Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:42, 3 February 2014

'Misplaced Pages does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Misplaced Pages is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil. If you want to accuse me of a Christian bias:

Please read this.

At Misplaced Pages we must all try to edit from a NPOV. On occasion my Faith has been called into question. Indeed some have honestly wondered how I can write what I have about the Historical Jesus and still be a Christian. The answer is simple, my relationship with God never had anything to do with history or archeology. Let me explain... Christianity not relevant in our modern world As a young litigation lawyer, I believed in God, but felt that Christianity was no longer relevant in our modern world. Jesus' teachings such as "Thou shalt not kill" "Love your enemy" "You can not serve both God and Money" were just not relevant in these modern times. I believed in the death penalty, war, material wealth. I did unto others before they did unto me. I did not get angry, I got even...and a bit! Spiritual awakening Then, a series of events made me reconsider my beliefs and come to the conclusion that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was still relevant today. I read a great deal about people who still believed in the Gospel, including Mahatma Gandhi, Dr Martin Luther King Jr., etc., etc. This led to a Spiritual awaking that forever changed my life. South Africa It was here, working for Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela that my faith was put to the test. Could love and non violence really bring down the Apartheid government? We were out-gunned, out-matched in every way. What the Archbishop was preaching made no earthly sense. Yet before my eyes I witnessed this racist government fall. As I stepped out in faith on a daily basis, I experienced God in a real way. In my heart I came to believe that the Gospel of Christ was the most powerful force in the Universe. The Roman Empire never stood a chance. Nor did the British Empire in India, or, for that matter, Segregation in the South. Twelve Step Program Several years later I was approached by a group who wanted to use my Church. They explained to me that their program was basic Christianity without many of the offensive "buzz words" that had been added over the years. Confessing that we were miserable sinners became "We admitted we were powerless over alcohol or drugs etc -- that our lives had become unmanageable." Faith was changed to "Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity." Accepting Jesus Christ as our Personal Saviour became "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him." Accepting that we had all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God was changed to "Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves." Making our confession was reworded to "Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs." Repentance became "Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character." Bin saved became "Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings." "Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all." "Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others." Continued confession became "Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it." "Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out." Born Again & Witnessing became "Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to others, and to practice these principles in all our affairs." This simplified "Gospel" has transformed the lives of millions. It is truly powerful regardless of the packaging. My faith finds form in Anglicanism because of the freedom from "strict dogma", but I have seen the power of Christ in all denominations. Walking with Christ for these many, many years has given me a faith that allows me to edit Misplaced Pages from a NPOV. The reason is that my faith is not based on the "historical evidence" that has survived to 2014 but rather it is based upon my experience over a very very long time...and now to have a Pope whose focus is love, forgiveness and caring for those in need rather than dogma is a true blessing!

Collusion

Since no one else had the decency to inform you, you should be aware that In ictu oculi reopened the proposal to merge your Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article into the Gospel of the Hebrews, in what now appears to be a proposal for deletion. Although you were not informed, a notice was given to the original proposer, as well as several selective notices to editors who were previously in favor of deletion of the original article, here, here, and here, in what, to my mind at least, seems like a rather obvious attempt at collusion. Ignocrates (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I have followed your link and your concerns about Misplaced Pages:Tag team are legitimate. I have chosen to assume good faith. My protection is very much up to those bureaucrats who patrol Misplaced Pages. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Before you resume

In the spirit of collegiality, I suggest you take a look at User_talk:BruceGrubb and familiarize yourself with the details of this dispute and the cast of characters who played a role in it. Should you decide to return to editing, I fear there is a significant risk that you will be "Grubb"ed. I hope you will think carefully about how to come back with your eyes open. Ignocrates (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)... I have. The concerns that you have raised are legitimate. Also, trolling hounding, personal attacks and collusion have some merit. I just noticed User:John Carter is an Admin! In any event I have chosen to assume good faith. I am being careful in my edits. My protection is very much up to those bureaucrats who patrol Misplaced Pages. Thanks again to User:Nihonjoe! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Special Thanks

Thanks for dealing with the allegations that were brought against me. I looked really, really, really guilty!! If bureaucrat Nihonjoe had not figured out that the edit histories for Oral tradition and the historical Jesus and the Christian Oral Traditions had been tampered with, I would have been finished at Misplaced Pages! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Ignocrates

The consensus on AGK's talk page is to begin with WP:DRN and take it from there. That is probably going to be seen by ArbCom as a necessary first step on the road to arbitration anyway. Since the hoo-ha has temporarily died down, I would probably wait on this article until Dunn's new book comes out before you resume editing. I expect there will be renewed attempts to discredit Dunn and all the other major authors on the topic, as well as the topic itself. That is tactic #1 used so often in this category - undermine the editor by undermining the sources. If that fails, expect a shift to tactic #2 - poison the well by attempting to undermine your personal integrity. I have removed the article from my watch-list, so drop a note on my talk page if there are any overt attempts at deletion in the interim. Ignocrates (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Ret.Prof, if DRN is not able to mediate the expected resumption of this dispute (I suspect they will become quickly overwhelmed by the complexity), you can request editor assistance from admin Keilana as an outside mediator who has experience in dealing with complex disputes. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Re tactic #1 & tactic #2 mentioned above: Most unsettling...particularly the shift to tactic #2 - poison the well by attempting to undermine your personal integrity. Yet I am going to assume good faith. Several bureaucrats and admins are aware of the situation. It seems over the past week you, have taken a bit of a beating. It seems no good deed goes unpunished! Most unfair. Sorry Ignocrates! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. That's life in the big Wiki. The "beating" I took over this article is nothing compared to how I am used to being treated. At least I don't have anyone else sending me threatening emails (yet). I don't think outside observers of this complex dispute understand how much it is rocking the foundation of certain people's deeply-held beliefs. Ignocrates (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right. The new scholarship is unsettling for some resulting in a state of denial. It is probably why material from Ehrman and Casey is deleted so rapidly from Misplaced Pages. My solution has been to be kind, proceed slowly, and focus on the reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the support I have received over the past year! For a while I believed I would be banned from Misplaced Pages! It is my hope with the John Carter Arbitration complete that I may return to normal editing. My plan for the new year is to avoid the Hebrew Gospel Hypothesis and focus on the Oral Gospel Tradition which is far more important! There are several other articles that need to be brought up to date. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I, personally, cannot see how an article which raises the probability that there once existed a proto-Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel from which Greek translations, recensions and/or interpolations were made at some later time (based on the interpretation of early Jewish sources quoted by Jerome, Eusebius and Epiphanius) can "rock the foundation of certain people's deeply-held beliefs," seeing that the basic message is still there to be seen in the Greek texts. Jerome wrote explicitly: "Matthew, also called Levi, an apostle after having been a publican, was the first to compose a gospel of Christ in Judea in Hebrew letters and words for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. But who afterwards translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilius the martyr so diligently collected." So, too, Eusebius wrote explicitly: "But concerning Matthew, he (Papias) writes as follows: 'So then Matthew wrote the words in the Hebrew-language and every one interpreted them as he was able.'..." Why then would such a scenario be considered a "let-down," Ignocrates? I am somewhat familiar with the Jewish way of thinking, and throughout all my years of Judaic studies among native Jews who speak Hebrew, it is quite conclusive that Jews made use, first and foremost, of their own script - i.e. the Chaldean script (Assyrian script) whenever writing homilies (Midrashim), or historical accounts. While it is true that I am no longer contributing articles which treat on the subject, I have still seen enough to know that the matter is disputed by scholars, and, which to me says, present the conflicting views (based on WP:NPOV) and let the people draw their own conclusions. Does knowing that the book of Daniel was first composed in an Aramaic script and later translated into Greek make it any less valid? Of course not! Davidbena (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well said. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You should realize that the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis is still a hypothesis and a priori it could be true even if there isn't any conclusive evidence behind it, but the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew is completely another matter and it is definitely WP:FRINGE. Conflating the two matters is a case of WP:COMPETENCE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the reliable sources support User:Davidbena. Did User:Tgeorgescu succeed in banning User:Davidbena?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources he quoted aren't reliable sources, they are primary sources and cannot be used to establish facts for Misplaced Pages. He was not banned, but he still does not want to comply with Misplaced Pages policies and produced original research, which was rejected by multiple, independent editors from being included in Misplaced Pages. I mean he even tried at Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation and still did not succeed with creating Misplaced Pages articles and I played no part in vetoing his attempts to create articles. He was told by many editors that Misplaced Pages does not publish original research and he should seek a peer-reviewed publication for publishing his articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES support User:Davidbena read carefully! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The writings of Papias, Jerome and Eusebius aren't reliable sources. In this case, reliable sources are the writings of historians who live by publish or perish. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That simply is not in WP:SOURCES. User:Davidbena is on solid ground. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

On the surface this dispute seems simple. I had some concerns about the following edit and requested some references. The response was "good grief" and that I was a "time waster". I went to the library and got the following references.

• Throckmorton's the Gospel Parallels pp 1-15 (All editions from 1957 to present)
• William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602
• Rochus Zuurmond, Novum Testamentum Aethiopice: The Synoptic Gospels, Franz Steiner Pub., 1989. p 31
• Sabine Baring Gould, "The lost and hostile gospels" 1874, Oxford University, Digitized 2006. p 122

I offered to provide further references if required. This would be no problem as every Biblical scholar is aware of the attestations to the early MSS (ie Matthew "wrote his Gospel in Hebrew in Palestine"). NOTE I did not revert the unsourced edit for I have voluntarily stepped back from editing this article. Of course this gave rise to even more serious time wasting allegations (ie disruptive behavior) requiring a topic ban.

However there is much more to this issue than my asking for reliable sources and I am making a formal request for Arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That is your right of course. However, please be aware that you are going for all the marbles by taking that action. Arbitration may result in a M. A. D. outcome. Ignocrates (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

All I ask for is a fair hearing. If my editing is worthy of a ban then so be it. We have had our differences but in the end you have been fair. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate your saying so. Everyone should have the opportunity to have a fair hearing. Ignocrates (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please find my detailed response to your question on my talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Anti Jewish bias

A second important issue to be addressed at Arbitration is the issue is Anti-Hebrew bias. It is true that in the 20thC the German was considered a more reputable and stable academic tradition. However, in the past few years there has been a a major shift in Christian Biblical scholarship. Leading Biblical scholars such as Ehrman, Casey, Edwards have now taken the position that Jesus was a Jew and that the historical roots of Christianity must be seen in a Jewish context. This scholarship has sparked debate for some still hold the position that Jesus was a Greek speaking Galilean whose teachings were anti-Jewish. Last year, one of the world's leading historians on Early Christianity released his latest work. James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013. argues that the assumption that Jesus was not Jewish has been a real stumbling block for Biblical scholars. If anything, more serious has been what might be called “institutional anti-Semitism, or more accurately anti-Judaism, which for so long disfigured Christian theology, including NT scholarship." The so called mainline or classic position of Ernest Renan, who wrote: "Fundamentally there was nothing Jewish about Jesus" is mistaken and encapsulates "Christianity's historic denigration of Judaism." The truth is Christianity has been anti Jewish and Christian scholarship has failed to be "Christian" in its treatment of Jews. This can be seen in the disparagement of the Hebrew Gospel which is viewed as little more than a Jewish Bastardwerk. The mainline position of 20th Century scholars bordered on antisemitism. The Deutsche Christen movement produced the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 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. Nor should it be imagined that such bias was isolated to scholars who fought for Nazi Germany for even Bultmann was tainted by the effect of working in a German environment in which Jewishness was so unwelcome. Google Link Nor should it be imagined that such anti-Jewish sentiment was isolated to scholars coming out of Germany. Google Link. The Jewish tradition has generally been viewed pejoratively and judged inferior by many other scholars instrumental in the formation theories regarding the Synoptic tradition. Google Link. One must take care to distinguish between Biblical Scholarship based on reliable historical evidence and “the age-long, inbred, instinctive Jew-hatred” of the West.

Roots of Theological Anti-Semitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann

Volume 20 of Studies in Jewish History and Culture, BRILL, 2009. -

Susannah Heschel, 2008

Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012.

James Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel, 2009. pp 194 - 208

Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010

This is an important issue to be worked through at arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration does not deal with content issues. See WP:ARBGUIDE. Perhaps you want WP:DRN or WP:Mediation. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Stepping Back

My solution is to step back from editing articles at Misplaced Pages.

Update articles

A few years ago I decided update the Christian articles re the Second Temple Period. (See bottom of talk page re diff) Since then I have come under brutal attack by a small but dedicated group of editors who totally reject the new scholarship. Things have gotten so bad that last week when I requested a reference regarding an unsourced edit their response was to propose a topic ban! Note! I did not edit the article, just queried this unsourced edit! The abuse of he last two years (whether deserved or not) has in a practical sense brought my editing to a halt.

Different Approach

I still plan to update the Christian articles of the Second Temple period with the following sources:

• James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013

• Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012.

• Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010.

• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009

as follows:

1. I will not edit Misplaced Pages articles. Rather I will create a proposed draft based upon reliable sources from a NPOV.
2. I will offer it for peer review.
3. Then I will work to achieve consensus.
4. Only after we have achieved consensus will I edit the actual article.

I think my approach is reasonable and hope it will bring an end to the conflict. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Jerome, De viris inlustribus, ed. C.A. Bernoulli, III
2. Eusebius, hist. eccles. III. 39.16