need to find a way to present both views. Or if one view isn't as reliable/scholarly as the other, we need to take that into consideration as well. Your request to find sources to elaborate on your point and cite them seems a bit odd, because the article was already sourced, and you happened to remove some of those citations in your edits. From what I've read, most scholars accept the view that Matthew was not written by the apostle. Clearly some scholars disagree, but I don't think both views are on equal grounds, and thus weight concerns should be taken into consideration when attempting to present the views in the article. We should avoid presenting the view of a single scholar as more representative of the whole than what it is. I'd be glad to collect and quote the sources I have immediate access to, and even research this some more, but before I go through all that (since we are already citing at least 3 individuals putting forth such a claim), I'd like to see evidence to the contrary that they are wrong, or that significant opposing views exist regarding what "most scholars" hold in terms of apostolic authorship. (Shall I also note that Donald Guthrie, an older, more traditional or "conservative" scholar, and someone who argues in favor of Matthaean authorship, in his New Testament Introduction pg. 49 says "Most modern scholars dispense with the traditional view".)-Andrew c [talk] 21:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by my "17:40" comment but I can add a reference if you point it out specifically. As for page numbers, that is difficult since I am using a Kindle version of this book. I apologize if I improperly removed referenced claims (though that seems to be the standard treatment for my additions). If you think they are better remaining in place go ahead and re-add them. I removed them because I was trying to change the article to present both sides. Stylistically, this required me to remove some of what existed before. Also, I agree that most scholars today disagree with the traditional view. This includes, among other things, Matthew having written his gospel before Mark and from his own memory, which few agree with today because of the two-source hypothesis. That, as well as the original anonymity of the gospel, are different issues from the question of authorship.
I do agree that the view that Matthew directly wrote it himself is probably the minority position, and I believe that is what Carson and Moo's view is. However, from the view of the opinion of Carson and Moo and the other scholars they cite, there seems to be a lot of diversity on this issue. You could say that one end of the spectrum is that Matthew wrote it himself, while at the other end it was an outright forgery (written by someone unrelated to Matthew, later assigned authorship by Matthew to give it authority). What bothered me before was that the article more or less claimed that most viewed it as something akin to an outright forgery. I don't think this is true, and this is not what I get from Carson and Moo (along with some of the other books I have read). I don't mind saying that most scholars today doubt Matthew wrote it himself, although I think the article should elaborate more on the diversity of opinion. It should mention that, while most think this, many (even those who doubt Matthew wrote it directly) hold that Matthew was behind the non-Markan/non-Q material to varying degrees, while many others hold it to be closer to an outright forgery. That’s what I was trying to do before, and why I kept the old claims while balancing those against the conservative claims. Maybe there is a better way to do that.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
First of all, 17:40 refers to the timestamp on your comment. When you sign comments on talk pages, it leaves your user name and date/time. 17:40 is 24h time, so I was referring to the comment you made which is timestamped 17:40. Next, it appears we are reaching a common ground, so it is a bit offensive to see that after you made this comment, you simply reverted back to your version, even though you acknowledged here disagreement, and made no efforts to address my concerns. It is hard for me to work with other editors who are acting in bad faith (edit warring is a type of disruptive editing, so how am I supposed to react to it, and stay civil?) Let's go over the diff. Just looking at your first edit, it changed a majority view, which you even acknowledge to instead present two views as equals, thus WP:UNDUE. You reinstated Scholarly opinion is currently divided on the question of authorship... by the 20th century the issue became highly contested and without consensus., yet you wrote above I do agree that the view that Matthew directly wrote it himself is probably the minority position... I don't mind saying that most scholars today doubt Matthew wrote it himself. See where I am going? If we both are agreeing to one thing and finding common ground on the talk page, why re-instate the controversial material that neither one of us seems to support right in the middle of discussion? I think the lead is OK, because after giving the majority view, we state "However, other scholars disagree variously on these points." I think the body of the article is the place to explain these differences. We do so to an extent already, but it may not hurt to add more from Carson, if we present it in an appropriate manner. Finally, I'm glad that you got the impression from Carson/Moo that there is diversity, and open discussion among scholars on these issues, but it would help if you gave me page numbers or brief quotes. -Andrew c [talk] 14:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I mostly agree with the changes you made. I have a couple of changes I would like to be made. In Gospel_of_Matthew#Church_Fathers, why is there a "verification needed" notice on the Carson note on Papias? Is there doubt as to whether Carson says this? Also, this point from Carson refutes the view that most scholars believe Papias was refering to another gospel, which is the claim cited by Ehrman. Yet the last sentence in Gospel_of_Matthew#Matthew_the_Evangelist makes the same claim that Carson refuted on Papias, and also cites Ehrman. I think a similar point from Carson's work should be made here as it was made above. Finally, in the second paragraph of Gospel_of_Matthew#Composition, I think a point should be made that a minority of scholars (such as Carson and Moo) do believe Matthew wrote his gospel. Even if this view is held by less than 50% of all scholars (which I am sure it is), I assure you it is not a fringe view, and wikipedia policy says non-fringe minority views should be given due weight.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

authorship

The line "However, most modern scholars are content to let it remain anonymous." is completely inapropriate. These types of generalizations do not belong without measurable evidence. This line should be deleted.--Heesung 16:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how the original sentence was "completely inapropriate", but I am totally open for rewording. However, I am not fine with leaving out the position that a) the gospel is anonymous and b) most critical scholars do not think the author was an apostle. I have added a paragraph with references to earlychristianwrittings.com's entry on Matthew. I'm clearly open to suggests or revisions. But I wanted to drop in on the talk page before more reverts go on.--Andrew c 22:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

An anoymous contributor changed CE to AD. CE may stand for either Common Era or Christian Era, but AD is unambiguously an abbreviation of the Latin Anno Domini which means "Year of our lord". I believe CE is more NPOV than AD, and that changing another's wording is questionable ethically. A Georgian (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Whoa whoa, reference 10. Bart Ehrman does NOT believe that the Gospel According to Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew. And just because church fathers like Papias said so doesn't make it true. The majority of scholars believe that all four canonical gospels were written anonymously or pseudonymously by highly educated Greek scribes. Look at the dates of composition. These weren't people who knew Jesus. This is at least two generations later. Matt2h (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes

Someone keeps adding changes that aren't supported by the sources he cites. The source lists a few quotes from some books, none of which say that "most" scholars doubt the traditional authorship. Quote the part of the source that says this, as this is what the edits are. Otherwise the prior version, which mentioned the scholars who are cited in the source, is adequate for that source.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I did. Look at it again. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at this link "[1]. Bock, speaking of the traditional (apostolic) authorship accounts for the NT in general though the gospels specifically, says "Many scholars think we know who wrote all of these works or most of them." He calls the dismissal of the traditional accounts among scholars "contested" and says that while "conservative and moderate" scholars hold for an indirect apostolic link for Mark and Luke, concerning the apostolic link for Matthew and John, scholars differ in that the links are "direct as conservatives claim or more indirect as moderates claim". He says outright rejection of direct or indirect apostolic authorship is limited to liberal scholars." The website claim (a tertiary source) directly disagrees with the claim of the scholar (a secondary source, and thus preferred by Wikipedia policy). The article should reflect this ambiguity.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I did look at that page, so I know that it not only has Bock's opinion but also admits that a number of other specifically named scholars dismiss it. This is once again a case of a fringe view being given undue weight. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
An indirect link is not the same as the apostle actually writing the gospel. So one could say that liberal and moderate believe in either no connection to the apostle or an indirect connection and that belief in actual authorship of the gospel is limited to conservative scholars. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
That sounds about right, thanks. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Dylan reverted (again) an edit I made (here). This one reflected the nuance of opinion on the topic. Without the edit, the article is overly black-and-white and suggests a uniform opinion with only a few dissenting scholars holding to an entirely different view. I think it should be restored, and dismissing Bock's statement on what scholars think (not what Bock himself thinks) is improper. His being "biased" (everyone is) is only relevant to what he himself says about authorship (not what he says about the view of "most scholars"). He is a well regarded scholar, who certainly is not sloppy and is certainly trustworthy for a view on the range of scholarly opinion. I know I can't convince you of this so hopefully someone else will restore this assertion of nuance.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
By virtue of not being a reliable source, we cannot count on Bock to accurately summarize the views of others. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It is a reliable and well-cited source. You don't like Bock because he is conservative. Conservative doesn't mean he is sloppy or misrepresenting the views of other scholars. This should be a fact that is obvious on its face, and it is a bit ridiculous that you revert sources because you think they are too protestant/conservative.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of liking Bock or not: I don't even know him. The issue is whether he's a historian or an apologist; the latter often express fringe views about history, but we are obligated not to include them. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Flaherty's objection has morphed from "fringe" to "unreliable"; what is it obut Bock that makes him unreliable? A Georgian (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, there has been no change in my stance, only in your comprehension of it. In specific, you have not drawn the causal connection between holding fringe views and therefore not being reliable. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Ask him. Figuring out Flaherty's modus operandi is impossible for me. He seems to discount the views of most protestants (often their protestantism is the reason itself he attacks them as fringe). He has done this before with other well-regarded protestant scholars. Even worse for him than protestant, apparently, is evangelical. There is no good reason for him to have gotten rid of that change I made, and even the other editor above seems to agree on this point. Wikipedia policy condemns the deletion of cited claims unless they are wacko conspiracy theories. Bock is well regarded and his publisher is well regarded. Dylan should instead have added another cited claim to "balance" out what he didn’t' like. I am guessing that he doesn't disagree with the claim of Bock so much as he disagrees with including anything said by Bock or any other strong protestant. Just look at the author's Wikipedia page (Darrell Bock). He is well regarded. He is not, however, an atheist or a Catholic, nor a nominal protestant, so Dylan discounts him as fringe. I think you should restore the edit. If I do he will simply revert me again. I can back you up on restoring it, as we move towards a consensus. I would sympathize with Dylan's view if I was claiming that Bock's views are representative of most scholars, but that is not what the edit I made said.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nothing against Protestants. In fact, some of my best friends are Protestant. I do, however, object to theologically conservative views which push fringe beliefs that mainstream historians reject. Or, to be even more specific, I object to those ideas being passed off as mainstream when they are most definitely not. Remember, just because a view is common among theologians in certain sects doesn't mean it's taken seriously by historians, or that it should be. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought I would revert it, but I assume Flaherty follows this talk subject, and I'd like to see his response to my question; maybe he can demonstrate that Bock is not RS. A Georgian (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know what basis you would justify the reversion on. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
On the basis that the scholar is respected and well cited, making an objective statement about the scholarly community, and that there is no reason to remove his comment simply because he happens to be more conservative. This case has already been stated. A Georgian wants you to tell him why he should not be included.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I respect lots of people, but that doesn't make them historians. Look at his CV and see for yourself. Why should we accept this apologist as a reliable source? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me give you a hint. This is the publisher's web site. Does that look like an academic publisher or a Christian apologetic sausage factory? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the article on the publisher (Thomas Nelson (publisher)) it seems that they are the sixth largest publisher in the world, and the largest Christian-specializing publisher in the world. It seems your problem is that you don't like the theological bent of Bock or his publisher, and think he is incapable of being truthful because of it. I have seen this argument several other places on Wikipedia: someone wants to ban all books from a publisher on a religion article because they think that a publisher that is Christian-specializing is by definition biased and unreliable. Each time this argument has been overruled, even by skeptics. There is no reason to assume that a Christian-specializing publisher is unreliable, and certainly no reason to exclude their books from being sources on religion articles.
As for Bock, I see a lot of reasons from that link why he is a reliable source. It says that "He is the author of over twenty books and is a New York Times Best Selling author... He is an Editor at Large for Christianity Today and is a Past President of the Evangelical Theological Society," his specialties are "Gospel Studies, Luke-Acts, Historical Jesus, Hermeneutics" and he is a Professor of New Testament Studies as one of the major evangelical seminaries. I see no reason to assume he is lying or misleading, and every reason to view his writings as accurate and truthful. Actually after looking at that website you linked to, I think his personal opinion on the matter should be included here (though I won't push for that). At the least, he is a very well published and well regarded scholar, and is certainly knowledgeable about the state of scholarship. The distinction here is Bock's opinion on authorship (which is subjective) versus his statement on what the scholarly view is (which is more-or-less objective).RomanHistorian (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they were small, I said they were non-academic. Do you dispute this?

As for Christianity Today, this is the same Evangelical-run magazine that published that factually inaccurate disavowal of the Insane Clown Posse. Remember?

If he's such a reliable source, you should be able to offer something academic to show that his scholarly writing supports your claim. His apologetic writing just won't cut it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I definitely dispute that. Look at his bio on the DTS website. He has published at least 89 articles in scholarly journals. He was even the president of the Evangelical Theological Society! You can't get more academic than that. His being a scholar whom you term an "apologist" is not a reason for reverting his statement.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Roman, those scholarly articles were peer-reviewed; what you quoted isn't. I recommend you simply follow Leadwind's advice on this. It's a reasonable compromise. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Roman, if you're going to use an explicitly Christian source, just label it that way. That's fair. Leadwind (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Lee Strobel vs. Blomberg

Can we cite Blomberg directly? I don't believe it is appropriate to be citing a popular, evangelical work, such as Strobel's, in the context of this, especially when it comes to matters of more scholarly ventures such as higher criticism. At the very least, we should all agree that we can "do better than that". I also don't think we need to go into details of specific arguments against the mainstream in the lead, as we can easily discuss those details in the body of the article, which explains my deletion from the lead. Also, watch out for things like attributing something to Bart Ehrman, which is a direct quote taken from Raymond Brown. (the Ehrman and Levine references are there to support the clause, even though Brown says it is the "common position", not his personal position. We could easily remove those other two references, and just keep Brown, but I guess someone felt it was important to show that what Brown was considering the "common position", other scholars agree). -Andrew c [talk] 19:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I will try to find something written by him directly, although I am not sure if I can or not. I agree we should be able to do better, although I don't think there is a question that Strobel was relaying his opinion accurately and in context. I also made another change on the intro. How does that work?RomanHistorian (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Attribution can be a very important thing on Wikipedia. If presenting the isolated opinion of a scholar, we must attribute it to the person making the claim. That said, I feel like RomanHistorian is misusing attribution, but maybe not on purpose or anyhting like that. If a known and respected scholar is making a claim about scholarship in general, not a personal opinion, it is wrong to then make it seem like it is just this one scholar who believes such and such. Similarly, if we have a scholar relaying something that would appear to be a "fact", we don't need generally don't need to attribute those claims to individuals. Take for instance this sentence: According to Bart Ehrman, the synoptic problem increasingly caused 18th Century scholars to question the traditional view of composition. This makes it seem like Ehrman is making some opinionated claim, which is disputed. This is something that can easily be verified by just browsing the literature, and is basic knowledge about the origins of critical biblical scholarship (it didn't appear out of thin air, and is connected to the 18th century "Age of Reason"). Right? Am I missing something (it's possible :) As for the changes in the lead, it's ok, but again, I'm not sure we need to single out Brown, or if we do, should we not also mention Ehrman and Levine who we are also citing? I can live with it for sure.-Andrew c [talk] 21:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. I will try not to make that mistake in the future, but feel free to adjust if I do. On your last question, I think we should name whoever it is that is behind the quote. I could find many other good sources that agree with Blomberg, but for the sake of simplicity we have to summarize what the views are.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Blomberg might be a Christian apologist, but he's certainly WP:NOTE. He's one of the more well known Christian apologists.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but being a notable apologist doesn't make him notable as an objective scholar. Dylan Flaherty 13:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely. He should be cited as "Christian apologist Craig Blomberg".--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure, if he's cited at all. While I hardly oppose apologetics, I'm very firm about distinguishing it from neutral scholarship. I'm not convinced that people like Blomberg have any place in this article, except perhaps as sources for the traditional view. Dylan Flaherty 14:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I'm with you. We need to identify Erhman as something like 'ex-Christian agitator for Biblical errancy' or something. Not quite that blunt, but definitely something to indicate he's not a neutral source. As for whether people like Blomberg have any place in this article, if we're not going to cite the traditional view then there's no point in adding criticism of it. Let's keep the article balanced.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The virtue of the traditional view is that it's, well, traditional. It's been around for a long time, so we hardly need to cite living apologists. As for Erhman, while he may not be entirely neutral, personal bias is not on the same level of having a religious commitment to uphold a view regardless of the facts. There are probably better ways of making clear that, like many secular scholars, he is not wedded to any notion of literalistic truth in the Bible. However, that definition also applies to the Pontiff! Dylan Flaherty 21:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
If we're going to write a balanced article, we need current advocates for both positions. If you can do that while avoiding Christian writers, please go ahead. As for Ehrman, "not entirely neutral" is something of an understatement. He actively promotes a specific POV. The majority of his text critical claims are not supported by the scholarly consensus. He treats some texts which receive a "B" rating in NA27/UBS4 (the second highest level of certainty), as if they aren't part of the original text. This isn't scholarly, it's fringe. It's not a matter of pointing out that Ehrman "is not wedded to any notion of literalistic truth in the Bible", it's a matter of noting that he actively promotes a specific agenda deliberately antagonistic to Christianity, and makes various fringe claims in the process.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I have absolutely no intention of avoiding Christian writers! That would be terribly bigoted. However, we do need to distinguish between scholars and apologists, as the latter make no attempt at neutrality and generally fall short of academic standards. Ehrman is a genuine scholar, regardless of whether either of us agree with him. If you feel he's biased, then put aside what you "know" and find some reliable sources that can balance out his statements. Dylan Flaherty 02:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Great, we're agreed on what to do with Christian writers (I was concerned by your suggestion that we don't need any current writers in the article). I agree that we should distinguish between scholars and apologists. Ehrman is a scholar, but does not always write as one. Currently he has written popularized treatments of text criticism (as opposed to scholarly treatments), published by popular publishing houses (as opposed to academic publishing houses), and his arguments in those popular treatments have strayed far from the academic consensus. Putting aside what I "know" would necessitate putting aside the conclusions of the Nestle/Aland committee, which I'm not prepared to do given its scholarly position in this field. Ehrman's bias does need to be identified, as do those of his views which are fringe.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Then let's distinguish between Ehrman writing for peer-reviewed, scholarly books and periodicals, as opposed to popularizations that are less rigorous. We already try to do the same for those scholars who also write apologetics. For Ehrman, it would be best if you found reliable sources that comment on any discrepancy between his evaluations and those of the Nestle/Aland committee, rather than juxtaposing them as original research. Dylan Flaherty 03:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

restore mainstream scholarship to central role

Like other gospel articles, this one has had its scholarship undermined and replaced with sectarian apology presented as mainstream scholarship. We've been patient with the new editors, but it's time to fix the page. Leadwind (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your edits per se, but what you term the "minority" view should be reflected as such. I also think the view of an indirect link (the author being a disciple of Matthew) should be reflected. RomanHistorian (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
A nice, solid, nonsectarian, tertiary source to back up your opinion would do you a world of good. Leadwind (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, just for a second, you should consider the possibility that I might disagree with you because your view of what the "scholarly mainstream" view is is wrong.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Any amount of personal persuasion on your part doesn't come close to be worth what a good, solid, academic, tertiary source would be worth. Why can't you find university-level textbooks that takes your side? Why doesn't Encyclopedia Britannica take your side? I have my suspicions as to why. Leadwind (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I know precisely why: you have defined a set universe of "mainstream" sources, and dismiss all legitimate sources that contradict your view of what the mainstream is. I add them and you just delete them as "fringe" or "sectarian". In addition, those EBO quotes you used were out of context.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh and I have used both secondary and tertiary sources, and you deleted them both. It would be nice if you would stop changing your definition of what you find acceptable and just state it outright: whatever conforms to what you define as "mainstream".RomanHistorian (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I must have made a mistake. What nonsectarian, academic, tertiary source did you cite? Leadwind (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Your claim that "sectarian" sources are illegitimate is itself illegitimate.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Please back that claim up with references to appropriate policy. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Now show me the policy that says "sectarian" sources are to be excluded.RomanHistorian (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to reference appropriate policy. Not a word of what you referenced is relevant. Perhaps you misunderstood the request. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me throw you a line here: you're on the wrong page. Try WP:RS#Scholarship. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing

I have noticed that here and elsewhere, some editors are pushing a POV. Leadwind above is a good example. They define a set universe of "mainstream scholarship" and used that to define what the "scholarly consensus" is. No evidence is ever given that this is what the "mainstream" is, it is just assumed and requests for evidence are ignored. Not only that, but this fake-mainstream is even often described as the "consensus". This universe just so happens to include and be personified by skeptics and atheists like Bart Ehrman or the ultra-controversial Jesus Seminar. Actually Ehrman and Jesus Seminar members are often the most heavily cited sources. Any scholars who deviate from this view are labeled "fringe" and their views dismissed. Most scholars actually deviate from what is defined as "mainstream" by editors like Leadwind, but this nice little definition allows the majority to be dismissed as "fringe". Evidence that these people represent the "mainstream" is never given, editors just demand that one accepts it because "that's what everyone knows". With this, direct quoted evidence that they don't represent the mainstream is dismissed and never taken seriously. If they make claims that are well cited, these claims are deleted outright for no reason other than they don't fit in with this artificially defined universe of what is "mainstream". Wikipedia is ruled by what the majority of editors on a given article think about a topic, not what the "correct" or "mainstream" view is. These edits don't represent the "mainstream" view, but a heavily skewed POV. As such, the article is badly biased on certain points, especially authorship.

I would like some non-involved editors to take a look at these pages and the talk pages to see what they think. RomanHistorian (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind is pushing neutrality, and you're pushing back with theologically conservative fringe views. Worse, you're editing against consensus to insert weasel words. This is not good. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense the majority view is Matthean priority - it is the so called "scholars" who hold fringe views. Your comment is just doubletalk and an example of how wikipedia can fail as a reliable source as those with an axe to grind take over its pages Andrei nzv8 (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
We don't need to argue or be mean. Just find a reliable source that says Matthean priority is the majority view. Leadwind (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, yet again, risking an edit war

Leadwind has made a lot of recent edits which have pushed a major POV into this article. He has done this on Gospel of Luke, and there is a discussion under way on this. This article shouldn't be skewed by him until we resolve the issue in Gospel of Luke.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

RH restored uncited, questioned material, in violation of WP:RS. Leadwind (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Your personal preference for secular authors over religious authors is transparently clear on this and other articles you've edited. I'm all for WP:RS, and I don't want to see sources like "Celestial Teachings" from 'Wildflower Press" in this article any more than you do, but perhaps you should consider declaring WP:COI. RH certainly needs to. I think you're both editing against each other's view of religion more than anything else.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
None of the sources you decided to delete were questionable. Your deletion of them was a direct violation of WP:RS.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I see that minutes after this, Leadwind is back deleting sourced material here. I don't care about that particular edit, but it yet again shows his total disregard for WP:RS.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Without digging in and reading every bit of talk and checking all the changes, it seems that it is you RomanHistorian that are trying to make POV edits before reaching consensus. Looking only at the talk on this page, it seems that you have been trying to add text with sources that many other editors have considered WP:FRINGE or not WP:RS. I may well be wrong, but I advise you to take a step back, de-escalate the situation and think about how to make the changes you feel are needed in a more permanent fashion. (hint: build consensus with other editors). Ashmoo (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, Leadwind hasn't demonstrated any more interest in building consensus before hacking away either. They're both swinging at each other.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I actually restored the article to the version it was a couple days ago, right before Leadwind made his editsRomanHistorian (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Good Work

This article has really improved over the past few months. The fact that Greek Matthew is first quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas, and was known to Papias in its Greek form is very interesting. I always suspected that this was the case. I am having trouble verifying and it would be helpful if someone could walk me though the references. Google links would be helpful. As to the rest , great work - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything about this in my sources so I removed it. I also fixed the balance issue about whether Papias's report is credited by most scholars (it isn't, per my commonly accepted reference text). Leadwind (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitolization

Rather than having a capitolization revert war, someone needs to go through here and clean it up. Looking at the last revert, half of the instances should be capitolized - such as "... blah blah blah the Gospels blah blah blah..." is obviously a proper noun in this case. However in other places I don't believe it should be (like in section headings unless it is the first word and in a few other places it should be "small g" gospel). So both of the previous reverters are wrong - and the most recent editor, although he has quoted the correct Wikipedia manual, has incorrectly read/applied it (IMHO). So who's going to take it on?Ckruschke (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

I can go through this more thoroughly later and complete the edit I made to start this little dispute. I based my decision on the dictionary definition -- my New Oxford American Dictionary and Dictionary.com both agree that Gospel is capitalized when referring to the four Gospels of the New Testament, but is not capitalized when referring to the general teachings of Christ.
I don't know if there's a MOS entry specific enough for this particular case. I'd rather take the dictionary's word for it rather than interpreting vague parts of the MOS. If we can agree on that style, I can just sort through the different uses of the term in the article and fix them properly. Cap'n Refsmmat (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Gospel isn't a proper noun by itself. The MoS says that we should not capitalize words outside of titles, even if they appear in titles. The example they give is for institutions such as universities and hospitals. For example "The University of Toronto offers..." vs. "the university offers..." In some style guides, they say to capitalize the latter, because of the implied antecedent. This is what I believe Ckruschke is referring to. But that is not how we do things on Wikipedia. My take on the MoS is they normally favor lowercase letters, unless it is a clear case of a title or proper noun. Furthermore, they specifically say we should not capitalize normal, religious words that are often given honorific status and capitalized by some religious institutions, which I think this also falls under. I could be wrong. And it's not that big of a deal to me. But I don't understand Ckruschke's revert of me. The article should go back to how it was before either me or the Cap'n edited it (but whatever). -Andrew c [talk] 22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Gospel is a proper noun when used to refer to the four Gospels; check any dictionary, as I said, and you'll see that it is to be capitalized in that case. MOS:CAPS also says "The names of major revered works of scripture like the Bible, the Qur'an, the Talmud, and the Vedas should be capitalized".
There are also cases I fixed when "Gospel" was used as shorthand for "Gospel of Matthew"; for example, it might say "...and believe Matthew did write the gospel." That should be capitalized, because Gospel clearly refers to the Gospel of Matthew, a specific work, and is a proper noun.
So, short version: "Gospel" is capitalized when referring to the four Gospels as a whole or any specific Gospel. It is not capitalized in any other case. Can we agree on this usage? Cap'n Refsmmat (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Not yet. As I gave in my example with institutions from the MoS, we don't capitalize what you call short hand. You have not convinced me on that point. As for whether it is a proper noun in reference to the four gospels, I'm doing some research on that now. Merriam-Webster online says it is, and the Oxford Dictionary of English says so, and gives this odd example The four Gospels ascribed to St Matthew, St Mark, St Luke, and St John all give an account of the ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ, though the Gospel of John differs greatly from the other three. There are also several apocryphal gospels of later date. But the actual OED does not, and gives historical examples that both do and do not capitalize the word when used in this specific meaning. I find the example from the ODE odd because it lowercases apocryphal gospels, which I think is a non-neutral treatment, or religious favoritism, which the MoS specifically prohibits. I'd also argue that the gospels are NOT a "major revered works of scripture like the Bible, the Qur'an, the Talmud, and the Vedas" as this doesn't seem to be an issue at Pauline epistles or Epistle to the Romans. When both Merriam Webster and ODE say epistle should be capitalized (but maybe I shouldn't bring that up as I'm sure you'd argue to change that as well), but I don't think a couple dictionaries should be the sole guiding principal here, as any quick search of a leading scholarly journal on the topic (i.e. Novum Testamentum vol. 47 no 4) will show both upper case and lower case usages based on author's preference. Since this effects many articles, I think this is something that should be discussed in a broader venue. Perhaps we should raise this on the MoS page? -Andrew c [talk] 23:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
How about capitalizing Gospel when it's a short form of the title of a specific Gospel in the New Testament or apocryphal works, but not otherwise? i.e. if it's a reference to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, make it capitalized, since the full title "Gospel of Matthew" is capitalized. Other uses are ambiguous and should lean towards not being capitalized.
It's roughly like saying Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and also italicizing Hitchhiker's Guide when it's used as shorthand. The MOS entry you cite doesn't support your case, in my opinion; using "gospel" as shorthand for "Gospel of Matthew" is not naming a type of something but a specific instance. Cap'n Refsmmat (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew Gospel

This link, Hebrew Gospel, in the second paragraph of the Composition intro has been removed several times by editor In ictu oculi without explanation. The inline citation clearly mentions the Hebrew Gospel, so this link should stay in the paragraph per WP:PRESERVE. The link will be once again returned to the article, and I ask that before it is removed again that we discuss it here.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  12:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Paine Ellesworth, the explanation was given in the comments on the edit, the original link was a misnoma in that in linked to a Greek text. If you follow the initial link you will hopefully see why. Further this is duplication: "rather than being a translation from an rather than being a translation from an Aramaic original or the Hebrew Gospel.[1] Aramaic original = the Hebrew Gospel. Why mention the same thing twice? Does Bart D. Ehrman page 43 distinguish Aramaic original ≠ the Hebrew Gospel? In ictu oculi. If he does not please restore the edit and remove the duplication. (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, the references do not support the changes you are making to the article. Please work toward consensus. POV pushing and original research are not acceptable. The references explain that during the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link The references further explain that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was often called the Gospel of the Hebrews. Matthew alone expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. Link Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ret Prof. You've been all over Wikipedia sowing material pushing the "controversial" (his own interview on his own college's website) theory of James R. Edwards that there is a unified "Hebrew Gospel" or Ur-Matthew surviving in Jewish-Christian groups' fragments, which in the view of most modern scholarship is a fringe view, so you're not really in a position to talk about POV. Sorry.
Paine Ellesworth, Does Bart D. Ehrman page 43 distinguish Aramaic original ≠ the Hebrew Gospel? What is the actual sentence in the text relating to the duplication? Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I tried to verify your references and they did not check out. Therefore I had to temporarily had to revert your edits. Some of your original research was interesting but at Wikipedia it needs referencing. Also, please, no edit warring. Let us work together to improve this article. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ret Prof. Sorry, but I've heard you say "Let us work together to improve this article" "consensus" and so on before, but the fact is you're pushing a fringe view, as also preserving that fringe view in new articles Jesus outside the New Testament and Oral tradition and the historical Jesus‎ and when your fringe view is not given weight/priority ahead of mainstream scholarship then you get upset.
And I see you have already started edit warring here. The edits you have reversed are simply rewording, what exactly are you objecting to in the edit?
Paine Ellsworth, sorry I expect you're not online: Does Bart D. Ehrman page 43 distinguish Aramaic original ≠ the Hebrew Gospel? Yes or no? If no, then why duplicate?In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For you, editor In ictu oculi, no, Ehrman does not even broach the subject of the Aramaic original. He just explicitly states that some believed that Matthew wrote at least one rendition of his gospel in the Hebrew language. When you study it a bit more, you'll find that the Aramaic original was believed by some to be written in the Syriac language, and while the Hebrew language derives from the same origins as the Syriac language, they are not one and the same language, only "similar". So it is not a duplication to include the link to the Hebrew Gospel and to the Aramaic primacy article in the same paragraph.

For you, editor Ret.Prof, please be more careful, because in your effort to revert some of In ictu oculi's edits, you also reverted a link to a reference citation that I upgraded, specifically ref. note 23.

For you both, it might be a better idea to discuss any major changes to this article here on the Talk page before making your edits, thus to perhaps allow other editors to weigh in on your proposals. It would also be a good gentle reminder that here in Wikipedia, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". So please respond to WP:PRESERVE and be very careful about removing cited referenced text. And when you add new textual claims, you are expected to be able to produce scholarly reference sources for your additions.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  03:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  • PS. It's also important to remember that we must keep the general readers in mind when we edit. Putting more than three or four citations after a claim is not only unnecessary "over citing", it also makes it very difficult to read. So please remove most of those new citations where there are more than four references.
Point taken. I have read through your comment twice and agree. We need to focus on the references. Not an easy job as there is scholarly disagreement. This article does need work. I am looking forward to working with both of you. My goal is to fairly reflect what the sources say from a NPOV, have some fun, and enjoy our scholarly debate (and maybe learn something). Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • PS. I agree putting more than three or four citations after a claim is too much. That will be the first thing I will do if it is OK with both of you.
Yes, please. More than three or four citations makes the text very hard to read for the general reader. As for the scholarly debate, when handled as you say NPOV it can only make the article more interesting for readers.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is an interesting topic and is far from being resolved by Biblical scholars. It is not our place to resolve this the debate but to fairly reflect it. A challenge, yes but doable. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect redirected back to here

I note that Ret Prof redirected Matthew's Gospel to Gospel of the Hebrews, I have redirected it back to Gospel of Matthew.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The three-revert rule

The 3RR rule states an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. Please let us work things out on the talk page. Lets not push one view but make sure the different scholarly positions are represented fairly. Also it is important to assume good faith. Cheers- Ret.Prof (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing a simple duplication

Hello Paine Ellesworth, thank you for this >When you study it a bit more, you'll find that the Aramaic original was believed by some to be written in the Syriac language, and while the Hebrew language derives from the same origins as the Syriac language, they are not one and the same language, only "similar". So it is not a duplication to include the link to the Hebrew Gospel and to the Aramaic primacy article in the same paragraph.< May I ask, firstly do you have a reference for that statement, and secondly how does one distinguish Aramaic/Hebrew in Ματθαιος μεν ουν Εβραιδι διαλεκτω τα λογια συνεταξατο, ηρμηνευσεν δ αυτα ως ην δυνατος εκαστος. or Porro ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Caesariensi bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus martyr studiosissime confecit.? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to disagree, but if you can win Paine over, you will have my support as a token of good faith. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My goodness, In ictu oculi, you are most certainly more of an expert than I am! That is why it is so perplexing that you cannot discern the differences between Hebrew and Syriac. It is well known that Hebrew and Syriac are both grounded in Aramaic. However... it is also well known that Hebrew is a tongue of the Jewish people. Syriac, on the other hand was more a language of Christians. Aside from the fact that both Syriac and Hebrew enjoy enough notability and differences that they each have their own Wikipedia article, all the references you may need can be found in those articles. Look at the alphabets— similar... but also different. Hebrew is NOT Syriac, and the Aramaic primacy spoken about in this article, the Gospel of Matthew, clearly refers to Syriac as the Aramaic primacy language. If you will reread the first sentence of this section of the link you so graciously provided, you will find that it was a translation from Syriac to English that started all the controversy regarding the "Aramaic original", as it is called. You will find the reference source for that here (citation #1). So it appears to me that it is not a duplication to include both links in this article and in that particular paragraph, isn't that so?  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • PS. It occurs to me that this is much like the case between the Italian and French languages. One would not exclude one of these in favor of the other and call them duplications just because there are so many commonly spelled words with the exact same meanings in these two languages, would one? (Of course, while those words look alike and have the same meanings, they are almost always pronounced very differently between those two tongues. This is one way that the Italian people show how different they are from French people, and vice versa. Vive la différence!)

Paine, I have updated my Position (see below) - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly a worthy position summary and an impressive array of reference sources. While this article is one of many that I like to keep an eye on, I have not made enough edits to really consider myself an "involved editor". I do like it, tho, when involved editors come to an arrangement where they improve this article in harmony with each other. I look forward to read the opinions of other "Gospel of Matthew" involved editors, to include editor In ictu oculi.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Paine, this is part of the problem: Johannes Ernst Grabe (1666-1711) is modern? Walter Richard Cassels and Arthur Lillie Sabine Baring-Gould are "scholarship"? This list barely contains four standard modern critical sources. Look out also for Kessinger Publishing Nabu Press BiblioBazaar publication "titles" and "dates". In ictu oculi (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Paine. My view would be that:
(1) majority/mainstream scholarship should be represented first.
(2) then if necessary "controversial" theories such as that of James R. Edwards and Edward Nicholson (librarian) which did not gain academic acceptance.
(3) Everything Ret Prof says above is OR.
(4) However Ret Prof cannot be reasoned with and makes further contribution here pointless. He talks the talk, but his page edits don't allow anything that doesn't conform to the fringe lost Hebrew/Aramaic original theory.
(5) The reason for removing the duplication "Aramaic Primacy or Hebrew Gospel" is that they are the same thing. As the quotations I gave show ebraidi in Greek or hebraicum in Latin stand for both Aramaic/Hebrew in the source texts; it's a modern distinction. Yes you are correct that parts of the Syrian Christian community consider their translation is the original, but again (a) it isn't in the sentence, (b) it would still be ebraidi / hebraicum at this period. Therefore "Aramaic Primacy or Hebrew Gospel" is a duplication, and I suggest you remove it.
(6) Find a new editor who knows about the subject and accepts majority/mainstream scholarship. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I balanced the Jeffrey J. Bütz 2010 ref. (which is bestseller pulp, but whatever) with the standard academic reference work on GH. Let us see.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Please stop the personal attacks and let us discuss before we edit. Explain what is pulp? What about references to support the position that it is pulp? - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Ret Prof.
Wikipedia, particularly articles related to finge/pop Bible/religion is full of old reprints by Kessinger Publishing Nabu Press BiblioBazaar misrepresenting old sources, and often 19th Century pulp/sensationalist sources such as Walter Richard Cassels and Arthur Lillie, two of yours, as "modern scholars" with misleading 2010 print dates. Scholarship has marched on in 120 years and these sources generally weren't mainstream when they were first printed. Anyone editing an encyclopedia article on a subject should have access to a library, or at least be able to discriminate between 19th Century and modern, fringe/mainstream. If not don't edit.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I most strongly disagree. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody is allowed to edit. Also some of the great works on this topic have been have been written in earlier times. Remember when doing history, sometimes older is better. And again your position is not supported by references. Your argument about pulp (below) fails for the same reason...no references. Also please take the time to read the sources you call pulp and you will see they have academic footnotes. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Allow me once more to address your note (5) above:
(1) Aramaic Primacy and Hebrew Gospel are not the same thing. If you truly believe that, then I look forward to your attempting to MERGE those two articles along with the article on the Syriac language. Good luck with that.
(2) Aramaic Primacy and Hebrew Gospel are not the same thing. If you truly believe that, then I look forward to your attempting to MERGE those two articles along with the article on the Syriac language. Good luck with that.
(3) Aramaic Primacy and Hebrew Gospel are not the same thing. If you truly believe that, then I look forward to your attempting to MERGE those two articles along with the article on the Syriac language. Good luck with that.
This can be repeated as many times as it takes to get through to you that the two links in question, "Aramaic Primacy" and "Hebrew Gospel" are definitely not the same thing.
As far as your point (4) is concerned, I'm beginning to think the same about you, i.e., that you cannot be reasoned with. However, unlike you, I am willing to assume good faith, both in your case and in the cases of all the other editors who like to edit this encyclopedia. It would be much appreciated if, in the future, you keep your bad faith feelings about other editors to yourself. I have no need nor desire to read them.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  10:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof. Pulp is sensationalist bestseller type material without academic footnotes. So please discuss:

  • Your text: This Hebrew Gospel [ref 1 Bütz] was translated into Greek, but the Greek translation was lost.

  • [1 your ref] ref "Since native Palestinian Jews were quite opposed to translating their scriptures into any language other than Hebrew, this supports the likelihood that the Nazarene gospel—most commonly known as the Gospel of the Hebrews—is the original version of Matthew before it was amended and translated into the Greek Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible." - Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings That Passed from James the Just, Inner Traditions / Bear & Company, 2010. p 174 Google Link ref
  • My Edit (reverted by yourself) Jeffrey J. Bütz in The Secret Legacy of Jesus (2010) argues that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the original version of Matthew before it was amended and translated into the Greek Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible.[ref 1 Bütz] Though critical scholarship generally holds that the seven surviving fragments to which the name is given were themselves originally written in Greek.[ref 2 Schneemelcher NTA]
  • i.e. [1 Your ref unchanged]: "Since native Palestinian Jews were quite opposed to translating their scriptures into any language other than Hebrew, this supports the likelihood that the Nazarene gospel—most commonly known as the Gospel of the Hebrews—is the original version of Matthew before it was amended and translated into the Greek Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible." - Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings That Passed from James the Just, Inner Traditions / Bear & Company, 2010. p 174 Google Link close ref)
  • new [2 ref (mainstream critical view)] ref Vielhauer, P. in Wilhelm Schneemelcher New Testament Apocrypha p176 ref
  • As the article stands, with your wording, it reads "This Hebrew Gospel was translated into Greek, but the Greek translation was lost.", as if this is a fact .... but apart from yourself, who exactly believes this? This is why you demanding "consensus" that Wikipedia represent as first or only view your view is so meaningless.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually what I believe is not important. Nor is it my wording. What is important is the following sources.Google linkGoogle Link
Proposed new wording:
This Hebrew Gospel [81] was translated into Greek. The Hebrew original was kept at the Library of Caesarea. The Nazarene Community transcribed a copy for Jerome which he used in his work.
In any event Happy St Patrick's Day - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC) PS I do not think we are far from consensus.


Ret Prof

Proposed new wording:
This Hebrew Gospel was translated into Greek.

Why would you want to put that sentence in the article? Can you provide an academic citation to support entering such a sentence? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Aramaic Primacy and Hebrew Gospel

Aramaic Primacy and the Hebrew Gospel are not the same thing. This kind of POV pushing makes you look a little dim-witted. Now don't get me wrong. I do not think you are dim-witted, but rather bad tempered, stubborn and unwilling to admit when you are wrong. I felt Paine was a little harsh with you above but I can feel his pain. How many times does one have to repeat something before it sinks in? I am also beginning to agree with him that you cannot be reasoned with. It would be greatly appreciated by all, if, in the future, you keep your bad faith feelings about other editors to yourself. We have no need nor desire to read them. Don't get me wrong. You are an intelligent and gifted editor. With a little work on your people skills you will be a great asset to Wikipedia. Truly wishing you the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If I should, then I do apologize. I am not fond of repeating myself, so when I must repeat myself, then I usually overdo it... frightfully. But first this guy makes edits here and in other related articles that are contrary to both WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN, then he reroutes the Hebrew Gospel REDIRECT from Gospel of the Hebrews, where it belongs, to Aramaic primacy, seemingly to drive home his point like a nail gunner. Then he blames you of doing what he's doing. It's hard, very difficult, to keep him on an equal footing with AGF. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
No apology needed. Paine, I think you are absolutely right. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


Paine.

>...the Hebrew Gospel REDIRECT from Gospel of the Hebrews, where it belongs.

Does the REDIRECT belong there? On what basis? It either belongs on the large area of Aramaic Primacy, or the sub-category Jewish-Christian Gospels but not on Gospel of the Hebrews which is a specific set of 7 quotes found in Jerome.

  • "Epiphanius speaks of a gospel used by the Ebionites, also called a Gospel of the Hebrews, which he considers a falsified and truncated ... and a Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazaraeans, Jewish-Christians of Beroea near Aleppo, Syria." International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley - 1995
  • "A third such work, given the title of the Gospel of the Hebrews, is usually linked with Egyptian Christianity, ... the Gospel of the Nazaraeans, for instance, may by another be claimed to come from the 'Hebrew' Gospel, and vice versa" F. Lapham An introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha 2003 In ictu oculi (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebraisti or Ebraisti?

Here is an example of Aramaic Primacy and a Hebrew Gospel being the same thing: "Papias stated, "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language and each interpreted them as best as he could'. In the New Testament and in the early Church era the Aramaic dialect of the Jews was called 'Hebrew'. Stephen Andrew Missick The Words of Jesus in the Original Aramaic 2006

I won't repeat it 3 times.

No one disputes that Ebraisti (meaning Hebrew) and Ebraisti (meaning Jewish-Aramaic in Hebrew script) can be distinguished, just as they are in Hebrew Bible passages where the text switches, or even as late as the Bar Khokba revolt: "even in the struggle for independence of Roman rule, communications were conducted in Greek as well as Aramaic (in the first bundle of letters were six in Aramaic, two in Greek, one in Hebrew; the second set of documents consisted of four deeds in Hebrew, two in Aramaic, and fifteen papyri in Greek)." Richard A. Horsley Archaeology, history, and society in Galilee: the social context of Jesus and the rabbis Trinity Press International, 1996. In the same way Attic, Ionic, Aeolic and Doric, and also koine can be distinguished, but at the same time were all "Greek" to non-native Greeks.

The point is that the Aramaic Primacy article (following the above example, 2006 etc.) does not itself distinguish between "Aramaic Primacy" and "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language".

So back to the duplication:

Whichever it is, it needs a citation. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is the intention? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Erhman43 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Brown 210 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_Matthew/Archive_3&oldid=1142535531"