| Revision as of 12:24, 11 September 2014 editEvensteven (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,240 edits →An early date for Matthew← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:59, 16 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,824 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 12) (bot |
| (447 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header |search=yes }} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top|jesus-work-group=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religious texts|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religious texts|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bible|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Books}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|counter = 12 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 15: |
Line 18: |
|
|archive = Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month }} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
==New reference added== |
|
|
|
] |
|
I took the liberty of adding a new reference: Maurice Casey, . I hope it will be edifying. He is a leading non-Christian historian who in a scholarly fashion examines the evidence regarding the origins the ]. He concludes that Papias was right: Matthew did write a Gospel in Hebrew. However this early gospel was smaller and more primitive than the ] we have today and there were major discrepancies between the two. It may have even been composed on wax tablets. His in-depth the study into "composite scholarship" of the Second Temple period has given the academic community much to reflect upon. He puts forward a compelling case that Matthew first composed a gospel in Aramaic and that this became the basis or fountainhead for the composite ]. Before I start updating the article with material from Casey 2014, I will give others a chance to look at this new work as a sign of good faith. Cheers ] (]) 12:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11#Matthew, Gospel According to}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 07:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Hmm, I'm not sure we need to include books that are written in response to blogs. At this stage I would not include it, since it is not specifically about Matthew. Anyway, the pages that discuss Papias on Matthew are unfortunately missing from the Google preview. What does he say? ]] (]) 13:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
::I would also be interested in seeing what the reviews say about the work. ], ], and ] will of course all apply to any material which anyone might seek to add tothis article, with all those determined as per ]. May I suggest that a more effective approach might be to start an article on the book itself, indicating how the book has been received by the academic community along with a description of its contents, as a first step? ] (]) 17:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] |
|
:::On page 90 of that book Casey says that "the gospel of Matthew is usually dated c.75-85 CE and its author is considered to be unkonwn." That exactly what our article says. Casey then gives his personal proposal, but Misplaced Pages presents the broad consensus, not the views of individuals. (We do mention in the lead that a view like Casey's remains a minority one). At the bottom of page 90/top of page 91 Casey outlines Papias' statement about an Aramaic Matthew an says this is "complete nonsense." I can't see that Casey's book adds anything, and it should be removed(the bibliography is for books actually used in the article).] (]) 21:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11#Original Matthew}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 07:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
::Does the article have any references at all to the minority view mentioned in the lead? ] (]) 21:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The minority view noted in the lead is about the date: "a pre-70 date remains a minority view." It's such a very small minority view that it doesn't get a mention in the article body (you can check out the books in the bibliography). RetProf isn't so much interested in the date as the process of composition - he thinks somebody, maybe the apostle Matthew or maybe not, wrote a gospel in Aramaic which then formed the basis for our Matthew. That could have happened at any date. It's not, however, even a minority viewpoint - Casey himself dismisses it. ] (]) 23:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] Wow, did you misread Casey 2014! It is true that ''"the ] is usually dated c.75-85 CE and its author is considered to be unknown."'' but Casey says the ''Hebrew Gospel'' was written by Matthew possibly on wax tablets and that ''Hebrew Gospel'' was a major source or fountainhead of the ]. Do you have any authority that challenges ''Casey 2014'' or that says that Casey adds nothing to biblical scholarship? - ] (]) 01:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::] requires that the burden of proof lies on the person seeking to add information, which in this case would be you, Ret.Prof. You could more effectively meet the demands of policy and guidelines by showing that this proposal has received favorable consideration from others, which would be required to show it does not qualify as FRINGE. The easiest and most effective ways to do that would be to start or develop separate articles on the books or hypotheses if they qualify as independently notable first, and then propose additions to this broader article. ] (]) 14:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
@] I plan to wait a week to let everyone read the book. If editors only read snippets or previews they can get confused as did PiCo. - ] (]) 01:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:What Casey says is that some of the Q and M material in Matthew could have come direct from Matthew the apostle. That hardly makes Matthew the apostle the author of the gospel of Matthew. In any case, this is just Casey's hypothesis - we have to reflect majority views and significant minority opinions, and this is neither.] (]) 05:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have no real comments to make on Casey himself, just one on authorship. For the sake of understanding the primary sources, it should be said that authorship, especially within the Church, was not strictly viewed as an individual activity. In certain cases, authorship was individual. But in others, where the intent of the writing was to serve the Church in its community functions (such as the production of holy writings which served to teach, some of which were later examined for entry into the Biblical canon), or later yet, the writing of church services or rubrics, such things were especially subject to common review, approval, and at least editing. St. John Chrysostom is said to be the author of the most commonly-used Divine Liturgy service, Pope Gregory I the author of the Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified Gifts, and most certainly neither was sole author. Their close association with the development and contribution of essential portions, even the heart of the services, and the high recognition and respect for their saintliness all contributed to their acclamation as "author". It's honorary (from our point of view) because the authorship is not single. It was a work of the Church in the earlier view, with the honor of recognition for contribution bestowed where most suitable. In light of this kind of tradition, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Apostle Matthew had some sort of direct participation in the composition of the Gospel, but ultimately it too was a work of the Church. Papias' writings should be examined with regard to meanings that do not translate into the modern era well. I don't know if Casey does that, or does it well, but whatever scholarly sources we draw on for the article should be looked at to see how carefully the research has explored this matter. Over much time, much text, many manuscripts and artifacts are all lost to material corruption, war or strife, vagaries of death or other lost memory, and so on. Just as perishable is the context of the time, the sense of how things were, and were done. Consider that we recognize that today better than we have in some times of recent past, and how it is driving historians to gather the recollections of those who fought in WW2 before we have no one living we can actually talk to about it. We know that when that time comes, we will have lost something. How much more, then, we have already lost since 70 AD, and how much more careful we must be in the way we look at what remains. That goes for us as editors as much as anyone. ] (]) 07:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
@ Anon User: You are right! What ''Casey 2014'' argues is that Papias was correct and Matthew did compose an article in a Hebrew dialect and that this "Hebrew Gospel" was the "fountainhead" for the Greek ] found in the Bible. In other words: |
|
|
*The ''Hebrew Gospel'' >>>> composed by the Apostle Matthew. |
|
|
*The Greek ]>>>> a composite composition which used a lot of authentic material from the ''Hebrew Gospel''. |
|
|
*Finally, Casey notes that there are discrepancies between the Greek ] and the ''Hebrew Gospel'' composed by the Apostle Matthew! |
|
|
It is really important not just to read the preview or snippet view of ''Casey 2014''. You may not agree with Casey, but his scholarship answers a lot of questions. - ] (]) 12:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ret Prof, can you please link to previous archive discussions of (1) ] and (2) "fountainhead" / Papias raised by yourself on this Talk Page over the past couple of years. ] (]) 13:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Please see . More to follow. - ] (]) 13:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Another Cheers - ] (]) 13:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Hmmm...I am not sure I am understanding the question. To my knowledge ''Casey 2014'' has never been discussed? - ] (]) 13:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::{{ping|Ret.Prof}} Your apparent refusal to directly respond to the rather clearly-made request is unfortunate. The request clearly referred to Maurice Casey and his body of work, of which the latest work is only one piece, but likely consistent with his earlier work. So discussions of his body of work, if it is consistent with his later work, are very possibly relevant. Also, I think it would be very useful if you provided information on academic reviews of his most recent book to help establish how well or poorly it was received. ] (]) 18:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::@] What do you think of Casey 2014, re dating the Greek ] between 50 and 60 CE. In any event the gospel is undated and nobody can be certain. We must work from a NPOV - ] (]) 15:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== “It tells how Israel’s messiah” == |
|
::::::I could be wrong, but I suspect that the Orthodox Church and its scholars are probably more inclined to be sympathetic with the earlier date (back to 50 CE) than most groups, because they sometimes draw on traditions that have been largely forgotten in the west. Yet even so, the Orthodox Study Bible, produced by a convocation of such scholars in the US, makes only a passing nod to that early a date, and offers that it is "more likely" to have been written sometime after 70 CE. In addition, they mention the years Matthew spent in Antioch within the "strong, mixed community" of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Though the OSB doesn't say so, this could have been a time of collaboration about the gospel, a cross-checking of accounts and testimonies, and other such activities that I have heard postulated from other sources. The OSB does state that ], bishop of Antioch from 67-107 AD, is one of the earliest witnesses to the existence of this gospel, which might imply completion (or at least advanced drafting) by 107. So back to dating, I would say that Orthodox support for 50-60AD should be characterized as fairly weak at best. If Casey is definite about wanting to date it then, Orthodox writings are unlikely to provide much more than occasional individual support. ] (]) 19:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}} |
|
|
Ret.Prof, what would really be helpful to everyone here is page numbers and exact quotations (in complete sentences) from Maurice Casey's new book on any statements he made relevant to Papias that you are considering for inclusion in the article. Even better would be a comparison to statements Maurice Casey made in his previous books (page numbers and exact quotations only, please) so that everyone here can compare them. That would be vastly preferable to reams of editorial commentary about your interpretation of what Maurice Casey means. It's also a lot more helpful and constructive than telling everyone else to go read the book. Thank you. ] (]) 19:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes I agree. The following is from ''Casey 2014'' p 90 "... I therefore conclude that Crossley is right: Mark's Gospel was written c. 40 C.E. ''Dates of the synoptic Gospels: The Gospel of Matthew.'' The Gospel attributed to Matthew is usually dated 75–85 C.E., and the author is considered to be unknown. I have proposed that it should be dated 50–60 C.E., and that its author was an unknown Jewish Christian..." Cheers - ] (]) 23:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree with the characterization that "support for 50-60AD should be characterized as fairly weak at best". It's not an idiosyncratic view, but one shared by a very small minority of scholars at this point. Ignatius' references to a putative Gospel of Matthew have been studied extensively. They refer to passages in what we now call "Special Matthew". There is not a single example of synoptic passages that overlap with the Gospel of Mark (that I am aware of anyway). There are many early examples of sayings material (Clement I, Didache, Justin) that are "Matthew-like" and show signs of coming from an oral tradition. ] (]) 23:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this line should be removed, it isn’t objective (Israel doesn’t view him as Messiah) ] (]) 20:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::An early date for Matthew is a minority view, but a date of 40 CE for Mark is downright eccentric. ] (]) 01:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::A date of 40 would make the publication of Mark concurrent with Caligula's attempt to put a statue of Jupiter in the Temple. See the ] for more info on Mark's Little Apocalypse. "Eccentric" would be putting it mildly. ] (]) 02:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:We're not saying that Matthew's claim would be true. It is just what he claims to be true. ] (]) 21:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Understanding the primary sources== |
|
|
@]: You are absolutely correct about understanding the primary sources! Now read the following and compare it to what ''Casey 2014'' says about Papias! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Explain Q == |
|
{{quotation| '''''Preface to the Four Gospels'', 383 CE: From Jerome to Pope Damasus''''' 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'''''.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@] I am confused why you keep reverting my edits. I explained what the Gospel Q is as simple as possible. How should it be explained? The wiki page for the Q source calls it “part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospels of Mark”. I called it “hypothetical sayings Gospel Q (which consists of the material Matthew shares in common with Luke)”, which is pretty similar. This is very understandable, and if you have a problem you should WP: FIXFIRST by making it understandable. ] (]) 07:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)2607:B400:A00:12:F5D9:701E:F6A4:8031 |
|
{{quotation|'''LETTER 19: 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.}} |
|
|
|
:I've reverted Remsense's edit - the material on Q is reliably sourced and essential to an account of current understanding of Matthew. Please note, thought, the Q is not a gospel.] (]) 10:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::How can a statement that is literally wrong and deeply misleading be reliably sourced? Good grief. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 10:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{quotation|'''LETTER 20: Jerome (Reply)''' “Matthew, who composed his Gospel in Hebrew script, wrote, 'Osanna Barrama', which means 'Hosanna in the Highest.’”}} |
|
|
|
:::If I understand our article correctly, it's saying that Matthew uses Mark and Q as it's sources (plus M of course). If you think this is wrong, what's your reason?] (]) 10:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::As you yourself said, calling it a gospel is wrong, ergo not what the source says, ergo not verified. To make my position clear, a version of this addition that correctly explains Q and its hypothetical relationship to Matthew would be welcomed by me.<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 10:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Authorship, especially within the Early Church, was not strictly viewed as an individual activity. - ] (]) 14:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::: The further I go in the is article, the more repetition I find (of points rather than wording, mostly). It needs some heavy and careful editing. ] (]) 10:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Oh no, not again. Please review the controversy documented at ] before you waste everyone's time with this, again. You cannot parse the words of ] to find a meaning no one else sees which allows you to use primary sources as though they are secondary sources. You can <U>state</U> primary sources, but you cannot analyze, summarize, or interpret them in any way. That would be ]. Thank you. ] (]) 18:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, I agree. I would leave the parsing to the reliable secondary or tertiary sources. I would only examine those sources to get a personal feel for how thorough they are in this regard. Reliable sources of a different bent must be allowed here and presumed reliable, whatever our personal regard for their reliability may be. And, of course, that goes both ways. This perspective may account, in some cases, for why reliable sources disagree, or at least see the balance of things in a different light. But this matter goes beyond what has actually been ventured here at this time. ] (]) 19:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, I agree too. "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages; 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. 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 primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." If we use any primary sources in the article, we will take care to see Misplaced Pages Policy is strictly followed. - ] (]) 22:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Ok, good. What I hope we <U>don't</U> see now is an OR exposition about the Gospel of Matthew (as a subject) and what these primary sources mean (to Ret.Prof). If you want to talk about what Casey said as a source, why don't you start by explicitly documenting what Casey said in complete sentences (i.e., not sentence fragments lifted from Google Books) along with page numbers, per my suggestion above. I see your quotation about the early date (c.50 to 60), which is a minority view. What about the rest of Casey that relates to the primary sources above? ] (]) 23:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Agreed, we must take care when editing material from primary sources. Also, because of the lack of a decent preview for ''Casey 2014'', I think it is important to get a copy of the book. Sentence fragments lifted from Google Books will not work! - ] (]) 00:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*Ret Prof, you were asked to link above to your previous advocacy for representing Jerome/Papias as reliable sources, yet you only provided one link. In my memory you have made multiple returns to this article pushing this every time. Can you please provide complete links to ''all'' your previous attempts to get this into the article. I am thinking also that perhaps we need to notify every single editor in all those previous attempts who has prevented the additions you wish to make to this article over the past few years. ] (]) 01:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Misplaced Pages Ban== |
|
|
@ ] Now with both you and ] interacting on this page, are either of you in violation of your respective bans? - ] (]) 00:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have a protocol to follow with respect to my I-ban. That's all I need to say about it here. ] (]) 00:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::As far as I can see they are interacting usefully with you, Ret.Prof, not knocking up against each other. I would ask for the results of that malformed discussion/arbitration to be reopened and reviewed if it meant that two of the most active early Christianity editors could not input on such a basic subject as Gospel of Matthew. The editor stock of WikiProject Religion in general has been whittled down to a handful of editors able to weigh academic modern sources, just because two of those editors bumped heads in another topic area (Ebionites I recall?) it would be damaging to the encyclopedia to say that neither of them can now input on the Gospel of Matthew. This article is high visibility religion article under constant pressure from persistently reoccurring ] views - even such as those promoting medieval rabbinical translations of Latin Matthew as lost Hebrew originals and so on - that excluding two competent editors would make ensuring ] ] content considerably more difficult. ] (]) 01:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks for the words of support. There is no problem here, nor will there be. Cheers. ] (]) 01:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Glad you have worked things out! - ] (]) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Casey 2014 and Misplaced Pages's Gospel of Matthew article == |
|
|
|
|
|
RetProf asked me (two threads above) for my opinion/views on Casey's argument for an earlier date for GoM. This is both a response to that question and a few observations and thoughts on Casey's 2014 book (hereinafter Casey 2014) |
|
|
|
|
|
First, so far as Casey 2014 deals with GoM, he's repeating word for word what he wrote in his earlier book, , published in 2010. This is quite normal scholarly practice, but it's worth noting that Casey 2014 isn't new work. (I've highlighted a single key phrase in both links, but it's the entire section that's repeated). |
|
|
|
|
|
Second, both books are popular works, not aimed at a scholarly audience - Casey was concerned at the growing Christ Myth movement and wanted to counter it with a book for the general reader. This is also worth bearing in mind: Casey isn't making an argument about the composition of GoM but about the historicity of Jesus. |
|
|
|
|
|
Now for what Casey says re GoM and its date and author: |
|
|
* (page 90) This is what our article says, so I don't see that we need to change anything because of this. |
|
|
*"I have proposed that it should be dated c. 50-60 CE..." (p.90, same link). Our article already says that a date earlier than 75-85 is a minority opinion, and the mere fact that Casey supports the minority isn't a reason to change our article. |
|
|
*"...and that its author was an unknown Jewish Christian who may or may not have been called Mattai" (p.90, continuation of the above). This speculation is found in other sources (I mean scholarly books) as well, but it's only one of several and I don't think it needs a mention in our article. Of course, that's a personal call on my part and anyone is welcome to argue a contrary case. |
|
|
|
|
|
RetProf keeps saying that Casey 2014 supports or advances the idea that an Aramaic Gospel of Matthew forms the "fountainhead" for GoM. This isn't actually true. In fact Casey says this: |
|
|
*After summarising the Papias/Eusebius tradition that Matthew compiled the sayings/logia (oracles) in a Hebrew language" (bottom of p.90): (top of page 91). This is pretty much what our article says, though we use more restrained language. |
|
|
*He then asks how the tradition could have arisen, and answers: "ne of the Twelve, who was a tax collector, (wrote) down material about Jesus during the historic ministry", and that "ome of this Gospel's Q material and some of the material unique to it (i.e., the "Special M" material) resulted from Matthew the tax collector's material being transmitted (and) translated..." (Page 91). In other words, when Casey talks about a "fountainhead" which is authentic Matthew behind the GoM, he's talking about ''some'' of Q and M (not even all of Q and M), and ''not'' a lost Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. |
|
|
*Casey 2014 never uses the phrase "Hebrew Gospel", nor the phrase "Aramaic Gospel" - please tell me where you got the idea that he believes such a thing existed? |
|
|
|
|
|
Casey's ideas on the nature of Q and M are not the academic mainstream. Both are thought to have been in Greek, and M is thought not to have been a single document but a mix of oral and written material circulating in the author's community. Casey advances no evidence that Matthew the apostle wrote anything, beyond offering a hypothesis that could explain Papias. |
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages has to represent mainstream academic opinion plus significant minority views. All in all, I can't see that Casey has anything that we need to include in our article. ] (]) 01:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Based on the exact quotations provided here, I find this summary of Casey's new book (and previous publications) convincing. Sadly, this book was his last rodeo. There are too few competent Aramaic scholars as it stands. If anyone has more to add to PiCo's informed opinion, please contribute. Otherwise, I think it's time to form a consensus and move on. ] (]) 01:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think you have misread Casey. I will give it a couple of days for others to get a copy of his book. I will also re read it myself to see if I have made any mistakes. Then with the help of the mediator we will try to sort out our differences. Cheers - ] (]) 02:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't think an appeal to mediation is particularly helpful. Ret.Prof, please explain how PiCo has misread Casey. ]] (]) 03:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@everyone, I would highly recommend read the section ''Reliability'' of article: ]. Perhaps some of the information provided can better help solve this current issue. -- ] (]) 03:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==A popular book== |
|
|
You say both books are popular works, not aimed at a scholarly audience. Do you have any sources to support this position? @]: If this was a popular book, would it cease to be a reliable source? - ] (]) 03:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Casey says himself in his Preface that his aim is refuting mythicism - see the first para of page viii. As no scholars accept the mythicist argument, and as he talks about writing in response to blogs and to the popular mythicists Price and Doherty, I think it's safe to say his target audience is the general public. But Casey is a reliable source, based on his academic record and the way other scholars treat him with respect. ] (]) 04:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree that Casey is a reliable source, but believe he is writing for ''both'' a scholarly audience and the general public. - Cheers - ] (]) 05:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@]:Can a group of user accounts preclude a reliable source and overrule NPOV?? - ] (]) 05:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::They can if the ] is that a user is constructing a ], yes. ] (]) 06:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==The mediation process== |
|
|
@]: I think the mediation process was very helpful in regard to and Building upon this solid foundation will help us compose a good article written from a NPOV. Cheers - ] (]) 04:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, I hope you answer my question before we get to that point. ]] (]) 05:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Pico and Ignocrates and StAnselm have all inputted now on Casey. I share Pico and Ignocrates conclusion that the result this time is the same as last time (times). Ret Prof there is no support for your proposed use of Casey, or indeed any source, to bolster claims for that reading of Papias/Jerome in this article. And I would note also that previous discussions noted that the main relevance of the reliability (on any subject) of Papias/Jerome is it the reliability sections of the Papias/Jerome articles. I suggest you now give this subject and the Gospel of Matthew a rest for 12 months. ] (]) 05:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::When getting ready to challenge the context of "When applied to our Gospel of Matthew this tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognised." (top of page 91), I noticed a big NPOV blunder by ''both'' PiCo & Ret.Prof. I will be off to the library and will address NPOV problem shortly! - ] (]) 05:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This is the problem, repeatedly you tell us your POV and then that you are off to the library to find sources that support the POV. If one of my undergrads did that I would mark his essay an immediate zero before even seeing it. ] (]) 06:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::There is a lot wrong with this interaction. The questions to answer here are whether the proposed sources are reliable sources and what they say. Then we can address how to reflect this in the article. Are the sources reliable? What do they say? That's all to discuss. Above I see discussion as to whether Casey is popular or scholarly. If we've conceded that Casey is reliable but simply feel Casey is popular, then we can simply write: Casey thinks X, although this is considered popular by proponents of Y such as Dr. Z. A different problem is whether Casey is actually talking about a proto-Gospel of Matthew, or if Ret. Prof is reading too much into some of the implications of what is possibly a general overview - this falls under "what does the source say?" If you aren't contributing to answering these core questions, the condescension is unhelpful and skirts civility. ''']'''] 09:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Agreed. I will put off my trip to the library re and comply immediately with our "informal" mediator's request. There are two important edits that I feel must be made to fix the NPOV problems with this article. - ] (]) 11:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Andrevan, we're not discussing whether Casey is popular or scholarly - he was a professor - but whether this particular book is directed at a popular audience or a scholarly one. And I've said it doesn't matter - he's a reliable source. No one is saying anything different. This is a red herring. ] (]) 11:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::RetProf, you don't need to tell us what the Pontifical Bible Commission said in 1911, you need to to tell us where you find a reference to a Hebrew Gospel/Aramaic Gospel in what Casey said in 2014.] (]) 11:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Date of Composition== |
|
|
===1. Reliability of Casey 2014=== |
|
|
I concur with ] that "Casey is a reliable source, based on his academic record and the way other scholars treat him with respect." He is a "" on the Historical Jesus and deals extensively with the origins of the ]. Indeed, it would be fair to say Maurice Casey, is one of the and ''Jesus: Evidence and Argument Or Mythicist Myths?'' complies with Misplaced Pages policy on reliable sources in every way. |
|
|
|
|
|
===What does ''Casey 2014'' say?=== |
|
|
Casey throws his support behind what up to now has been the minority position! He argues for an early date for the composition of the ] i.e. between 50-60 C.E. |
|
|
|
|
|
The following is from {{quotation|... I therefore conclude that Crossley is right: Mark's Gospel was written c. 40 C.E. < ''DATES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS: THE GOSPEL ATTRIBUTED TO MATTHEW'' > The ] is usually dated c. 75–85 C.E., and the author is considered to be unknown. I have proposed that it should be dated c. 50–60 C.E., and that its author was an unknown Jewish Christian...}} |
|
|
|
|
|
My edit is . Note, I am flexible as to the wording as long as the article is written from a NPOV. - ] (]) 12:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Discussion== |
|
|
''Casey 2014'' is a reliable source and clearly argues for a composition date between 50 CE - 60 CE. This is very important to historians as it means the ] could be as short as short as 17 years. It follows that the ] was composed around 40 C.E. It also means that Q source and M source were early. Therefore I stand solidly behind my edit. I believe PiCo was wrong to delete it. - ] (]) 18:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is difficult to actually place a certain date of composition because multiple sources have different theories of composition. On average, a date between 50 — 110 CE would be the timeline of composition for the gospel. I see 65 — 70 or 75 AD and 85 — 100 or 110 CE, but I would not place the date according to one scholar's view. -- ] (]) 18:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree, the 50 - 60 date is still a minority view...but with a notable scholar such as Casey now backing it...it has become an important minority view! - ] (]) 18:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Still a minority view none the less, and there are many notable scholars. Simply this, the date is not going to be based on a minority or one scholar's point of view. -- ] (]) 18:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, {{u|PiCo}} was not wrong to delete it. The talk page discussion is a virtually unanimous consensus (minus one) for keeping the original date range, yet you tried to force your version into the text anyway. That makes three tries now against consensus. ] (]) 20:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::On what grounds? Can a group of user accounts working together overrule NPOV, RS and other core policies? - ] (]) |
|
|
:::Ret.Prof, Misplaced Pages works by ]. A "group of user accounts working together" is six other editors working independently who feel that the article is properly weighted, per ] vs. one editor filling up the talk page and trying to insert an edit three times against that consensus. There is no NPOV problem. The article already mentions the minority view; it just doesn't mention it with the words you personally like best. ] (]) 21:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::'''''You guys are the very definition of ‘chutzpah’.''''' You take an edit that is well within Misplaced Pages guidelines. Then you delete it. When I object, you say the "early date" issue is a red herring. - ] (]) 23:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==What does ''Casey 2014'' say about a Hebrew Gospel?== |
|
|
RetProf, you don't need to tell us what Casey says about his preferred date for Matthew, we already know. What we need is where you find Casey talking about a Hebrew Gospel.] (]) 12:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Does this mean you are in agreement with my edit re the earlier dating of the Gospel of Matthew?? - ] (]) 13:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::No. The article already says that an early dating is a minority opinion.] (]) 13:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Then we have a NPOV disagreement for Casey's support of the 50 C.E.- 60 C.E date is very, very important to the reliability issue of the Gospel of Matthew. Readers should be aware of this scholarship from an important historian! (Who is a reliable source) Cheers - ] (]) 13:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There is no NPOV disagreement. Your suggestion is that we say, in effect, "a minority of scholars support an early date, and so does Maurice Casey," but there can be no reason for giving Casey a special mention. Where is your evidence that Casey talks about a Hebrew Gospel? ] (]) 13:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::As far as the ''Hebrew Gospel'' is concerned you have made some good points and I am having second thoughts. I may just leave the article as is. However as far as the early date for the ] I feel I am solid ground. See discussion above. - ] (]) 18:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::@{{u|Ret.Prof}}, the discussion began on 3 Sep 2014 with about Casey 2014 and a Hebrew Matthew. Now, after repeated, unanswered, requests for source information, you seem to be having second thoughts. Should we close this discussion about a Hebrew Matthew and focus on the question of an early date for Matthew? ] (]) 20:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I feel we should focus on the question of an early date for Matthew. - ] (]) 21:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I'm glad we are putting the Hebrew Gospel issue to rest. Surely the early date issue is a red herring also. There are lots of excellent scholars who hold to an early date, but it remains a minority opinion. The fact that Casey has published a book which opts for an early date makes no real difference to that. ]] (]) 21:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''''See ‘chutzpah’ above!''''' - ] (]) 23:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ret. Prof, you are essentially conceding this point and PiCo is right. Casey doesn't say there is a Hebrew Gospel. So we can't write that even if it is implied or somehow an underlying idea of Casey's unless he spells it out. If you have a source, then go ahead, there are no sources so the issue is over. This can go any way at any time but is nothing until then. ''']'''] 07:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==An early date for Matthew== |
|
|
''(For the convenience of editors, I'm dividing the thread "What does ''Casey 2014'' say about a Hebrew Gospel?" in two because it began as a discussion of whether or not Casey mentions a Hebrew Gospel and ended with RetProf saying he no longer wished to support that argument. With that behind us, we're now talking about the date of Matthew - RetProf's comment, the first in this thread, leads on directly from the end of the previous thread)'' ] (]) 02:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Let us do things one at a time. - ] (]) 21:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ok. With Casey a recognized WP:RS, even granting him a great importance, the book is new, and the importance of the early date in his book has yet to have time to make the impact it could given a little more time. At this time, even 50 AD (much less 40 AD) remains a minority view, even east and west. It seems reasonable that the article ought to continue to reflect that fact until it changes, if it changes. When Casey's book, or any other matters, have caused enough scholars to reconsider and move to an earlier date, that would be the time for the article to change. And if the date is important to Papias' reliability, we can only assume other scholars will pick up on that as well. But WP is reactive, not proactive. We must wait here until it happens. ] (]) 23:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
@] ''Casey 2014'' puts the date of composition between 50& 60 ce. Where did the 40 come from?? - ] (]) 23:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::40 is Crossley's number, presented in the quote you provided from Casey in ] above. It is apparently the (or one) reason Casey gives for establishing his date of 50-60. Is that correct? 50 is still a minority view. I'm sorry if I have offended in any way, but I did not say that your edit was not within guidelines, and I did not delete it. I also did not call the early date issue a red herring. I merely said that it is not an established majority view, and that is why I think the dates given in the article must not be changed at present. ] (]) 00:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::LOL I was not referring to you. The 40 date was only addressed to you. Sorry! - ] (]) 00:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::The article says 70-110 and pre-70 date is a minority view, but Casey says 50, so it seems reasonable if Casey is a reliable source to change the first number to 50 without changing the second number. I don't see a need to call Casey out by name. If you don't agree that this is reasonable I would be interested to hear why not. ''']'''] 08:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It says Matthew is "generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110". That obviously doesn't mean everyone. Casey is one of the minority. I think there is a misunderstanding over two distinct uses of the phrase "reliable source". ]] (]) 08:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Apparently, 50 is also the early date generally mentioned in eastern (Orthodox) sources, and there seems to be a pretty general agreement that anything earlier is likely to be greeted in scholarly circles as difficult to defend. So putting this in as an early date instead of the vaguer "before 70" (but without needing specific attribution) seems to me a tad clearer. I tend to think that the late date of 110 is rather along the same lines as 50 is for early, and have not heard of eastern scholarship suggesting something that far out. But perhaps it has a somewhat greater following in the west. It would do to examine that date (lightly) also and try to make it clearly match the phrase "generally believed". I don't think 50 falls in that category, which is why we use 70. But are there that many who seriously contend for something after 110? ] (]) 12:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
The redirect Matthew, Gospel According to has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11 § Matthew, Gospel According to until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)