Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:52, 18 October 2013 editDarylgolden (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,609 edits Your submission at Articles for creation (AFCH)← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:39, 3 February 2014 edit undoRet.Prof (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,357 edits David your sources are reliable. In addition the following support your position.Next edit →
Line 182:		Line 182:
	*You can also get .		*You can also get .
	:Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! <small>''Have a nice day!''</small> ] (]) 07:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc decline--></div>		:Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! <small>''Have a nice day!''</small> ] (]) 07:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc decline--></div>
			==Reliable Sources==
			David your sources are reliable. In addition the following support your position. Cheers - ] (]) 00:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

			*

			*

			*

			*

			*

			*

			*

			*

			*

			*

			*

			*

			=The New scholarship=

			Taken from
			*'''''Author and Setting''''' The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together the sayings in Matthew the Hebrew dialect and each one translated them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302)


			Taken from
			*We encounter a striking and incontestable fact. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship and composition of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was the first written, that it was written in the Hebrew language...the widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. (quote from p 602)


			Taken from
			*And this is what he says about Matthew: “And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted them to the best of his ability.
			*This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101)


			Taken from
			*This is corroborated in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.7 and 14, where Eusebius says that Papias confessed to having received the words of the apostles from their followers. Of course, if John the Elder was in fact John the Apostle — although this seems unlikely — then Papias's testimony comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead. It is in any case very early, within living memory of the apostolic age. Eusebius records Papias's relevant testimony: “Matthew organized the oracles (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he was able.”8 This testimony does not specifically identify the Hebrew work of Matthew as the ''Hebrew Gospel'', but it is reasonable to equate the two.9 Papias's primary intent seems to have been to emphasize the Hebrew composition of the work. (quote from p 3)
			*The ''Hebrew Gospel'' is therefore identified by name in at least two dozen patristic sources. Combined, there are some 75 different attestations to the ''Hebrew Gospel'' in ancient Christianity. ,
			*Twelve fathers attribute the ''Hebrew Gospel'' to the apostle Matthew.
			*Ascription of the ''Hebrew Gospel'' to the apostle Matthew is very widespread in the fathers. No father attributes it to anyone other than Matthew


			Taken from
			*Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86)
			*It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew. It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87)

			It is important to note that these sources are NOT saying that "Matthew's collection sayings in a Hebrew dialect" and the ] are the same work. Indeed there is clear evidence that "Matthew's Hebrew Gospel" was NOT translated into what we call the ]. Casey after studying composite authorship in the period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The is anonymous and is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's ''Hebrew Gospel'' was the . Hence the Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a . Now, it has to be admitted that not everyone agrees. There are still some Christian scholars who believe that the ] is a direct translation of Matthew's ''Hebrew Gospel''. On the other extreme are those who believe the ] is a Christian deception as it had nothing to do with Matthew because the ''Hebrew Gospel'' spoken of by Papias never existed. We must compose on an article written from a NPOV.

			'''''However, at Misplaced Pages, the material in "support" of Papias is always deleted.''' I believe this is a breach of NPOV. Also, I do not believe that NPOV can be overruled by consensus.'' However, I am aware how unsettling many editors find the new scholarship of the past five years and realize we must go slowly while still trying to keep Misplaced Pages up-to-date. - ] (]) 00:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:39, 3 February 2014

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Davidbena! I have been editing Misplaced Pages for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Misplaced Pages! If you have any questions check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 02:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Davidbena! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yemenite Jewish Customs

Just so you know, your article was posted to "Davidbena:Yemenite Jewish Customs" which had it out in the regular article space. Since your article is nowhere near ready for the main encyclopedia, I've moved it to a sandbox under your user page. You can now find the article at User:Davidbena/Yemenite Jewish Customs. Please keep it there until it's ready for the main article space. Thanks and if you have any questions about the hows and whys of me doing this, you can message me at my talk page which you can find a link for in my signature. Dismas| 10:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I was planning on editing the article and adding much more when time permits. As time goes on, the article will improve vastly. Davidbena (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:Help desk.
Message added Dismas. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your posting on my talk page

I don't know why you posted your entire article to my talk page but please don't do it again. Posting entire articles to someone else's talk page is not something we do around here. If you have a question about the article that you would like me to respond to, just provide a link to the article and ask the question. That said, is there something I can help you with? Dismas| 02:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, since I am on a self-imposed temporary restriction (1RR) for two weeks, and can only publish one time in 24 hours, I would like to publish this article of mine on Misplaced Pages. I suppose it will need touching-up a little. Since you are involved in approving or disapproving of new Misplaced Pages articles, what do you think? Can I post it? Davidbena (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not accurate. You are free to edit as much as you wish with the restriction that you can only revert one time in 24 hours on any given article. See the AN/I page for what I hope is a sufficiently clear example of a 1RR editing restriction. Ignocrates (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates. I'm not sure what you mean by the word "revert." Reversion can mean "returning to the previous topic." In this case, doesn't it mean to go back over an article already published on Misplaced Pages and suggest how that article can be improved? Davidbena (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It means returning to a previous edit on the same article, see the "Bob likes Bananas" example on AN/I. The WP:3RR page may also be helpful to explain reversions to previous edits. All editors have a maximum 3RR editing restriction in a 24 hour period on any given article. Ignocrates (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: Since I have one pending article on my "Sandbox," I tried to open-up a second "Sandbox" page to write this new article, but I could not open it. What must I do the next time? Davidbena (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You have only one sandbox per user, but you are free to make multiple subpages to your sandbox, e.g. User:Davidbena/sandbox/subpage01 where "subpage01" can be any name you wish. Ignocrates (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I might be "involved in approving or disapproving of new Misplaced Pages articles". I do not hold any sort of official or unofficial position like that. What may have caused you to think that was the fact that I moved your article from the main article space to your user subpage here. I did that solely because the article was and is not ready to be posted to the main article space. The article, as far as I understand it, seems to be filled with original research. It also lacks a lead section explaining what is being written about and the formatting is not standard. You might get better feedback if you go through the articles for creation process. I'd like to help but I can't for a couple reasons, A) I know nothing of the subject that you write about, and B) I don't have the time between work, school, and home. Best of luck to you, Dismas| 04:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Dismas, I can assure you that I will add more references showing reliable, published "secondary sources" to the article currently in my Sandbox. It is still a rough-draft. With that said, I have tried to be faithful, as much as humanly possible, to the guideline in WP:OR which states: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." What I have done so far (excluding my omission of additional reference notes) and what I shall do in the future meets these qualifications. I will still read more on how to improve an article. Davidbena (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If I may add one more thing before I bug out of here, please read over the WP:Manual of Style. It has much of the information for what is required to make an acceptable article on Misplaced Pages. I recommend not going to WP:AFC until you have done your best to make sure your new article conforms to MoS guidelines and is properly sourced per WP:RS. Otherwise, they will just reject the article. Ignocrates (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ignocrates. I will read the suggested Manual of Style. Davidbena (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This kitten is for having a great attitude and being willing to learn about the sometimes-strange ways that Misplaced Pages works. I think you are going to be a fine editor who will bring a fresh point of view to Misplaced Pages.

Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hooray! You created your Teahouse profile!

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Misplaced Pages Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Misplaced Pages. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Misplaced Pages! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. Happy Editing!~ Anastasia (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Dismas's talk page.
Message added 11:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dismas| 11:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

Your sandbox draft User:Davidbena/sandbox/Yemenite Ketubba gives an impression that it is copied from material already published elsewhere, such as http://www.scribd.com/doc/95809449/The-Yemenite-Ketubba-Abridged and http://www.globalyeshiva.com/profiles/blogs/the-yemenite-ketubbah-marriage. It is not clear that the copyright in that content has been released to Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages has a very strict policy regarding copyright violation, even on user pages. In any case it is pointless to add to Misplaced Pages a direct copy of material which is already published. The wording of some of the footnotes in the draft is in the first person, and this is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. - You do need to understand how Misplaced Pages works before you try to post articles, even draft ones. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is my article, which was published in the "Jubilee Edition" of Professor Yosef Tobi, Haifa University. I give my permission to have it published here, on Misplaced Pages. As for the wording in some of the footnotes, I will be willing to re-edit its content. Davidbena (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The process for releasing copyright is given at WP:Donating copyrighted material; it is not sufficient just to mention it here on your user talk page. But see my previous comment; Misplaced Pages is not here to provide a repository for material previously published elsewhere. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the article has been revised. It is my article and there is room for it on Misplaced Pages (IMHO). As for the two URL links that you provided, one is a site for uploading PDF files to be seen by others internationally and downloaded. The other is a web-site of religious Orthodox Jews, of which I am a member. Members are free to upload material and discuss different issues. Anyway, I can make more revisions in the text if necessary to make it applicable for insertion in the Misplaced Pages online Encyclopedia. I will read the copyright link that you have given, and do whatever is required of me. Sincerely, Davidbena (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

David, I have just now added to my article on "globalyeshiva.com" the legal text: "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." As for the other website, "scribd.com," I have deleted my article from that venue (web-site). Is it still necessary to receive a written consent from the publishers of the "Jubilee Edition" of Professor emeritus Yosef Tobi from Haifa University (Israel) and to have them e-mail their consent to Misplaced Pages? Also, I will add {{OTRS pending}} to the Talk page of "Yemenite Ketubba." Davidbena (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with your directives, I have duly changed the wording of footnotes # 7 and 9 so that they are no longer in the first person. Davidbena (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Andrewman327's talk page.
Message added 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Andrew 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong address for AFC move

You tried to move your draft to User:Articles for creation/Yemenite Jewish customs of the Baladi-rite. That made it a user subpage for the user User:Articles for creation, who (of course) doesn't exist. I assume that you intended to make it a user subpage for your account, so that's where I've moved it. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I'm still quite unfamiliar with the process. I received a notification saying that it could not stay where I had initially put it, and, so, without really knowing what to do, I moved it to "User." Thanks for assisting me here. I appreciate it! Davidbena (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please only have one draft at a time

Hello, you currently have drafts at

Please do not have multiple copies of one article, simply do all your drafting for the topic on one page. If you need to look "back in time" at an earlier draft, use the History tab at the top of the page. So there is no need to "preserve" old drafts on multiple pages, since all old versions can be viewed by you.

Please choose one draft, and mark any extra pages by pasting at the top of the page the code {{db-author}}, meaning that you want the extra page deleted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

David Welcome to Wiki, Your Patience and attitude is great.

Sorry you have been bit so hard by some of the editors. Some have abused you and clearly violated wikis rule of conduct. It is unfortunate that many who do this know better. Below is a post by a self described New Age editor with a bias against you. I verbally censured him on his talk page and you could bring his intolerant comments to an administrator for guidance on how to address his behavior. I am somewhat new also but know his stereotype is not tolerated on Wiki.

For a Bible thumper it may be very difficult to understand that the Bible is not wholly and objectively true. But as long as he keeps his faith in the infallibility of the Bible completely separate from his Misplaced Pages activities, he could be a good editor. Some years ago I did not know that one has to use reliable sources in order to edit Misplaced Pages, but when asked to consider it, I understood this is required from everybody and I complied with this request. For me, the decision was between complying and continuing to edit and quitting in protest; I was not willing to create problems through my edits. This does not imply that I lost faith in the truth of my contributions, but I have understood that they are required to be encyclopedically verifiable. And verifiable means having reliable sources.

Re: Newbie

Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page. Message added 18:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC).

Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page. Message added 00:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC).

Welcome to the Teahouse!

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Misplaced Pages Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Misplaced Pages. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

from: PRFEDA —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Incense offering

Hi David, I had a look at your recent contributions and see User:Davidbena/draft article on Holy Incense. Please be aware that the Talmud's additional comments on holy incense in the Hebrew Bible are already part of a section at incense offering (just as there is an article at holy anointing oil). We don't have break-out WP:FORK articles for the Talmud's view on Hebrew Bible subjects. Also I would note that the draft article contains way to many WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, In ictu oculi. This, for me, is a scholarly exercise. If it is rejected on Misplaced Pages, I will publish it elsewhere. Besides, I hope to bring down many new references that are not part of the other two articles. Incense offering does not seem to be very exhaustive, and I felt that I could produce a better article, giving the best up-to-date Jewish viewpoint on this topic. Also, the title selected by me is more direct and to the point; easier to find on a search engine. In creating this article, rather than modifying an existing one, I can avoid being attacked by the author of the first. Of course, there is still room for improvement. Since I am fluent in Hebrew, I hope to utilize these skills and convey greater knowledge to our readers. Davidbena (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: I will have no difficulty replacing most Primary Sources with a Secondary Source which mentions the Primary Source. Is it better to work that way, since these primary sources are generally known and agreed upon by all? Most people (at least, those that I know) prefer looking at the Primary Source in Jewish learning, followed by a Secondary Source? Your advice, please. Davidbena (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello David, when writing Misplaced Pages articles, it is far better to use a secondary source than a primary source. Unlike in academic writing, any form of original research is prohibited on Misplaced Pages. Instead, Misplaced Pages combines the available information and restates it in an encyclopedic manner. Primary Sources can be used, but their contents must be written about directly, they cannot be explained. Any explanation should come from secondary sources. I haven't examined any of the articles in question, so this is just a general observation. On another note, you should probably move this discussion to your talk page, as it's currently on your user page. I replied to your message on my talk page as well. Ryan Vesey 01:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. I will try to do exactly what you say, as much as that is feasible, considering the difficult topic at hand. I will be going to the Hebrew University Library (Jerusalem) this coming Sunday, after Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), G-d willing. Davidbena (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Yemenite Ketubba (September 20)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Yemenite Ketubba.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! WJ (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Holy Incense

Dear Davidbena:

I see that you have been putting a lot of work into the above article. Another editor has left some review notes at the top of the article. I started to review the article, but had trouble figuring out at first what it was about. The suggestions about making the title more specific and adding a little general summary at the top should be easy to do. If you decide on a new specific title and need help moving the article, let me know. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Anne. I have already suggested a new title, and I have also added a short introduction. You can look at the article again, User:Davidbena/draft article on Holy Incense Davidbena (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Holy Incense (September 26)

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Holy Incense.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! Anup Mehra 06:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Re. Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anupmehra's talk page.

Holy Incense

Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Anne Delong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Yemenite Ketubba (October 18)

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Yemenite Ketubba.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! Have a nice day! Darylgolden (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

David your sources are reliable. In addition the following support your position. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Baring-gould, 1874 p. 122

Nicholson 1879 p 26

Morison, 1902 p xxxvi

Schoemaker 1902 p 199

Barnes, 1905 p 361

Cassels, 1905 p 420

Paralipomena by Pick 1908

Schonfield, 1937 p 246

Andrews, 1962 p 46

Harrison, 1971 p 152

Pritz 1988 p 83

Bütz 2009 p 176

The New scholarship

Taken from David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303

Author and Setting The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together the sayings in Matthew the Hebrew dialect and each one translated them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302)

Taken from William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed)' The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602

We encounter a striking and incontestable fact. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship and composition of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was the first written, that it was written in the Hebrew language...the widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. (quote from p 602)

Taken from Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101

And this is what he says about Matthew: “And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted them to the best of his ability.
This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101)

Taken from James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3

This is corroborated in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.7 and 14, where Eusebius says that Papias confessed to having received the words of the apostles from their followers. Of course, if John the Elder was in fact John the Apostle — although this seems unlikely — then Papias's testimony comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead. It is in any case very early, within living memory of the apostolic age. Eusebius records Papias's relevant testimony: “Matthew organized the oracles (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he was able.”8 This testimony does not specifically identify the Hebrew work of Matthew as the Hebrew Gospel, but it is reasonable to equate the two.9 Papias's primary intent seems to have been to emphasize the Hebrew composition of the work. (quote from p 3)
The Hebrew Gospel is therefore identified by name in at least two dozen patristic sources. Combined, there are some 75 different attestations to the Hebrew Gospel in ancient Christianity. p 259,
Twelve fathers attribute the Hebrew Gospel to the apostle Matthew. p 102
Ascription of the Hebrew Gospel to the apostle Matthew is very widespread in the fathers. No father attributes it to anyone other than Matthew p 117

Taken from Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88

Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86)
It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew. It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87)

It is important to note that these sources are NOT saying that "Matthew's collection sayings in a Hebrew dialect" and the Gospel of Matthew are the same work. Indeed there is clear evidence that "Matthew's Hebrew Gospel" was NOT translated into what we call the Gospel of Matthew. Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous and is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now, it has to be admitted that not everyone agrees. There are still some Christian scholars who believe that the Gospel of Matthew is a direct translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. On the other extreme are those who believe the Gospel of Matthew is a Christian deception as it had nothing to do with Matthew because the Hebrew Gospel spoken of by Papias never existed. We must compose on an article written from a NPOV.

However, at Misplaced Pages, the material in "support" of Papias is always deleted. I believe this is a breach of NPOV. Also, I do not believe that NPOV can be overruled by consensus. However, I am aware how unsettling many editors find the new scholarship of the past five years and realize we must go slowly while still trying to keep Misplaced Pages up-to-date. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)