Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:28, 23 February 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gospel of Matthew article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Religious texts (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gospel of Matthew article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Disclaimer on "He drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, all of which probably derived ultimately from earlier oral gospel traditions."

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

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

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

The New Scholarship

This article needs to be updated with the 21st scholarship.

(1) Early Attestations Our article states: "The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, nowhere does he claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was not part of the first editions" This is accurate and properly sourced.

BUT

the following citation from the early MSS is omitted: "Here ends the Gospel of the Apostle Matthew. He wrote it in the land of Palestine, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the Hebrew language." William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602

This is a statement of fact which ALL scholars agree did exist in the early MSS. It also provides insight into how the Gospel of Matthew got its name. It has also been a subject of scholarly debate which has in turn given rise to other important issues. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Good grief. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll second that motion. This "fact" is a pious fiction. A note in an Arabic manuscript doesn't make it "true" any more than titling the gospel "according to Matthew" proves that Matthew wrote it. Based on what I could read of the article, its purpose is clearly apologetic. Imo, rather than reflecting the best 21st century scholarship, this is a time machine back to the 19th century. Ignocrates (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You may indeed be correct. Do you have any reliable sources to support your position?? In any event I am not sure of what you are disputing. Are you denying the existence of these Early Attestations or are you saying that they are wrong OR not "true" OR "pious fiction". Look forward to hearing from you! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for not being more precise with my words; I was thinking about the content as I was reading through it. There is no dispute that an Arabic manuscript exists with that statement. The problem is that the source interpreting the significance of that manuscript is a theological commentary; it is not academic scholarship. That's what I meant by a time machine back to the 19th century, when the distinction between scholarship and religious commentary was more ambiguous. The bit about calling it a "pious fiction" was just me being frustrated with your "statement of fact (upon) which ALL scholars agree", and I shouldn't have said it. Ignocrates (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology but it was not necessary as you raised some valid points. I am going to go to the library to see if I can find some reliable sources that address the concerns that have been raised. In case you have not noticed, I am once again enjoying Misplaced Pages thanks to your work! - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC) PS in the real world I will be watching the President. My greatest concern is the growing gap between rich and poor. Things like police in Detroit having their pensions cut keep me awake night while Justin Bieber and Mayor Rob Ford ... well... - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"statement of fact (upon) which ALL scholars agree", to me says that RetProf has no hope of ever coming within the ballpark of reputable scholarship and a topic ban after all these years of incessantly trying to promote the "Hebrew Matthew" nonsense is the only solution. It's simply incredibly time-wasting to have to watch so many pages where RetProf has tried before to add this stuff. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

200 year old scholarship is irrelevant. BTW, the article RetProf refers to isn't by William Lane Craig (he's the editor),it's by Timothy and Lydia McGrew. I googled the Mcgrews. Do you speak crow? Crows say "Faaaaaaaaaaaak!" Lydia has a webpage, on which she says, "I am a homemaker and home schooling mom, and I do analytic philosophy in some of my spare time." Faaaaaaaaaaaaak! Timothy's a bit better, he's chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Western Michigan University, and writes articles on "the rational reconstruction of design inferences" - ID-lite, William Lane Criag style. Is America truly going down the intellectual plughole? PiCo (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally RetProf, your concern for the growing level of income inequality in the US is commendable, but the problem may be more deep-rooted than you image - see this article in the Economist. We live at the dawn of a new age, and it's not a pretty sight.PiCo (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You have a point, In ictu oculi. Whatever happened to I ... will be voluntarily stepping back from this topic? Ignocrates (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggested a WP:RfC/U twice for Ret.Prof (e.g., see here), upon which he temporarily "retired" each time, only to resume the same behavior. I see no value in proposing an RfC again; it's all been said, here and on related talk pages. Ignocrates (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi, your statement "It's simply incredibly time-wasting to have to watch so many pages where RetProf has tried before to add this stuff." I believe is mistaken. We have spent little time discussing the "attestations" on any talk page before. Rather than personal attacks or threats, reliable sources denying the existence of the "Attestations" would be helpful. Finally, discussing the references on a topic is NOT "incredibly time-wasting". It is what we should be doing rather than edit warring. That is why I have stepped back from editing this topic. In other words let's examine the published scholarship on the "attestations" in good faith. Look forward to working with you! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@PiCo Your scholarly argument "Do you speak crow? Crows say 'Faaaaaaaaaaaak!' " is interesting but needs to be backed up by reliable sources. Blackwell 2009 is a vetted reliable source and the the editors can be trusted not allow the attestation if it did not exist. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is not the existence of the "attestation" (the mysterious Arabic manuscript?) but the credentials of the Blackwells contributors - a home-schooling amateur analytic philosopher and an academic from another discipline who wants to involve himself in biblical studies. It's frankly appalling. PiCo (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with PiCo above, and shame on Blackwells, used to be a decent publisher. But even without knowing this RetProf a basic minimal level of knowledge of the subject of the articles you keep returning to edit would have let you know that this was nonsense. As "why I have stepped back from editing this topic." - your edit history shows again and again and again nothing else but constantly returning to this topic and no other topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification re Early Attestations

First I agree that we should not get bogged down Mathei authenticum. We all need a break.

My concern is very narrow. PiCo made the following edit. The edit was not sourced. Edits at Misplaced Pages must be supported by reliable sources.

Statement of fact

Here I apologize for causing some confusion. By "statement of fact" I simply meant "Did the Early Attestations exist?" or were the early MSS blank as the PiCo edit implies. The first 15 pages of the Gospel Parallels (All editions from 1957 to present) tell where these early manuscripts are now located. The subscriptions of many early MSS bear the same testimony. Several important early Greek copies of Matthew close with this statement: "Matthew wrote in Hebrew". The Syriac and Arabic versions are simular. For example the subscription of the Second Century Syriac Gospel of Matthew (Peschito version) states, "Finished is the holy Gospel of the preaching of Matthew, which he preached in Hebrew in the land of Palestine." An early Arabic version reads as follows: "Here ends the copy of the Gospel of the apostle Matthew. He wrote it in the land of Palestine, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the Hebrew language, eight years after the bodily ascension of Jesus the Messiah into heaven, and in the first year of the Roman Emperor, Claudius Csesar." Sabine Baring Gould, "The lost and hostile gospels" 1874, Oxford University, Digitized 2006. p 122 See also Zuurmond 1989 p 31 In addition to Blackwell 2009, Zuurmond 1989 & Gould 1874, I can add other references. Note WP policy states that for a fact such as the "existence of the attestations", all three of the above are considered reliable sources, regardless of age. Even the primary source doc would be acceptable!

Since PiCo has failed to provide any sources disputing the existence of the Attestations I believe his edit should be reverted. Note, I am no longer editing this article therefore somebody else will have to do the revert or revision. Now, back to the Oral gospel traditions. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking strictly for myself, I don't think The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009 is in dispute as a reliable source, per WP:RS. It is a question of WP:WEIGHT, and how it is used depends on whether (or not) this source is considered to be a scholarly publication. Fwiw, I think it is an apology rather than scholarship. Ignocrates (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Ignocrates - the Blackwell's article is Christian apologetics, not biblical scholarship, and the authors (the McGrews) lack the qualifications to write authoritatively on the subject. This is evident in the way they "cite" their sources (sort of cite - there's no indication what this Arabic mss actually is, and their source is a 200 year old encyclopedia that's now thoroughly outdated). Stick with modern scholarship from people qualified in the relevant field. PiCo (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The McGrews' article: an analysis

I thought I'd better read the McGrew's article in Blackwell's. It turns out to be quite strange. It's titled "The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth" - so quite upfront about being a work of Christian apologetics, and no fault with that, but in a book on natural theology?

So what's natural theology anyway? It's essentially a branch of metaphysics: “that branch of theology that seeks to provide warrant for belief in God’s existence apart from the resources of authoritative, propositional revelation.” In other words, it's proving the existence of God by reason and logic, rather than by relying on the direct revelation provided in the bible. Which makes one wonder why the McGrews are relying on the bible and the accounts of miracles, let alone why they're identifying Christianity with belief in God (no other concepts of God count, apparently).

Anyway, the McGrews try to build a case for the God-ness of Jesus based on the reality of the miracles described in the NT. They've got a problem: they have to prove that the gospels are accurate. That's hard. They also have to prove that the gospel miracle stories are true but other miracle stories aren't, otherwise there'd be an awful lot of Gods in the world. To take a personal example, a few months ago I visited a lady in Cambodia who receives divine revelations through Nandi, the vehicle of the God Shiva (Cambodians have found space for the Hindu Gods inside Buddhism). I actually met Nandi - he has a this-world incarnation, a big black bull that lives with this lady. He sat there chewing bananas (he loves bananas) while I talked to her through an interpreter. He delivers his messages while she's in a state of trance, and they often predict the future. He predicted the 2004 tsunami, but unfortunately there was no way this lady in a provincial Cambodian town could warn anyone, for which we're all very sorry. The point is, of course, that I've seen with my own eyes living proof of the reality of the god Shiva and his vehicle Nandi, and I've seen miraculous proof. You might scoff and say that the report of the tsunami came after the event, but consider: so do the gospel stories come after the event. I repeat, my eye-witness Cambodian story is as good as anything the bible can provide if we want proof via miracles - rather better, since my eyes have beheld the god.

Back to the McGrew article. He says he doesn't intend to argue specifically for the existence of the God of Christianity (page 594). This is disingenuous - he spends the rest of the article arguing that Jesus is God, which is about as Christian as you can get. McGrew is either blind to his prejudices, or dishonest. He's probably blind - he argues that "if Jesus of Nazareth died and then rose again bodily three days later, the probability of T (i.e., that God exists) is approximately equal to 1." Really? Only a convinced Christian could write that. Or, "if my lady's sacred bull predicted the 2004 tsunami, the probability of S (i.e, that Shiva is God) is approximately equal to 1." The argument is identical, but McGrew isn't aware of it.

So is the gospel evidence of miracles any more convincing than my eye-witness evidence of the miraculous bull? It turns out he has no evidence at all, only assertions - "the testimony of the disciples to having seen Christ alive and their willingness to die for this testimony, and the testimony of the women to the empty tomb and their sight of the resurrected Christ" (p.595). The testimony of the disciples and the women is no better than my testimony to having seen the bull. (It's not only me who's seen it - it's a famous bull in Cambodia). Even better, I've seen the newspaper reports of the bull's warning - the lady has them framed on her wall. Newspapers never lie.

The point is, what tools does McGrew have for assessing this testimony? After all, when I consider the bull Nandi, I assess how reliable all this is. The bull is real, the lady appears sincere, and there are the framed newspaper reports on the wall. BUT: the newspaper reports are from AFTER the tsunami. Uh-oh. DSo all I've got is a tame bull that eats bananas and a lady who appears sincere but might easily be delusional. Sorry, but although I greatly respect the beliefs of my Cambodian friends, I don't buy this story.

But wait, I have another story. One day many years ago, in a market-place in southern Iraq (yes, I live a varied and much-travelled life), I fell into conversation with a butcher. He was very interested to meet a Christian (this was before the US Marines came), but was I aware that I was following the wrong prophet? M-d is the last and best of prphets, and Allah is the true God. How,I asked, could he be sure? Ah, there was a sign, inscribed on the heart of every creature created by Allah, for Allah has signed there his own name. And he showed me, and it's true: on the heart of every animal in the butcher's shop is written the name of Allah, in Arabic script. I'm not joking, it's absolutely true: the word Allah, in blue letters, quite clear. (To be a little more precise, the word is formed by blood vessels on the outer wall of the heart - but it's really there).

This is a miracle that anyone can observe at any time. The gospel miracles, in contrast, exist only in documents of uncertain authorship from several decades after the events. How can McGrew be sure he can trust them? The answer should be that he assesses them using the tools of biblical scholarship. Except he doesn't. He doesn't because he can't, because he isn't a biblical scholar and lacks those tools. He's a philosopher, and his field is metaphysics. As a result, he writes some very silly things. Like saying that Paul's conversion "provides additional evidence for Christianity" (p.595 - he's already forgotten that he's not equating God with Christianity) because ... it was a heavenly vision. Well... it could also be proof that Paul was a hysteric, exactly like my Cambodian lady - she also has heavenly visions, except that hers are of the bull Nandi.

The article gets tedious very quickly, largely because McGrew never makes any argument - he never comes to grips with the nature of the gospel traditions, he never discusses Jewish belief and society (he never discusses 2nd temple Judaism), he seems ignorant of the major scholarship. In short, he's out of his depth. You could believe in the God Nandi, or in Allah, on the arguments he makes.PiCo (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning: The McGrews are living persons. Scholarly debate is fine but we should take care to avoid personal attacks or mockery. Also I do not believe they would falsify data. If they cite the "Atteastations" in MSS then they are there. Please do not take this the wrong way. I also disagree with some of positions put forward by the McGrews. However extra care is required when dealing with living scholars. - Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Solicit a topic ban?

Enough is enough. Too much time is wasted refuting the idiosyncratic nonsense spun by Ret Prof. I suggested before that we solicit a topic ban. Perhaps the time has come to do so on on all articles related to Christianity since every time he pops up, we end up in the same place of explaining - carefully, civilly - what constitutes a source, what counts as scholarly consensus, etc.... It's disruptive. We could go (1) through the tedium of RFC/U, but I don't think that's necessary really given the long history we have witnessed; (2) open up an arbcom request to get a topic ban and block sanctions to be put in place, or (3) simply file a motion for relief at AN/I, which may result in if nothing else, some thoughts about how best to proceed. Thoughts? Eusebeus (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I may not have been entirely civil, but yes, he shows no sign of changing, and his editing is disruptive - maybe option 3.PiCo (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Will support - this way way out of the ballpark of competence claim for a 7th or 8th Century Arabic codex is the last straw. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I will support, but because this is important I request that it be taken to arbitration (See John Carter). - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You will support your own topic ban? That is bizarre. What has User:John Carter got to do with this. Have you ever had any interaction with John Carter? I don't see any need for arbitration, with whom for what? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I hsve repeatedly attempt to discuss matters regarding WEIGHT and other guidelines, beyond the NPOV which he seems to consider all-important, with him at Ret. Prof's talk page and elsewhere. I would support raising the issue of a topic ban for Ret. Prof. from early Christianity, broadly considered, at the appropriate noticeboard. I believe his rather regular, long-standing habit of grandstanding, failure to abide by NPA and AGF of those with whom he disagrees, and other conduct guidelines is sufficient to believe that such sanctions might be the only way with which to reasonably deal with an editor who seems to have perhaps exhausted the patience of the community with his conduct. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof may be referring to the recent Ebionites 3 arbitration case, which was originally named "John Carter". Ignocrates (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on how to proceed: 1) A 3rd attempt at a RFC/U won't be productive. I doubt there is much more to be said that hasn't already been said on the relevant article talk pages. 2) Arbitration is a possibility; however, this long-running conflict may not be ripe for arbitration. The filer has to document previous attempts at dispute resolution. That usually includes at least one trip to a noticeboard to show the community tried and failed to resolve the problem (e.g., DRN for content, ANI for conduct). 3) The most expedient approach is to file an incident report with ANI and ask the community for guidance. Be very careful about how you structure your opening statement. Try to be as fact-based and objective as possible to mitigate the risk of a boomerang. Ignocrates (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There actually has not been a RFC/U, the two previous times it has been raised RetProf has hurriedly said "I'm withdrawing" and then come back 3 or 6 months later pushing the same lost Hebrew Matthew as his main hobby horse. It will be a massive job to dredge up the years of history that this has been going on. 2) Arbitration is not an option - we can't have arbitration between RetProf and Bruce Metzger and co, they aren't here. 3) ANI isn't going to work - to assess RetProf's agenda some basic knowledge of NT textual study is required. That means WikiProject Christianity where there may still be some editors with some familiarity with the subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProjects have no standing whatsoever as far as dispute resolution. ArbCom has made that explicitly clear in a recent case. Trying to force an outcome using WikiProject Christianity will only result in a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that will WP:BOOMERANG later. Ignocrates (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand - WikiProjects are simply an example of where competent editors in specialist areas congregate might congregate, the Talk pages like this are another. This issue requires some basic knowledge. In ictu oculi (talk)

Wikiprojects can be helpful for discussing article content, but they have no authority to impose an "approved" version of an article. Conduct issues are completely outside their scope. Hey, don't take my word for it. Go to Wikiproject Christanity, try to impose your favorite solution, and we can see what happens next. Ignocrates (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates, I don't find your use of the word "impose" helpful. What I said was "WikiProjects are simply an example of where competent editors in specialist areas congregate might congregate, the Talk pages like this are another. This issue requires some basic knowledge." This seems to me to be self-explanatory. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand that the subject of this thread is about a topic ban for Ret.Prof. T-bans are meted out by the community or by ArbCom for reasons of conduct. You chose to change the subject to content for reasons that are still unclear. Ignocrates (talk) 13:51, 1 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) 18:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

RetProf, since that specific edit is giving you so much concern, and since I did the revert, I'll answer you. What was reverted was an addition, made by you, to the effect that although the gospel itself doesn't name its author, early manuscripts have a superscription saying that Matthew wrote it. Yes, they do. But the opinion of modern scholars is that no weight can be attached to this - see Davies and Allison (1988), p. 129. If you can find a modern and authoritative source that says the scholarly opinion is otherwise, fine, but an undated and unidentified primary source quoted in a work from 1801 (!) isn't what we want. PiCo (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As always I enjoy scholarly debate. I do have some sources to back my position. However I am about to be banned from Misplaced Pages as a "time waster"! Anything I say can and will be used against me. Once I am vindicated at arbitration, then we will debate your edit. You do have some good points. If you prevail I certainly will not hold a grudge. Ignocrates has "one upped" me on several occasions. He has got a fine mind. Indeed I have learned a great deal from him. I hope you will support me in taking this to arbitration. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Effectively this is a content dispute - across several years and several articles, but the actual content issue has been previously settled repeatedly. You could contribute to Misplaced Pages in ways that don't involve adding claims that there's a lost Hebrew Matthew to articles. This is the main disruptive behaviour, so the topic ban could be narrow. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This is about bullying, intimidation, Reliable Sources and NPOV. This is about User:Davidbena and Bruce Grubb. A few days ago, I had some concerns an unsourced edit. I asked for some references in a civil tone. Rather than a Reliable source I got a abuse, was told I was time-waster, disruptive and was to be banned. No editor should be treated like this! Ultimately this is about Wiki-gangs and the heart Misplaced Pages. I truly believe this needs to go to arbitration. Surly we can agree on that! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, a decision to file an arbitration case is not something that requires a discussion or a consensus. If you are going to proceed with a case, just get on with it. I will be interested to see who you decide to include as involved parties. Ignocrates (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

True but discussion and consensus never hurt. Please see your talk page. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please find my detailed response to your question on my talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Anti Jewish bias

Nor is this about the Hebrew Gospel! 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 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) 14:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You are beating a dead horse. Today no scholar worth his salt denies that Jesus was Jewish. In the 19th century and in the Nazi Germany it was a different matter, but do not conflate outdated and racially biased scholarship with scholarship which is today consensually regarded as valid. That would be guilt by association. Saying that Jesus wasn't Jewish is a as fringe as saying that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Dunn disagrees with you, for that matter, so does Casey. Do have any sources that support "Today no scholar worth his salt denies that Jesus was Jewish." See list. In any event I am going off topic. I will enjoy debating this further if I am not banned. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to apologize. I missed "worth his salt". I agree that any scholar who argues that "Jesus was not Jewish" is not "worth his salt". Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And I specifically wrote "today". You said that Dunn and Casey disagree with me, but upon which issue? Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Nor is this about the Hebrew Gospel! The issue is Anti-Hebrew bias." - is another indication of the problem. WP:FRINGE approaches to any subject are typically accompanied by conspiracy theories. On one level of course there is some history of anti-semitism (and to a lesser extent anti-Christian agendas also) distorting some scholarship in some of the (mainly) German scholarship of the 18th/19th Century. But how relevant is that to here/now. Not at all. The sources in the article are primarily British and American, and the consensus against the lost Hebrew Gospel theory - and the irrelevance of the 8th Century Arabic/Syriac footnote - is overwhelming. There is far more consensus in the non-Hebrew position than most other factors of NT origins.

Why should editors constantly have to watchlist these pages against additions of the sort that RetProf brought back again above? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You have a point. I hope I have a solution. Please see my talk page. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your Talk page appears to misrepresent the problem here. The problem here is this. Question: Had you previously added this material and previously had it removed? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This page at ANI

FWIW I see a discussion primarily triggered by this latest "Hebrew Matthew" incident is now at ANI. I added comment here. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Single, reliable source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Atethnekos, you must read the whole section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources for the mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear David

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

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

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

Best wishes

David Parker

D.C. Parker, FBA, FSA

Edward Cadbury Professor of Theology

Director of the Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing

European Research Institute

University of Birmingham

Birmingham B15 2TT

U.K.

Tel. 0121-415 8341

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

Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament

David C. Parker

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

______

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? ch. 4

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

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

— loc.cit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David. You write:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Scholarship

Things have radically changed in the last 5 years! Mid 20th Century spurious intellectual arguments have now been replaced with the historical method. Edwards, Ehrman, Casey and Dunn all agree. For example:

Issue: Did Matthew compose an early Gospel in Hebrew?

Multiple Attestation

Historians prefer lots of written sources, the "closer in temporal proximity, the better". Ehrman 2010 p 41. In addition to Papias modern scholars have found at least eight early written attestations that state there was indeed a Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew in circulation during the formative years of Christianity:

This historical evidence is then evaluated with other with other criteria to determine which are the most reliable and which are the least. At the mediation we will have an intense debate based upon the reliable sources - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Just remember that neither Irenaeus, nor Hippolytus, nor the others count as present-day scholars who live by publish or perish. I suggest to drop every hint of WP:OR altogether, it will just damage your case. But you are of course free to make it easier for the other side in this dispute. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken re WP:OR. We will need to work this out at mediation. See above Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please...

Ret.Prof, given that this is all reposts and has been reposted many times in various versions, including twice just now, can you (or anyone) please collapse this into a box. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have redirected the debate to here. In ictu oculi, you are correct. This should be the only place where we post material re debate. Looking forward to David's research! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof - since you seem to only employ the intentionally disruptive WP:WALLOFTEXT tactic to overwhelm your opponents into giving up (here and elsewhere) in WP:RANDY fashion, I would ask you to consider the following: (1) if you want content changed, put a cogent, concise paragraph of your proposed text up for debate. Not wasting time with repeating the same with a wall of text (2) let others tear apart that proposed paragraph. If you want one or two or maybe three paragraphs inserted, stop blasting everyone with 50Kb of useless repeated text. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am trying to box the material. But I am having problems. My box keeps dropping to the bottom of the page. Can you help?- Ret.Prof (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'll fix it. Give me a second.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but I think I have succeeded!

• Yeah, I noticed you figured it out just after I replied.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way I think your advice is very helpful re the mediation. Boxes will be part of my opening statement. 25 pages would not help my cause! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I see this problem all the time with an editor who wants to add to a controversial topics or adding stuff to ledes. It would help your cause substantially if you said explicitly in this and similar cases: (1) I would like to add this content to the article (the proposed text with sources); and (2) a CONCISE statement of why you want to add it and why it needs to be added; and (3) this why I think the sources justify it being added. If it's too long, the source material should always be collapsible. Wall of text sucks. I don't have time to waste reading 100 pages worth of nonsense of stuff to change one paragraph. I have no dog in this fight at all, but if there are competing theories of origins, and some of them are controversial or unorthodox, it should be adequately discussed in with a lot of deference to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE, and talk pages should be utilized appropriately to propose new text and discuss/critique it. So, that being said...have at it! Just remember, brevity gets you further in these kind of disputes.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Good advice! Thanks. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I can appreciate where you're coming from, and speaking for myself, the approach is the cause of your problem in this fight. Having taught, I notice (especially in academia's ivory tower), smart people bitterly fight and argue with one another because we rarely are able to express ourselves briefly, and because the emphasis on specialization causes us to retreat to defenciveness of what we think we know at the expense of a balanced exploration. The battles are bitter because the stakes are so low. so, if you want a paragraph changed, or a brief discussion added (remember WP:SUMMARY), propose it, let others play with it, and remember the stakes--a brief, anonymous contribution on a free encyclopaedia that likely few people will read or care too much about after the infobox. No need to get a topic ban for being the equivalent of Kafka's Hunger Artist. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I hear an echo of David Lodge's Small World, Colonel! Well done.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Point taken! - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

"The Audience of Matthew - Christian scholarship has historically maintained that Matthew's Gospel was written for a Palestinian Christian audience. The Jewish outlook of the book seemed to point in this direction, as did an ancient tradition that Matthew had originally written his Gospel in a Semitic language, either Hebrew or Aramaic. Since few Gentiles would have been interested in a work dominated by Jewish concerns, and few communities outside the land of Israel could have read it in a Semitic language, every indication was that Matthew's Gospel was intended for the early believers in Palestine."Davidbena (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR is simply not allowed and it will damage your case beyond recovery. It may even be a violation of acceptable behavior for an editor of Misplaced Pages.

The recent commentary by Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri in the CCSS series (2010) provides a conservative Catholic take on Matthew, pitched at the level of the informed layperson or of clergy without access to the original languages.

— D. A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey, 2013, p. 2012

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, can you please tell me how I used "original research" when I simply quoted primary sources without saying what my view is regarding them? The last excerpt speaks for itself, and is actually a secondary source and brings down a reference to Irenaeus.Davidbena (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Carson's assessment is correct. No one, repeat, no one has access to the original languages (Aramaic) since it has been lost. However, Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri did have access to the Greek transcriptions from the Church Fathers, or else, English translations made from them. In this regard, they are like all other scholars.Davidbena (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

David. Just an analytic tip: Rearrange your quotes in chronological order, by author. (b) Compare what each author says to see if there are internal contradictions and then (c) compare what all authors say to note the contradictions between these various sources.

In short, your error, quite fundamental, is to cite many sources for one ostensible 'fact', without noticing that, for example, in the four quotations from Jerome his views change, and he contradicts his report, or makes claims that don't gell with the evidence.

This has nothing to do with wikipedia, but you insist on having your say. Scholars do textual analysis and historical criticism to avoid the simplistic approach you have adopted here. With it, they see the many incongruities in patristic reportage, even in the same authors, they are very very cautious about making the kind of homogenized reductionist monological conclusion your haste here draws.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Nishidani. I generally agree with your statement, however, here, the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans and the Gospel According to the Hebrews have often been misconstrued with being three separate gospels. By looking at how Jerome describes them, one can see that they are all one and the same. Since the Ebionites made use strictly of the "Gospel According to the Hebrews" (i.e. the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew), it later came to be known as the Gospel of the Ebionites.Davidbena (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

conservative scholars attempt to refute the biblical scholarship that is taught in every major university save the aforementioned conservative Christian schools.

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

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

David, thanks for bringing that book by Mitch and Sri (Gospel of Matthew, from Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture series) to our attention. But I see it says exactly what every other modern source says - the majority of scholars think Matthew was written by someone other than the apostle Matthew, for a mixed Christian/Jewish community around the area of Antioch in Syria (see pages 17-19). PiCo (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread - the book was mentioned by TGeorgescu, not Davidbena. PiCo (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Today, I spent the greater part of the day at the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem, browsing through many, many books, and I am now ready to report on my findings. Although there were literally hundreds of books which deal with our general topic, I selected only those authors who seemed to me to be the most authoritative on the subject of NT text criticism and the Gospel of Matthew. Even so, my time was limited and I could only read and do so much. I will first type the material that I've gathered onto a Word File, and then transfer it here for all to see.Davidbena (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

David, be sure to adhere to WP:COPYVIO. You may have to provide a list references along with brief quotations or summarize your findings to stay within the length limit. Ignocrates (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are my findings. NOTE: I have also copied down the authors’ footnotes and have placed them in brackets and parentheses:

CONCLUSION: Although I have not exhausted all sources at the Hebrew University Library in Jerusalem, still, by the little that I’ve seen, the consensus is clear that modern scholarship is divided concerning the original text of Matthew, whether it was first penned in Greek or in the Aramaic language. Wherefore, I think that it is only fitting that both views be cited in the existing articles, without showing preference for one view above the other, but maintaining neutrality over this issue.Davidbena (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you David. Could you put this in a collapsible box? You can use it in the mediation process. PiCo (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you'll have to explain first how I do that. Lol.Davidbena (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

None of those sources assert that the present Gospel of Matthew is translated from an Aramaic or Hebrew original. Ehrman suggests that the Ebionites may have had a document "somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon." Scheck is discussing the question of Matthean authorship, not the language. Klijn explicitly says "According to the same tradition, this gospel was originally written in Hebrew, which is, however, certainly not true of the book now known as the gospel of Matthew" and "The language of the gospel of Matthew as we know it contains nothing that might lead us to suppose it was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic)." He leaves the possibility that Q was (derived from) a translation from Aramaic, but also suggests that there may have been no original Hebrew or Aramaic document at all. Modern scholarship is not, in fact, "divided concerning the original text of Matthew, whether it was first penned in Greek or in the Aramaic language." -- 101.119.29.197 (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My point in bringing down all of the above sources was to show that scholarship is DIVIDED about the issue, or else UNCERTAIN about its case. Erhman's use of terminology such as, may have been, and evidently, shows that he is not fully certain about the Gospel's original status. Likewise, A.F.J. Klijn shifts from talking about certain primary source implications to mere speculation, using such words seems to be, and is based on the assumption, etc. without saying anything definitive about the text of Matthew other than the original or prototypical Aramaic Gospel of Matthew is not our canonical text of Matthew transcribed in Greek. Thomas P. Scheck, having very little to say about the subject, drifts from talking about Matthew's original Hebrew/Aramaic texts (based on Jerome), to talking about our current canonical Greek texts. Only W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison speak in unequivocal terms and bring down the two conflicting scholarly views.Davidbena (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are misquoting Ehrman. He is crystal clear that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek. Your speculation about what Ehrmans's may have been may have been is WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, Tgeorgescu. I quoted Dr. Ehrman verbatim: On p. 103 (ibid.) he writes: “The Gospel of the Ebionites was evidently written in Greek, etc.” The sense here is to "apparently." The matter has only been speculated by him, based on a lack of hard evidence of an original Hebrew/Aramaic MS. that antedates the earliest Greek MSS.Davidbena (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The scholarly consensus is that the Gospel of the Ebionites is a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels. Trying to use the GEbi to prove one of its sources, the Gospel of Matthew, was composed in Hebrew is circular reasoning. Also, Ehrman's use of evidently just means it is inferred based on the quotations of Epiphanius. Ignocrates (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ignocratus, the term "scholarly consensus" is misappropriated here, for the simple reason that the vast majority of scholars who have discussed this issue are not 100% certain of what language the original Gospel of Matthew was written in, and those who suggest that it was originally written in Greek have only laid forth conflicting hypotheses. Even the late Dr. William L. Petersen, in Tatian’s Diatessaron, E.J. Brill / Leiden 1994, p. 17, suggests that there was no justification in calling the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew a "forgery," and that, by one form of logic (based on Justin's use of a quote taken from that Gospel), it was indeed the proto text used in transmitting the Greek canonical text of Matthew.Davidbena (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My how the OR wheels keep turning. I'm quite familiar with Petersen's book. The statement on p.17 is an argument from silence, essentially that nothing can be proven where nothing exists. You are attempting to turn nothing into something. There is also a "scholarly consensus" that Justin Martyr was ignorant of Aramaic and Hebrew. This is another OR leap of transitive logic. Ignocrates (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with Original Research, Ignocrates. On the contrary, these words were justly stated in order to show what is obvious to all, namely, there are many hypotheses regarding the original composition of Matthew's Gospel, and this being just one of them. My view, from the beginning, has never changed. I have always supported mentioning both sides of the coin: acknowledging that scholars are in dispute as to its composition and authorship; some alleging that the Gospel of Matthew was compiled originally in Aramaic, and others alleging that it was compiled originally in Greek.Davidbena (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Interpreting primary sources is WP:OR. Interpreting primary sources quoted in secondary sources is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. All interpretation should be left to secondary sources, that's what the policies are saying. Misplaced Pages editors aren't allowed to interpret primary sources, nor quotations from primary sources rendered in secondary sources. This is a matter of having a basic understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. You should at least say which contemporary scholars say that our Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic/Hebrew. But since we saw how you abuse secondary sources and insist upon quotations they overtly debunk, you can't be even trusted to get this right. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, what you are saying is untrue. I have already supplied you with reliable secondary sources who say that our Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic/Hebrew. To name two just off hand (one a contemporary, and the other, from the last century): Standford Rives and T. Zahn. Sources that are more than 100 years old are not necessarily unreliable.Davidbena (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not saying that you have doctored his words, I was saying that the conclusion that he would be unsure about the Gospel of Matthew being written in Greek is unwarranted. You drew the conclusion that he would support a position that he has repeatedly and openly rejected in most clear terms. See e.g. http://ehrmanblog.org/was-the-author-of-matthew-matthew/ . Mainstream scholarship is not divided upon this issue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To fully understand Dr. Bart Ehrman's intent, one must bring together all of his words in one place. He has already made it absolutely clear that the reason he rejects the primary sources' claim of there having been a prototypical Matthew from which the canonical Greek texts were copied is because "we have no Hebrew/Aramaic texts," just as he explicitly implies in the video link which I posted earlier, "Is the Original New Testament Lost?" See link: . Davidbena (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What's more, "Mainstream scholarship" may not be divided about this issue, but they - by their own admission - have presented their views largely based on mere speculation and/or uncertainty. When that is taken together with the conflicting views of scholarship, who hold that Matthew's Greek canonical text was derived from the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew used by the Ebionites, that, my friend, is tantamount to a solid scholarly dispute about the matter.Davidbena (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that Misplaced Pages editors don't do scholarship on their own, or second-guess the mainstream view, instead they cite the mainstream view as fact (when there is a mainstream view). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This is very simple. Ample precedents provide the guideline, David. I.e., you simply need to find a reputable scholarly text which states the following idea.

'With regard to the original language of Matthew's Gospel, mainstream scholarship is divided.'

If you can come up with an acceptable scholarly source which states your thesis, you have won your point. If you cannot, then no amount of scrabbling together of primary sources can secure your argument, without violating WP:OR. Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, in these final remarks, I have not infringed on any such rule as scholarship on their own, but have only presented the facts as they exist, and which everyone is able to see for himself. The evidence or lack thereof speaks for itself. As for User:Nishidani's remark, it suffices to say that the reputable secondary source written by co-authors W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison has duly given us the names of reputable scholars who disagree with Dr. Ehrman's theory. What is good for them is good for me.Davidbena (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish to reiterate here that the term "scholarly consensus" is often misappropriated, for the simple reason that the vast majority of scholars who have discussed this issue are not 100% certain of what language the original Gospel of Matthew was written in, and those who suggest that it was originally written in Greek have only laid forth conflicting hypotheses. Even the late Dr. William L. Petersen, in Tatian’s Diatessaron, E.J. Brill / Leiden 1994, p. 17, suggests that there was no justification in calling the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew a "forgery," and that, by one form of logic (based on Justin's use of a quote taken from that Gospel), it was indeed the proto text used in transmitting the Greek canonical text of Matthew.Davidbena (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope. You are making an inference from primary and secondary sources that is not permitted, in fact disallowed as a violation of WP:OR. The claim you make must find verbal warrant from an authoritative source. If you cannot find one, then no amount of mediation will alter the status of the conjecture as a personal 'inference' or 'summation' which any editor can revert. We had the same problem at Shakespeare Authorship Question for years, so every statement in the lead had to be justified by a scholarly RS which justified both phrasing and generalization. No editors are allowed exceptional rights here.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, what are you doing here!? Every article on Misplaced Pages is based on inferences from Primary and Secondary sources!!! I suggest that you talk about this issue in the WP:Teahouse. Editors there will certainly be able to tell you that when posting an article, the writer makes inferences from both Primary and Secondary sources. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that primary sources are used to render mere opinion (e.g. quotes from someone's speech or his/her own views about something), for rendering facts secondary sources are required. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Mediation notice

A request for Formal Mediation will be filed today. Please see the talk page of User:PiCo Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It is now at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and I have commented at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#Mediation_notice that the mediation has already got off to a bad start with mis-worded statement of the problem. The problem is not mentioning Eusebius's mention of Papias, as the article does but attempts to add the theories of James R. Edwards etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel the Elder??

Great work David! Edwards believes Gamaliel the Elder or Rabban Gamaliel was a leading authority in the Sanhedrin in the early-1st century CE who died twenty years before the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE). Edwards puts forward the possibility that this quote is referring to the Hebrew Gospel:

Let us turn to the end of the Gospel, where it is written "I came not to take away from the Law of Moses, nor to add to the Law of Moses."

• Talmud Sabb.116-b
• Burton L. Visotzky, Fathers of the World, Mohr Siebeck, 1995. p 81
• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 263
• Edward Williams Byron Nicholson,The Gospel according to the Hebrews, C.K. Paul & co., 1879. p 146

I must admit I am a little confused by what Nicholson and Edwards say about this quote. Maybe you could provide some insight. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a bombshell, Professor! Who can deny it?Davidbena (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Is a bombshell a good thing? - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is, indeed, a good thing! It is an eye-opener to our antagonists! I wish to reiterate here that the term "scholarly consensus" is often misappropriated, for the simple reason that the vast majority of scholars who have discussed this issue are not 100% certain of what language the original Gospel of Matthew was written in, and those who suggest that it was originally written in Greek have only laid forth conflicting hypotheses. Even the late Dr. William L. Petersen, in Tatian’s Diatessaron, E.J. Brill / Leiden 1994, p. 17, suggests that there was no justification in calling the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew a "forgery," and that, by one form of logic (based on Justin's use of a quote taken from that Gospel), it was indeed the proto text used in transmitting the Greek canonical text of Matthew.Davidbena (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: If Edwards means the quote by Rabban Gamaliel in the Book of Acts, actually the wording is a little different. "If this thing is not from G-d it will come to naught." The quote in the Babylonian Talmud is much later than Rabban Gamaliel.Davidbena (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

How much later? Could you reproduce the quote from the Talmd here. Cheers- Ret.Prof (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 116a-b) speaks specifically about the Greek Gospel (evangelion) which was lately translated from Aramaic into Greek. The Rabbis took notice of its omissions and inaccuracies, here and there, and by way of jest they coined a name for the newly composed Greek canonical Gospel of Matthew, calling it in Hebrew Awen Gelyon, meaning, "the gloss of iniquity," obviously, a hint at its Greek name "evangelion" which means "Good Tidings."Davidbena (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A story about Rabban Gamaliel and his sister and a certain gentile judge is related in the Babylonian Talmud (ibid). I have translated it here for you to see. Enjoy!

I find the story amusing, and shows good Jewish wit and humor! Davidbena (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

COMMENT: Although the Babylonian Talmud was redacted in the 5th century by Jewish scholars of Babylon, it still contains within it anecdotal material and old stories passed down throughout the generations. Judging by the abovementioned story, the Greek Gospel of Matthew (used by the Christian judge) already existed in written form in the days of Rabban Gamaliel II. We're talking about the beginning of the 2nd century CE.Davidbena (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your translation is almost the same as Edwards. Hebrew Awen Gelyon, meaning, "the gloss of iniquity," obviously, a hint at its Greek name "evangelion" which means "Good Tidings." Clears up the confusion. Your insight is very very helpful! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope. (a) The original pun is associated with Rabbi Meir (a Palestinian active in the mid-late second century). (b) It was varied by Rabbi Yoḥanan bar Nappaha a full century later. (c) Shabbat 116a-b and its pun on εὐαγγέλιον, says nothing about a translation from Aramaic into Greek, as David tries to slip in. (d) We are not 'talking about the beginning of the 2nd century CE' since Gamaliel at Acts 5:34ff. is decades earlier (e) 'Hebrew Awen Gelyon, meaning, "the gloss of iniquity," doesn't clear up the confusion, but adds to this mess, by confusing Aven gilyōm with Avon gilyōm; (f) an obscure family anecdote written down 3 centuries after the ostensible event, described with elliptic obscurity, is not evidence for a 'fact' or 'set of facts' concerning anything, let alone the Gospel of Matthew, esp. since the law of succession quoted is not in Matthew or any other gospel; the above exchanges are gibberish, and I suggest when handling what scholars write you both heed Gamaliel's quoted remark in Acts:καὶ τὰ νῦν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπόστητε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τούτων καὶ ἄφετε αὐτούς• Please do not clog up the talk page with drivel, or private theories.Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff. I think that the quote in Edwards re the Hebrew Gospel is referring to Rabban Gamaliel the younger. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are obviously confused and know very little about Jewish history. First, the commentators on the Babylonian Talmud say that the word awen gelyon - Heb. עון גליון - is a play on words, and refers specifically to the Gospel, which the Greek speaking people called "evangelion." The context of the Talmudic passage proves it, since in a case where books are burnt by a raging fire, such faulty translations of Jewish texts have no sanctity and are permitted to be burnt. As for Rabban Gamaliel, he is the grandson of Hillel the Elder. In fact, the lineage of Hillel the elder is well documented in ancient Jewish sources. For example: Hillel the Elder (who immigrated to Israel from Babylonia in circa 32 BCE) is the father of Rabban Shimon, who is the father of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder (Rabban Gamaliel I) who is mentioned in the Book of Acts. His son was Rabban Shimon II, mentioned in Josephus, and who was killed by the Romans in Cyrene. His son was Rabban Gamaliel II, mentioned all throughout the Talmud and in Shabbat 116b, and who was a contemporary with Rabbi Akiva. He, too, had a son whose name was Rabban Shimon III, who was the President (Nasi) of the Sanhedrin, during the days of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Nathan.Davidbena (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

One more thing: For a discussion on this subject of the Greek evangelion, you may wish to see: “Christianity in Talmud and Midrash,” by Robert Travers Herford, pub. Farnborough 1972, pp. 161-171.Davidbena (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Since Gamaliel 1 at Acts 5:37 uses the same verb (καταλυθήσεται/καταλῦσαι) as the one in the Matthew quotation said to be alluded to by the philosopher at Shabbath 166a/b cf Gamaliel 11 material (Matt:5:17 οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι) I got distracted. I always am at 7.30, when the dinner gong has rung and I must rush to post.

For the rest, I'm familiar with the lineages, in fact it was puzzling over the lineages of family anecdote from G1 to G2, Acts to Shabbat 166b that distracted me. I also said it was a pun, so you need not enlighten me on the meaning of what I wrote. What you appear not to be familiar (though now with the edit conflict I see you ironically cite it) with are the vocalizations of עון גליון , and their respective uses by Meir and Yohanan see the old translation and notes in R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, 1903 pp.146-155,161-164, esp.1\55,162. both Edwards (p.232), Herford and E.B. Nicholson speak of the 70s CE or early 80s Ist cent.CE, not, David, as you write 'the beginning of the 2nd century CE. Nothing in Shabbat 116a/b is as you argue. You say the Aramaic says the philosopher used the Greek Gospel of Matthew (the Greek Gospel (used by the Christian judge)'. Well the text doesn't say that: it has the min cite a law of inheritance that is in no known Gospel. You wrote.'The Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 116a-b) speaks specifically about the Greek Gospel (evangelion) which was lately translated from Aramaic into Greek. The Rabbis took notice of its omissions and inaccuracies, here and there, and by way of jest they coined a name for the newly composed Greek canonical Gospel of Matthew, calling it in Hebrew . . .. All that is sheer misreading (the rabbis cited one in ca. 150 one around 250ca, i.e. 80/180 years after the normal dating for the Greek Matthew, not recently composed, etc.), or reading subjectively into the text what you want to find there. etc.etc. Please take this futilely boring sequence of misprisions elsewhere. It is not productive for the page we edit here.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's all trivia, Nishdani! From 80 CE to the beginning of the 2nd century is only 21 years. I am well within the margin of error, considering that a man's lifespan can reach eighty years. Second of all, you have no idea why the word "evangelion" was used in the Talmud in the context of fire burning books, and why it is permitted to let such books burn. It all comes down to what is considered "sanctity" in Jewish law. Some books that have been transcribed, even Hebrew books, do not have sanctity. Be well! Davidbena (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The first rule of anyone who wishes to study these things is that dismissing details as 'trivia' throws the baby out with the barfwater, as per Der liebe Gott/Teufel steckt im Detail often associated with Aby Warburg. The second rule is to adopt Nietzsche's advocacy of the art of slow reading: particularly since we are dealing also with theologians' hermeneutics, and as the man wrote: 'Ein andres Abzeichen des Theologen ist sein Unvermögen zur Philogie. Unter Philologie soll hier, in einem sehr allgemeinen Sinne, die Kunst, gut zu lesen, verstanden werden,,—Tatsachen ablesen können, ohne sie durch Interpretation zu fälschen, ohne im Verlangen nach Verständnis die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die Feinheit zu verlieren.'(Der Antichrist: Fluch auf das Christentum,(1888):52) Had you read the sources its 72-ca.110, i.e., 40 years not, 21. As to the second quip. why have I no idea about the details of book and margin burning? I read the passage in three translations several times. And you ignored the most important point re vocalization, and the fact that the pun emerged 70-80 years, and was in turn remodified, some 1960-70 years after the normal date given for Mattyhew's Greek Gospel, which means 'recently' is wrong, among other things.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you have been offended by my words, Nishidani, but you are obviously mistaken. The timeframe in which Rabban Gamaliel II lived is still late 1st century thru beginning of 2nd century CE. No one knows precisely, but can only roughly estimate the time. Birthdates were not preserved down to our time. As for the two exegeses on the word "evangelion," one explaining it as עון גליון and the other as און גליון, these are irrelevant, since the greater import of their teaching implies that the book called by the Greeks evangelion (i.e. a Greek translation of Matthew's Gospel) was not, repeat, not viewed as sacrosanct, in which case, it and the attributes given in it for God's Divine Name can be left to burn in a raging fire. It is as simple as that. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Primary Sources

My understanding of our policy is as follows:

• WP POLICY states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages;" Also it is very important that we not go beyond what is stated in the source.
• A second way that a primary source may be used is if it is quoted in a secondary source.

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I suspect my position will be contested at mediation! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I note how you conveniently left out the words that immediately follow: "but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Primary sources can be used to state facts, like the current population of Toledo, Ohio. We are prohibited from analyzing and interpreting them as editors. No one has said primary sources can't be stated. The problem is that you continue to ascribe meaning to them through direct analysis, e.g., Jerome says "X", so that means "Y". This is the essence of original research, which is forbidden on Misplaced Pages. Ignocrates (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. We must take care. Often it is simply easier to find the quote in secondary source. Cheers, looking forward to our upcoming debate at mediation! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

For example

Pantaenus the Philosopher Pantaenus went to India where the Christian community had collected Matthew's writings. Indeed, Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, had preached to Indian people, and left them Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew script, which they had preserved. After many good deeds, Pantaenus finally became the head of the School in Alexandria, and expounded the treasures of divine doctrine both orally and in writing.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.10.3

Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 1981. Vol 19, p 303

Jerome Pantaenus (sent to India by Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria) found that Bartholomew, one of the Twelve Apostles, had preached the Advent of the Lord Jesus according to Matthew's Gospel composed in Hebrew script, which he brought back to Alexandria.

Jerome, On Illustrious Men 36.2,

Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 100, p 59

Jerome Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (though by what author uncertain). Now this Hebrew original is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea.

Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3

Editorial board, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, 2008. Vol 100, p 10

My understanding, based on these sources, we could say Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew was brought to Caesarea and Alexandria. BUT we could not say it was in wide circulation. For that we would need a secondary source. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No. You cannot say "Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew was brought to Caesarea and Alexandria". This is your OR analysis and conclusion based on the above primary sources. You can show the primary sources as you have done above. Nothing more. Ignocrates (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here we disagree! The good news is that all of the above are found in secondary sources! Mediation should be interesting. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You may have one thousand primary sources, all quoted in secondary sources. They are useless for your case as long as the secondary sources don't agree with their conclusions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I wouldn't say that disagreeing secondary sources are useless if they don't see eye-to-eye on Primary Sources. Take the creationist theory for an example. We can still publish secondary sources that disagree with each other, without being biased, but maintain a neutral posture when sources conflict.Davidbena (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Creationism is considered pseudoscience inside the whole Misplaced Pages, when compared to evolution. Misplaced Pages always states that the theory of evolution is proven beyond reasonable doubt, because that's the scientific consensus in biology. Being neutral does not mean treating creationism and evolution upon equal footing. Evolution is a scientific theory and a fact, creationism isn't scientific. See WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You may be correct here, about "creationism." I just happened to use it as an example. However, the point was this: secondary sources do not necessarily have to agree with their view of primary sources. In fact, in our debate, there is a wide spectrum of views - even in those secondary sources which purport that the Gospel of Matthew was penned in Greek.Davidbena (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have underlined the words "you" and "your" above for emphasis, since you are still unclear. Now you are arguing in effect "I can use these primary sources to make my case and everything will be fine, if these secondary sources would only agree with me". That would be fine, except that they don't. Anywhere. More circular reasoning. Ignocrates (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you have misread WP POLICY What you say is not there. The good news is that the quotes that give you concern are also in secondary sources. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

They are not of much use, seen that the secondary sources overtly reject them from being historically accurate. That's what scholars state. The rest of your argument is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here you are very much mistaken. The new scholarship has shifted dramatically! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If you believe that you should quote secondary sources which actually affirm that our Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. No amount of primary sources would do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, that is only true for some secondary sources, but definitely not for all. W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, pp. 12-13, cite a reliable secondary source (viz., George Kennedy, in Classical and Christian Source Criticism, p. 146) who builds upon the Primary Sources and holds that an Aramaic Matthew was earlier than Greek Mark. George Kennedy has written: "If a gospel had been written in Greek at a fairly early date and was reasonably well-known, and if subsequently someone undertook to translate an Aramaic gospel, rather fuller in content, into Greek, it would be in accordance with Greek conventions for the translator to have taken the language of the existing Greek gospel as his model, even to the extent of borrowing some of that familiar language to translate passages of Aramaic that were not literally identical to his text."Davidbena (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Another of your misprisions. We don't need speculations about a source in Aramaic which was "maybe possible", we need a source actually telling that it is a fact that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. Can you actually cite a recent secondary source which actually says this? If you can't, you have already lost the battle, mediation is over before it began. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Speculations? Until now, it is you, Tgeorgescu, that have relied only upon speculative sources. The only ones who do not rely upon speculation are those authors (T. Zann, C.C. Torrey, etc. etc.) whose books and research articles sustain the views of the Church Fathers and who have been mentioned by Davies and Allison.Davidbena (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it is not our task to second-guess mainstream scholars. I asked for a statement of fact from a recent, mainstream secondary source. "If a gospel had been written in Greek..." sounds to you like a statement of fact? Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a principle in logic which I think can also be applied here, in our use of secondary sources, be they "mainstream" or those which border on "mainstream" (i.e. who do not make-up the majority, but nevertheless are not fringe). Whenever we find a contested issue, in logic, the one claiming something by supposition/presumption/conjecture (which happens to be the majority), and the other claiming something without supposition/presumption/conjecture, but affirmatively (which happens to be the minority), we take the affirmative view and discard the one based on a supposition. For example: If ten people say to you, "perhaps this is the road to the village," and only three or four people say, "No! The other road leads to the village!," we take the minority view because they were certain about it. It is the same here with the mainstream who have all given different hypotheses and guesses as to the work of the original Gospel. Davidbena (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

First, Misplaced Pages editors aren't allowed to second-guess mainstream scholars, that would be the very essence of WP:OR. According to WP:UNDUE, we let mainstream scholars decide the mainstream view and we trust them to be capable to do this. When they consensually tell that something is a historical fact, it is a historical fact for Misplaced Pages. Second, since you were so eager to look at Ehrman disputes upon YouTube, look up this one: . Mutatis mutandis, ancient reports about a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew get subjected to the same historical methods. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

But you are "second-guessing" mainstream scholars, Tgeorgescu, when you choose to represent one of them, although their opinions, views and/or hypotheses are diverse one from the other (although they might reach the same conclusion), and often their opinions have been based on mere speculation. What I mean to say here, does disbelief in the Primary Sources by a majority of writers constitute a "reliable secondary source," as opposed to belief in the Primary Sources by a marginal minority, not considered by any means "fringe," since their views are often brought down by the mainstream authors themselves? This is so borderline, that there might be a place for the Misplaced Pages CEO and staff to "rewrite" the rules in this regard. Remember: "For every rule there is an exception to the rule.Davidbena (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no exception. WP:OR based on primary sources, whether added into article or soapboxed beyond patience on Talk pages is not accepted. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on WP:UNDUE, which states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views," there is still a place for the representation of the views on Matthew held by at least some of reputable authors cited by the Professor and I.Davidbena (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Usually views that are only held by 1 individual are in that individual's bio article only. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

We have now reached agreement:

• WP POLICY states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages;" Also it is very important that we not go beyond what is stated in the source.
• A second way that a primary source may be used is if it is quoted in a secondary source.

Nobody is now saying primary sources are not allowed. Their argument is turning to how in practical terms this policy is allowed. Of course the Devil is in the details! Here is where our mediator will be valuable in guiding us to an agreement. I think we have done all we can on this talk page. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, Ret.Prof. There is a policy dealing with obstructive behaviour, called WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As is known, I have a good deal of sympathy for the idea of early Christianity as a Jewish sect, probably with its own Aramaic traditions, whose nature was traduced by tendentious polemics and book manipulation (on both sides) when the split occurred and Judaic and Gentile Christian positions crystallised into reciprocal antipathy. But you are, in my view, doing that legitimate POV a great disservice by what can only be called obtusity, and a refusal to think closely, combined with an alacrity for quips. You've had your say. Drop it, otherwise, someone will eventually make your presence here shorter than it should be.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. I am suggesting we all drop it and let our mediator do his job! Look forward to the debate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, my advice is to pursue truthful editing, even if it entails an occasional "bump" or "bruise." Be well.Davidbena (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:VNT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgscu, a scholar once wrote: "Literature... depends heavily on credibility. If a text has passed through the professional hands of the author, editor, publisher, and bookseller, the readers will assume with good reason that the editorial frame and, in particular, the alleged authorship is accurate." (D. Trobisch). This does not negate, however, how that we, as editors, ought to be truthful in our reporting. If this is not clear, then none of the guidelines espoused by Misplaced Pages will be clear to you.Davidbena (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Policies, guidelines and essays are clear to me, see especially WP:The Truth and m:MPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't going to last much longer. We have had 3-plus years of watching Ret.Prof soapbox on personal, article, and public talk pages of Misplaced Pages. After all that time, he has yet to produce a single convincing reliable source to back up his OR. If mediation fails to resolve the content aspects of this dispute, this is going straight to arbitration to deal with the behavioral issues, even if I have to file the case myself. Ignocrates (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates, can you please tell us what Original Research is the Professor guilty of using/writing/making? Please inform me. Do you mean in an existing article?Davidbena (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof's method from the beginning has been to write OR commentary that he wants to be true and then go back and find references that sort of talk about the same subject. I will be saving those diffs for arbitration. There are literally hundreds of them over a three year period. The other editors here are well aware of the articles affected by this nonsense. I'll let them explain it to you. I have a driveway to shovel. Ignocrates (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ignocrates, I'm confused. I thought this mediation was specifically about Gospel of Matthew, or the Hebrew Gospel, and the Professor's amendments/postings in these specific Misplaced Pages articles. Now you tell me that it is a broader problem. I feel that I've been misinformed about the nature of this mediation.Davidbena (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

David, this mediation is about Gospel of Matthew and whether it should more fully include material on the Hebrew gospel of Matthew as mentioned by Papias. The current problems began about January when RetProf proposed an edit - one that was in fact a reversion of an edit I made some months earlier, which was in turn a reversion of an edit he'd made even earlier than that. This pattern of edits by RetProf and reversions/deletions by others stretches back perhaps three years. I became involved about 2 years ago maybe - I haven't checked) at a point when the conflict between RetProf and others had become really impossible. By mutual agreement they allowed me to rewrite the entire article. The others approved what I did, RetProf I don't think liked it, by he said he was withdrawing from the article. But he didn't - he kept coming back. So we have two problems, the immediate one (the mediation, which is a content dispute) and the much longer-running one of what other editors see as RetProf's disruptive editing pattern. RetProf holds that Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew that stands behind the modern Matthew. He's been editing that idea, often longthy edits, into a whole range of related articles, not just this one, over the years. That's the behavioural dispute that Ignocrates is threatening to take to Arbcom.PiCo (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And that doesn't even include the articles that Ret.Prof has attempted to add to the encyclopedia that admins have deleted as inappropriate. Ignocrates (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, User:PiCo, and thanks User:Ignocrates. Now the matter is clear to me. Ultimately, it all comes down to less-experienced editors knowing when to give-in, and allowing for the more experienced to make the appropriate changes, if at all called for. This is where editors must study their subject matter very, very well. We all must become like academicians, but we all must have a mind to work together whenever possible, and, definitely, never to impose our ways or views upon others without their consent. It was precisely for this reason that I withdrew from offering suggestions on how to improve the article, Gospel of Matthew. I had actually added a few lines about its authorship and composition which were quickly deleted. I gave up. I would suggest here that the Professor do the same. He can always suggest, but not impose a view, unless it is agreed upon by the editors at large.Davidbena (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair to RetProf, suggesting is what he's doing. This mediation will, one hopes, settle the matter. PiCo (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder: WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH are not optional policies: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. DO NOT analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. and Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. -- 101.119.29.83 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is also a core policy, and we seem to have a clear consensus here, except for two editors. Note that Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity. -- 101.119.29.83 (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If I might add here, there should always be (in my humble opinion) a general inclination amongst the good editors here on Misplaced Pages to uphold all policies outlined on Misplaced Pages, and not to just select those policies which best fit one's own whims and fancies. I'm not pointing the finger at anybody, may God forbid. We also find outlined in WP policy what is called WP:UNDUE, according to which: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the main space fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views, etc." Based on this, there is still a place here for the representation of the views on Matthew held by at least some of reputable secondary source authors provided here and who espouse that the Gospel of Matthew was originally composed in Aramaic. IMHO Davidbena (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, there is some ambiguity in deciding how to apply WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Although the policies are clear enough, in practice, someone has to decide where to draw the line, and that line can only be determined by community consensus. In this case, the community consensus is overwhelming that an autograph Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is fringe scholarship. One or two dissident editors won't change that, no matter how long and loud they scream about it on the talk page and in public forums. This issue has had its day at FTN and it should be considered a dead issue by now, per WP:DEADHORSE and WP:WIN. Ignocrates (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Davidbena has considered by argument above and decided to withdraw from this discussion, per his note on my talk page. This is a wise move on his part, in my opinion. Ignocrates (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Above I was merely trying to explain my understanding of when primary sources WP:PRIMARY may be used and the importance of not going beyond what is stated in those sourcesWP:SYNTH. The response was a brutal personal attack on me. It was unfair! I am not perfect but I am certainly not the caricature presented above. (Please look at my edit history in context.) Since behavioral issues are not part of the mediation process I will say no more. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Which attack do you mean? The recent ANI complaint was against Davidbena, not against you (provided that you are not the same person). About m:MPOV it's just another perspective, since if it were considered offensive, it were already deleted from meta. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Mediation Process

We must all try to focus only on the content issues. This is what we have agreed to in good faith. As for me, I am leaving this talk page to focus on mediation. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, can one mediate between parties on an issue of policy interpretation? Esp. when the relevant policy guideline is as clear as a bell to an overwhelming majority of editors?Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Parsing words to pretend that Misplaced Pages policies are something else more to your liking can only end one way. As of now, we have the selective excision of sentence fragments taken out of context to mean something else. What's next? Maybe individual letters can be excised and rearranged to make new sentences. Ignocrates (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Post Mediation

I see that Ret.Prof has retired again. The mediation page has identified some compromise wording, but that wording seems merely to summarise what's already in the article at Gospel of Matthew#Composition and setting, and hence adding it would, in my opinion, only be confusing.

I have taken the liberty of adding a reference to Irenaeus, who provides an older example of the "Apostle Matthew" tradition than Eusebius (i.e. the tradition doesn't begin with Eusebius). However Irenaeus is even more cryptic than Papias, so I have used as few words as possible. -- 101.119.14.181 (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• High-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Bible articles
• Top-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles