Talk:Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic)

/wip

Gospel of the Hebrews

It is generally agreed that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel (which was sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews) is not the same as the Syncretistic Gospel of the Hebrews. First the syncretistic gospel was composed in Greek. Futhermore it presents traditions of Jesus' preexistence, his coming into the world, a mighty Power in Heaven named Michael and the Power which came into the world called Mary (which had Christ in it's womb for only seven months). These accounts of Jesus' preexistence etc. are abbreviated mythological narratives. They presuppose a myth of the descent of divine Wisdom, embodying herself definitively in a representative of the human race for the revelation and redemption of humankind. Such a myth was widespread in the Greco-Roman world and and underlies many of the earliest christological formulations of believers in Jesus.

The title seems to indicate it was the gospel of predominately Greek-speaking Jewish Christians as opposed to Hebrew Christians. The Syncretistic Gospel of the Hebrews has no connection with other Jewish-Christian gospels and displays no kinship with Matthew. It is instructive to note that most of the extant fragments come from quotations in the writings of persons who lived in Alexandria, Egypt as opposed to Jerusalem. Finally it was composed long after the time of Matthew. (See the Syncretistic Gospel of the Hebrews) - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The myth of feminine Divine Wisdom (Sofia) present at the creation of the world is hardly unique to the Greco-Roman traditions. The conception of Wisdom found in the GH (feminine) is also found in, and likely derived from, Proverbs, and it is known in Rabbinic Judaism as God's Torah (also feminine). Ignocrates (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In what sense is a gospel composed in (or translated into) Greek for Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jewish-Christians "syncretistic", other than in the OR sense that a gospel composed in Hebrew for Hebrew-speaking Judean Jewish-Christians is "authentic"? Ignocrates (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course from our past discussions you know I agree with you. Yet there are numerous sources that state the aforementioned. see Cameron p 83 and Cameron p 84 - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw that, but I appears that most or all of them are just quoting Cameron, i.e. one man's opinion. In any case, it is important to explain the manner in which it is syncretistic. Otherwise, it sounds like no more than an off-the-cuff remark by Cameron. Btw, please sign your posts. Ignocrates (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You are being kind when you say "off the cuff". The scholarship is weak (I suspect dishonest) yet there are many sources that put forward this point of view. This syncretistic thinking has its roots in Deutsch Christian scholarship which bordered on antisemitism. The Deutsche Christen movement produced the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, (see p 108) and is (see Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. p 8) still the standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament found in theological libraries and used by students all over the world as if it were nothing but a standard work of reference. See syncretistic sources - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge tag restored

When you've had a chorus of editors objecting to WP:FORK, WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:DUPLICATION issues, recreating an article, holding a merge discussion without notifying any of the previous editors has no value. I have restored the merge tag, though an AfD redelete would be more appropriate. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, the proposal was open for two months. You had plenty of time to comment. Ignocrates (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Investigative discussions

There is a discussion on the Gospel of the Hebrews talk page (ARCHIVED) about whether to merge/partially merge this page into that article, leave this article as is, or discuss the deletion of this page or parts of it. Feel free to comment on this issue. – Paine (Climax!)  07:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That discussion has been closed/archived, and there is a discussion about a merge of this article with Hebrew Gospel hypothesis on this talk page: Talk:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis#Merge discussion. – Paine (Climax!)  01:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A discussion to delete is taking place here. – Paine (Climax!)  08:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Credible academic non-OR non-POV non-duplicate content

Since the merge discussion is likely to close soon with a consensus to merge, it's just as well if we get started on identifying material that is worth keeping. Ignocrates (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The immediate focus is on the GH article, so I think we should begin by identifying any material that belongs in that article and copy/paste it to the GH talk page. Meanwhile, we can eliminate unsourced and duplicate content, and then take a look at what is left. Ignocrates (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to list all the article sections here and we can make notes and comments within each section about how to handle the material. I don't want to get too far ahead of the merge discussion, but I don't see any harm in doing this for now:

Lead Section

The name Gospel of the Hebrews and the description of this gospel that follows "This non-canonical gospel gives an account of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. It details his story from the events of his baptism to his resurrection" is clearly duplicate content to the GH article. Therefore, it should be stripped out. The rest of the lead section, which is about a hypothetical Hebrew gospel, can stay for now. Ignocrates (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Done. Ignocrates (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the part you mentioned should be taken out, however there has to be something in the Lede that

1. beyond any doubt shows why the subject of the article is notable,
2. includes something about why the "(Aramaic)" disambiguator is in the title of the article, and
3. what precisely makes this subject different from other similar subjects like Gospel of the Hebrews.

At the very least, some brief text on these three items should be included in the Lede section and then explained in detail down in the Body. – Paine (Climax!)  22:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Paine, the statement in the lead "many now argue that there was a gospel written in Hebrew behind the canonical Gospels" is OR. "Many now argue" should be "A small minority of scholars have argued". PiCo is addressing some of these concerns in the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis article. My expectation is that some of the content of this article will be merged there, and then this article will be AfD'd. Therefore, there is no reason to spend more time here, other than to identify relevant content and modern sources that can be merged into the HGh article. Ignocrates (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So PiCo has decided not to rewrite this article, then? (Please forgive me – I've been busy and have not kept up with all the discussion.) – Paine (Climax!)  01:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

See the "Call to wrap up" section below. Ignocrates (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Biblical Criticism

The first sentence appears to be OR and should go. The second sentence could plausibly belong to the Maurice Casey reference, but it needs to be checked. The critical conclusion is as follows: "Today many scholars argue that the Synoptic gospels were based on such a source composed in a Hebrew dialect (ref)." Maurice Casey is not many scholars, so the sentence would need to be reworded as "Scholar Maurice Casey argues that the Synoptic gospels were based on such a source composed in a Hebrew dialect (ref)". Ignocrates (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I should have also pointed out that Maurice Casey is a first-rate source. I will try to pick up his 2010 book through inter-library loan, otherwise I suppose I will have to buy a copy. Ignocrates (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned up the first paragraph, which was an OR description of source criticism. Ignocrates (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical Evidence

This section could be saved. The long quotation of Jerome should be summarized with the quotation subordinated to a reference. The sources should be evaluated and content checked against the sources. Otherwise, it seems ok to me. There's nothing here that explicitly duplicates the GH (or if it does, that material should be stripped out of the GH article). Ignocrates (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I separated the content into quotations of individual Church Fathers. Again, these could be summarized, combined with the primary references, and subordinated as inline references within reliable secondary sources. This material could be combined with some of the other quotations and attributions to Church Fathers that need the same cleanup. Some of the secondary sources appear to be weak, but I'm not going to deal with that now. Ignocrates (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Archeological Evidence

This section depends entirely on the Oskar Skarsaune reference, which is a very good source. I can't be sure how much of this content summarizes Oskar and how much is OR until I go through the book tonight with a fine-tooth comb. In any case, there doesn't appear to be anything here that duplicates the GH. Ignocrates (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I carefully read through the chapter in Skarsaune that describes these possibly Jewish-Christian gospels (pp.258-265). Skarsaune explicitly states that the reference to "harlots and flute-girls" was found in the Gospel of the Nazoraeans (p.263), not the GH. In fact, the reference given does not support any of the content, which is nothing but OR and POV pushing. Think about it - how would fragments of Greek texts found in Egypt, even if they were Jewish-Christian in origin, lend support to a hypothetical gospel composed in Hebrew. The whole section is useless crap and I am deleting it. Ignocrates (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Composition

The composition section refers back to a parent article which has been deleted by redirect. The section is full of OR and relies on primary sources and some very weak secondary sources. As an example, Edwards is one of the strongest sources. There is nothing in here that duplicates content in the GH. Ignocrates (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the cited sources states that we "know" Matthew wrote his gospel eight years after the ascension. That is a pious fiction. Ignocrates (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed OR about what the Church Fathers believed. The quotations from Chrysostom and Jerome might be saved along with the primary references, if they can be summarized and then subordinated into reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, this section is not worth spending more time on. Ignocrates (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancies

This whole section is full of OR and POV. The quotation of Jerome might be worth saving, along with the primary source. Again, all this needs to be accurately summarized and subordinated into a reliable secondary source. The end reference, which is a long OR commentary about what all scholars now believe, must go. I will save the statement attributed to Maurice Casey. It needs to be fact-checked for accuracy. Ignocrates (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Evaluating the remaining material, Jerome's whole point in this section is that the Gospel of the Nazoraeans is not the same as the synoptic Gospel of Matthew. This material might be copied to the GN talk page to incorporate later, but it has nothing to do with the GH or a hypothetical Hebrew gospel of Matthew. Ignocrates (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I copied this material to the GN talk page. This is the only content that is potentially usable for the GN article. Ignocrates (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Language of the Hebrew Gospel

This is a long section and I'm going to create sub-sections to keep track of everything:

Intro

The intro is probably an OR history lesson in semitic languages that can be reduced to a single sentence. Ignocrates (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Aramaic

The Aramaic subsection has four paragraphs. The first paragraph is a fluff intro about the Aramaic language and the DSS. Nothing there. The second and fourth paragraphs are about Aramaic words in Mark. This has nothing to do with a hypothetical Hebrew gospel. The content is superfluous. Ignocrates (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I found Maurice Casey's analysis of the pericope in Luke comparing Herod to a fox quite interesting. He sees an Aramaic origin in this pericope and thinks the original word was jackal. This may be worth keeping for a different article on source criticism. However, it has nothing to do with a hypothetical Hebrew gospel. Ignocrates (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew

This subsection is completely dependent on one source - Edwards. Most of it appears to be rambling OR sophistry. The apparent conclusion is that the Jews spoke Hebrew, so one would expect to see a gospel composed in Hebrew, i.e. this is a commentary about nothing. There is nothing worth keeping here. Ignocrates (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerome

The Jerome history lesson is mostly OR commentary. Jerome was obviously writing about the GN, but this is made to seem like part of a narrative about an unknown Hebrew gospel. There is nothing worth keeping here. Ignocrates (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That will have to do for this session. Ignocrates (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Date of Gospel

Again we have the gnosis that Matthew composed his gospel 8 years after the ascension of Jesus. The last paragraph is about scholars establishing Markan priority, and irrelevant to a hypothetical Hebrew text. These should go. Ignocrates (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I left a few sourced summary statements attributed to early Church Fathers. All of them summarize the account of Papias, and they might be combined with material from the History section. None of this is related to the GH article. Ignocrates (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern Scholarly Debate

This is a long section, so I have to break it up into multiple sub-sections and address each one of these in turn:

Two-source hypothesis

This section is a review of the two-source hypothesis, which argues for Markan priority, and Pierson Parker's hypothesis about a proto-Luke. The first hypothesis is irrelevant to the topic and the second is essentially a dead hypothesis. There is nothing of value here. Ignocrates (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Arguments against the Hebrew Gospel

There might be something useful here for an article on a hypothetical Hebrew Matthew, and the sources are ok, so I kept this section intact for now. There is nothing useful here to merge into the GH. Ignocrates (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Rejection of the historical method

There might be something useful here for an article on a hypothetical Hebrew Matthew, and the sources are ok, so I kept this section intact for now. There is nothing useful here to merge into the GH. Ignocrates (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Hebrew sentiment

This section and the next two sections are the heart of Ret.Prof's conspiracy theory about an original Hebrew Matthew. This section depends heavily on Edwards, who I consider to be a weak source (but not irrelevant). However, Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey are also given as sources. It's impossible to sort out the content and determine who said what without going through the source documents with a fine-tooth comb. Consequently, I can't make a call on how much of this material is OR. There is nothing useful in any of these last three subsections to merge into the GH. Keep for now pending a more thorough evaluation. Ignocrates (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No scholarly consensus

The first paragraph in this subsection depends on an 1879 source that I consider irrelevant. So, I am removing that content.

The second paragraph uses Oskar Skarsaune as a source. It accurately states that Schmidt (1998), against a near-consensus, proposed that there was originally only one gospel written in Aramaic c. 100 AD (not Hebrew). This has, unsurprisingly, been called into question by even more recent scholarship. Skarsaune pp.245-246 are worth reading. He makes a great point that "If we have little confidence in the traditional identification of the three Jewish Gospels (i.e. Nazoraeans, Ebionites, and Hebrews), then perhaps we should work with the sources we actually have: (1) the Jewish Gospel known to Origen, (2) the Jewish Gospel known to Epiphanius, and (3) the Jewish Gospel known to Jerome." This is the approach we took rewriting the GE article, and it is finally being done for the GH article. Ignocrates (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent scholarship

This section has a lot of rambling OR conclusions and depends entirely on Butz, who I consider to be an extremely weak source bordering on irrelevance. I'm going to spare everyone else the pain of going through it and eliminate it. There is nothing here that is useful for the GH article. Ignocrates (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is going to take more time to audit than I can spend today. Ignocrates (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Gospel Composition Chart

This chart is a duplicate of the chart in the GH article. The GH chart was removed because it was full of OR and unsourced content. The same reasoning applies here, so it should go. I'm going to wait on this for an opinion from at least one more person. If we remove it, we should also take care to remove the references that support the table. Ignocrates (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I did everyone a favor and deleted the chart for reasons discussed during the proposal to merge. Ignocrates (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Parlipomena

I'm not sure where to go with this list of quotations. There is nothing obviously wrong with them, and someone may be able to use them later. Mostly, they just beat to death the received testimony that Matthew composed a gospel in Hebrew. Naturally, the received tradition of the Church Fathers was passed along and repeated. In any case, there is nothing useful here for a merge to the GH. Ignocrates (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oxyrhynchus Fragments

These Greek fragments are the details from the Archeology section. The same problem applies here. The fragments may be interesting in their own right, but they have nothing to do with a hypothetical Hebrew gospel. They also have nothing to do with the GH. I'm going to do everyone a favor and send them to the same place as the Archeology section. Ignocrates (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That section was nothing but a list of sayings without attribution. It wouldn't have been useful in any other article for that reason. Ignocrates (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference List

This is a working list of the article sections. Ignocrates (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite

I take it the subject of this article is a possible Aramaic original behind the Gospel of Matthew. I can write that article, but will start from the beginning, using this article's references where they are useful. PiCo (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a noble goal. However, I expect you will end up experiencing the same outcome for the same reasons. Ignocrates (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The more I look into the subject, the less I'm convinced that an article is needed. This and related articles all seem to be aspects of a POV fork from Jewish-Christian gospels and Gospel of Matthew.PiCo (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with merging this material into the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis rather than creating a stand-alone article. The sources in the HGH article are very old with the exception of Edwards. If more modern sources can be used from this article (e.g., Maurice Casey, Bart Ehrman, Oskar Skarsaune) we should include them to improve the HGH article. If we decide to go that route, I'm going to submit this article for an AfD after you are satisfied that all the useful material has been merged. Ignocrates (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Call to wrap up

We need to finish up whatever we intend to do with the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis article and decide on the ultimate fate of the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article. Accordingly, I started a discussion on the Talk:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis#AfD or stub page to wrap this up. Please respond there to keep the discussion in one place. Ignocrates (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a good thing the bloody thing is lost, otherwise we wouldn't be able to say so much about it, would we? Yes, please wrap it up. I'm tired of it - the more I write, the less there seems to write about. PiCo (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Good. Do you see any point in leaving this article as a stub? Otherwise, I'm going to submit it for an AfD. Ignocrates (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, having done a fair bit of reading while trying to write about this subject, the Aramaic Matthew idea is extremely fringe, so much so that I doubt it merits an article in its own right. I think the article Gospel of Matthew does discuss the language behind the gospel in a paragraph, and that's really about all that needs to be said. Yes, I think it's time for AfD. PiCo (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I will wait a few more days for additional comments and then pull the trigger. Ignocrates (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Since we are all in agreement that the usable content has been merged into other articles or pasted on article talk pages, I have taken off the merge tags. I am now going to proceed with a Proposal for Deletion, which can be used for uncontroversial deletions. I see this as a good alternative between a redirect and a formal AfD. Ignocrates (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

PROD tag applied. Assuming there are no objections, the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article will be deleted by an admin after seven days. Ignocrates (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

An endorsement tag has also been applied. – Paine (Climax!)  08:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The PROD tag was removed, so this method of deletion is no longer an option. Now what? I suggest the discussion be restarted at Talk:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, since any redirect is likely to point to that article. I am now fine with a redirect because we at least tried to remove this stubbified material in an appropriate way. I won't be participating in that discussion, so good luck. Ignocrates (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this needs to be wrapped up. I'm going to blank the article and redirect it to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis per the consensus to merge on that page. That will keep all of these so-called Authentic Matthew versions pointed to the same place. Ignocrates (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)