Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:55, 27 August 2013

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

Tag:Authorship and sources

Papias tradition

I agree with you. It seemed reasonable remove the Papias material which says "Matthew composed his Gospel in a Hebrew dialect" from this article . . . until I checked the references. The scope of an article is the topic or subject matter, which is defined by reliable sources. WP:SCOPE Deleting the Papias tradition from our article is simply not supported by the reliable sources. See List The reliable rources on the Canonical Gospel of Matthew devote a section to Papias. To delete Papias from our topic would go against Misplaced Pages policy.

I have also gone to the seminary library in order to comply with synopsis request (above). I checked the encyclopedias and other tertiary sources ranging from the New Catholic Encyclopedia to Blackwells and found that all their articles on the Gospel of Matthew delve into the Papias issue. Quite honestly I could not find a source that did not refer to Papias. My synopsis or outline would be as follows:

OUTLINE

1 Composition and setting 1.1 Authorship 1.2 Setting: the community of the Gospel of Matthew 2 Structure and content 2.1 Structure 2.2 Prologue: genealogy, nativity and infancy 2.3 First narrative and discourse 2.4 Second narrative and discourse 2.5 Third narrative and discourse 2.6 Fourth narrative and discourse 2.7 Fifth narrative and discourse 2.8 Conclusion: Passion, Resurrection and Great Commission 3 Themes in Matthew

4 Comparison with other writings

This is pretty standard stuff. What is important to note is that the sections on Authorship have Papias included. Although I looked at many many sources on the Gospel of Matthew, the four that I based my outline on were The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church 2013, Encyclopaedia of the historical Jesus 2008, New Catholic Encyclopedia and Blackwells. Also I am flexible. Hope you find my outline a step in the right direction.

Authorship

Although the Gospel of Matthew does not name its author, Blackwells points out that the early MSS have the following citation:

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, eight years after the bodily ascension of Jesus the Messiah into heaven, and in the first year of the Roman Emperor Claudius Caesar. Blackwell (2009) p 602

The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey b. 63 A.D). His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius, generally "held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." Blackwell (2010) p 301 Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic. Blackwell (2010) p 302 Indeed, leading British historian Maurice Casey has gone so far as to say, "It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew" compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able. (See also Casey 2010 p 86)

Bart Ehrman and James Edwards now support Casey and argue that the Papias tradition "is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves." Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101 (ie the apostolic fountainhead) "It is in any case very early, within living memory of the apostolic age." James R. Edwards, 2009. pp 2-3

Indeed there can be no denying the striking and incontestable fact that the Apostle Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. Blackwell (2009) p 602 In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these two facts. Edwards (2009) p 259, p 102 & p 117.

Modern scholarship: translation verses composite authorship debate

Some, including the Roman Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission, believe that the Gospel of Matthew is simply a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. However, there are several historical problems. First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (see The Synoptic Problem). Blackwell (2010) p 302 Also the subscriptions to the early MSS are more consistent with composite authorship than a translation. Jerome confirms this, as there are discrepancies between the Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew. In a letter to Pope Damasus, Jerome explains, "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 letters. 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." James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009 p 33

Most contemporary scholars embrace composite authorship (See Two-source hypothesis, Four document hypothesis & Diagram) and believe the Gospel of Matthew is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (Greek primacy). Raymond Edward Brown, An introduction to the New Testament, Anchor Bible Series, Doubleday, 1997. p. 209-211 Since the publication of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, and a variety of other Aramaic documents written in the ancient world, this "present generation of scholars have had the opportunity to make massive progress." We now have a much clearer idea of the " the nature of authorship in Second Temple Judaism. Composite authorship was common, and so was the attribution of documents to the fountainheads of traditions.". As Jerome testifies the Apostle Matthew was the fountainhead of the Greek Gospel of Matthew which is of composite authorship in the same sense as many ancient Jewish works, such as the books of Isaiah and Jubilees. Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, 2010. p 89

WP:SCOPE

The scope of an article is the topic or subject matter, which is defined by reliable sources. The extent of the subject matter identifies the range of material that belongs in the article, and thus also determines what does not belong (i.e., what is "out of scope"). The reliable sources See List on the Canonical Gospel of Matthew such as Blackwells 2010, The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church 2013, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia of the historical Jesus 2008, and New Catholic Encyclopedia devote a section to Papias, translation and composite scholarship. For more in debth look at some of this scholarship the following links have been added: the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, the Two-source hypothesis, the Four document hypothesis & Diagram

It is also important to note, "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Tertiary sources may be used but with care. Encyclopedias etc. cost a great deal to produce. At Misplaced Pages we are producing our own encyclopedia based on secondary sources, not copy editing the costly work of others. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Continued WP:FRINGE

I've reverted the addition of Hebrew Gospel hypothesis as the "main" link for composition, but what is the solution to these continued edits? It seems evident that Ret Prof is determined to push what is only notable as WP:FRINGE view into this and other high visibility articles? What's the solution to this? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Please provide some reliable sources to support your edit that the Hebrew gospel hypothesis is fringe. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem:

Pheme Perkins Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels -2007 Page 197 "The hypothesis that a Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew tradition has been detected in new Gospel fragments continues to surface on the fringes of scholarship today. It was first proposed by the second-century Christian author Papias, who ...

Now, other editors, what is the solution to the continuing edits on this article? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That is good enough to support your edit. For my full response please go Hebrew Gospel hypothesis where must try to work through this topic from a NPOV. There are reliable sources on both sides of this issue so we may need outside help. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV means keeping fringe material out of a major article like Gospel Matthew - none of your material has any place in this article. Yourself and previous advocates of "Original Matthew" theories have tried repeatedly to insert the theory into this article and it has been repeatedly removed. And yet here you are filling the Talk page with more advocacy for this theory. What will it take to stop this? Are you ever going to accept that this fringe theory does not deserve a prominent place in major New Testament articles on en.wp? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So we're back at this game are we? What has changed since the last time we reviewed the question at hand (see the archive for relevant discussion? Are we doing the old, look at all these wonderful WP:RS which exempts the material from the WP:FRINGE requirement again? That dog won't hunt and since we have been over this extensively before, rehashing old arguments is a variant of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which is in turn a form of WP:DISRUPT, which leads us all traipsing over to WP:ANI to ask for a topic or article ban. OTOH, if there has been a shift in the scholarly consensus that now accepts the Hebrew hypothesis (of which I am unaware), then the article should incorporate the theory. Eusebeus (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Eusebeus, exactly. Unfortunately with User:PiCo semi-retired, User:History2007 retired, User:DougWeller on leave, I'm not sure how we can do this. One thing is clear, RetProf's firm conviction that the WP:TRUTH is that the "real" Gospel of the "real" Matthew is lurking in Hebrew fragments is just not going to go away. This is more than adequately covered in the article on the fringe theory, a single link is sufficient, but will RetProf accept not making a case for the theory in Gospel of Matthew article itself? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked over the previous discussion, so I refrain from commenting on it. However, there doesn't seem to be anything in this thread itself which seems to remotely indicate that the theory meets WEIGHT requirements for this page. Eusebeus said above that there seems to be good cause to think that this qualifies as Disruptive or Tendentious editing, and, based on the material presented here, I would have to probably agree. FWIW, I tend to think that the best way to proceed is to review the other extant reliable sources of a type similar to[REDACTED] itself, which generally means "reference" works of a dictionary/encyclopedia type, and see how much weight they give the material in the main article for this topic itself. If it is mentioned at length in other articles there, that is another question irrelevant to the discussion for including material on this topic in this article, but is relevant to inclusion of such material in articles of a similar subject as those articles in those books. Yeah, I have seen some articles in some encyclopedias run to 40 pages or more in print, and no, not everything in those hugely long articles necessarily qualifies for inclusion in our shorter articles here, although they might be relevant to other articles here. If the proponents of this change can produce evidence which clearly indicates that this topic has received coverage in content directly relating to the Gospel of Matthew itself, like encyclopedic articles in print sources, that it might proportionately merit the same rough proportional level of coverage here, that would seem to me to be the way to indicate the material should be included here. Can anyone point to evidence of this topic getting enough attention in other sources to meet WEIGHT requirements here for this particular topic and article? John Carter (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

?????????????? Now I am a really confused old guy! I remember Casey, Ehrman etc being debated "as fringe" in Oral Gospel traditions, the heated discussion on the talk page as well as the fringe notice board discussion (consensus Ehrman not fringe) and I even remember some discussion with User:Smeat75, User:Paul Barlow User:Salimfadhley, User:IRWolfie-, User:Eric Kvaalen, User:Shii and User:Stephan Schulz, BUT I have no recollection of a "Fringe debate" on Ehrman, Casey, Blackwell etc re the Gospel of Matthew?? Nor was it ever brought to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ?? In any event see below. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Part of your confusion seems to be based on your apparent insistence to misrepresent the statements of others. Your claim above that somehow Ehrman is counted as "fringe" was so far as I can see in no way said by anyone other than yourself, and attempting to misrepresent the statements of others is and generally has been a rather serious violation of conduct guidelines. I seem to once again be put in the situation to tell the above editor that the primary concerns for[REDACTED] editors are regarding their conduct, and that such problematic conduct as attempting to start straw man arguments, like the one above, are and I think always have been seen as problematic. Now, Ret. Prof., if it isn't too hard for you to do so, do you think it would be possible for you to actually read and perhaps directly respond to the statement I made, rather than engaging in such off-topic statements which probably have little if any place here? If you can demonstrate that, per policies and guidelines, this material is of sufficient importance to meet WP:WEIGHT requirements, which are different from WP:FRINGE requirements, despite what you seem to have asserted above, no one would object to seeing this. However, as per WP:BURDEN, the onus of proof falls on you, and engaging in such useless commentary as the one above does not in any way contribute to others getting the impression that you are giving the appropriate degree of concern to your own conduct, which is in fact the primary reason that editors are brought before various review bodies. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, a query about this topic has been raised on the Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard‎. Alexbrn 14:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It was you who raised the query. I am just alerting other editors here about a discussion in another place. Alexbrn 15:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry got that out of order. Is this better?- Ret.Prof (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Bromiley source

I don't have time to go into this, but from the few checks I've made, the page numbers given for Bromiley don't match up with the passages sourced from him in the article. PiCo (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad that you came out of retirement! The Bromiley ref was essentially correct but whoever did it was a bit sloppy. I fixed it and hope that the editor who first cited it does not take offense. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the reference. I promised myself I would avoid this article, but I couldn't stand it. Please use proper citation formatting. Ignocrates (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

You have made a number of good points. Indeed I agree with most of what you have said. I particularly appreciate your statement "OTOH, if there has been a shift in the scholarly consensus that now accepts the Hebrew hypothesis (of which I am unaware), then the article should incorporate the theory." Being open and fair-minded is so very important to working through a difficult topic! The Fringe issue seems to revolve around the following sources:

• David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303
• William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602
• Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101
• Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88
• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3

One group of good faith editors feel so very, very strongly that the above scholars are wrong and push what is only notable as WP:FRINGE view and that NPOV means keeping fringe material out of a major article like the Gospel of Matthew - the Blackwell Companion, Ehrman, Edwards and Casey have no place in this article! This scholarship represents a dog that won't hunt and therefore such scholarship was rightly deleted from this article.

vs

The other side believes that the Blackwell Companion (2009 2010), Ehrman (2012), Edwards (2009) and Casey (2010) represent the best and most up to date scholarship on the Gospel of Matthew. All are respected in the academic community representing the cutting edge of critical studies.

I think we all agree with In ictu oculi that the time has come to resolve this conflict.

1. Are the Blackwell Companion (2009 2010), Ehrman (2012), Edwards (2009) and Casey (2010) fringe?
2. Does the scholarship re the Hebrew (Aramaic) authorship of the Gospel of Matthew fall under the category of WP:Fringe theories?

Accordingly I have posted a request on Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard to guide us through this challenging topic. Thanks again for all the good work you do.- Ret.Prof (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

On the question of fringe theories, I think the problem is in the written article text, not the sources used to support its claims. The references are properly cited, and none of these experts are fringe writers. It is the use they are put to that is a fringe view, and their use to construct an argument is original research.

Craig does not have much weight in this argument. He is an apologist, not a biblical scholar, and he supports a highly conservative view that argues, using Papias, that the Gospel of Matthew was either composed by, or directly based on, this "Hebrew Gospel". None of the other scholars agree with this, and Casey describes it as 'complete nonsense'.

Aune summarises the consensus view - that the early Christian movement, following Papias, believed the Gospel of Matthew to be the same as the 'Hebrew Gospel'. It is clear that he does not agree with this: “Papias’ description does not correspond well with the New Testament”. There is nothing to suggest that he believes the 'Hebrew Gospel' was an actual document.

Casey, as noted, dismisses the traditional authorship of the Gospel of Matthew as complete nonsense, but he appears to be open to the idea that the Q source used by both Matthew and Luke included elements written by the original apostle, and that Matthew had, or made, a better translation of it from Aramaic into Greek.

Ehrman, again, summarises the consensus view, that the attribution of any part of the Gospel of Matthew to the text mentioned by Papias is simply false: "there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. … he appears to be referring to other writings”. He leaves open the existence of a lost 'Hebrew Gospel'. He makes the point nevertheless that Papias claimed to have met people who knew the historical Jesus (which is what his book is about), and that much is probably true.

Edwards argues that the Papias account is so widely reported that it is probably correct, that the Hebrew Gospel existed, and that it was used by Luke, not Matthew.

How anyone can imagine that any of this supports the theory that there has been a profound shift in biblical scholarship is beyond me. Aune and Ehrman represent the mainstream view, and where Casey and Edwards may differ from this, they come to very different and contradictory conclusions. I cannot see why any of this would be relevant to an article about what we call the Gospel of Matthew. None of these writers suggest that if the document Papias says Matthew wrote existed, it forms a part (except indirectly) of our modern Gospel of Matthew. I can see no reason to include this reference in the article. This is why I have reverted the large section that was there - a plain reading of which would suggest that modern scholars had changed their mind and now thought the tax collector Matthew wrote the Gospel. Which is, as Casey says, complete nonsense. --Rbreen (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with your revert! And I agree with you that Casey, Ehrman and Edwards now accept that Papias was correct and Matthew composed a gospel in Hebrew! This is truly a major shift in the scholarship. I also agree that they do not believe that the Canonical Gospel of Matthew was a translation of theHebrew Gospel as some conservatives still argue. Casey in particular makes the case for composite scholarship which Matthew was the fountainhead! Re the Gospel of Matthew, most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. They present both those who support and oppose Papias. We should follow the reliable sources and also write our article from NPOV Google Books Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You're making points out of thin air. You should draw conclusions from what mainstream scholars say, not from what you would wish that they say or from what they don't say. You have misrepresented the sources and pretended that they say what they actually disagree with (with the exception of the apologist). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read carefully what I have written. I DID NOT write that "Casey, Ehrman and Edwards accept that Papias was correct and Matthew composed a gospel in Hebrew". Edwards thinks the original Matthew wrote a text, which was substantial enough to be called a gospel; Casey seems to think it possible that Matthew's text was a part of Q, but that implies a collection of sayings, not a gospel; Ehrman doesn't say either way. That is very different to what you claim, and certainly does not amount to a major shift in scholarship. That is just YOUR interpretation, and it is original research.--Rbreen (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

In any event, Papias does not seem to provide us with the kind of information we can place a lot of confidence in. I should point out, in this connection, that scholars have almost uniformly rejected just about everything else that Papias is recorded to have said in the surviving references to his work.

...

If scholars are inclined to discount what Papias says in virtually every other instance, why is it that they sometimes appeal to his witness in order to show that we have an early tradition that links Matthew to one of our Gospels, and Mark to another? Why do these scholars accept some of what Papias said but not all of what he said? I suspect it is because they want to have support for their own points of view (Matthew really wrote Matthew) and have decided to trust Papias when he confirms their views, and not trust him when he does not.

The result of this quick examination of Papias is, I think, that he passes on stories that he has heard, and he attributes them to people who knew other people who said so. But when he can be checked, he appears to be wrong. Can he be trusted in the places that he cannot be checked? If you have a friend who is consistently wrong when he gives directions to places you are familiar with, do you trust him when he gives directions for someplace you’ve never been?

Papias is not recorded as having said anything about either Luke or John. I’m not sure why. But the bottom line is this: we do not have any solid reference to the authors of our four Gospels in which we can trust (for example, that the author is actually referring to our Matthew and our Mark) until closer to the end of the second century—nearly a full hundred years after these books had been anonymously placed in circulation.

— Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 107-110

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Casey says that the composition of the Gospel of Matthew was 'composite' - not an especially controversial or innovative suggestion; he does not say that 'Matthew' was the "fountainhead" - that is your interpretation. Edwards says that if the John that Papias mentions was John the Apostle, then the testimony of Papias 'comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead' - and then says he thinks that unlikely. You are simply cherrypicking words and ideas to fit into your own view, which is not expressed by any of the sources you cite. This is original research.--Rbreen (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2013 (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. Ehrman 2013 p 100 Quoted by Ret.Prof (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an academic debate that should be described in the article. A "fringe theory" is one that is outside of the responsible literature entirely. If Ehrman et al. cover it, that is at least grounds to mention it. Shii (tock) 23:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Imo, this discussion is about WP:SCOPE and WP:WEIGHT. There is no WP:FRINGE here, other than a faux-fringe argument some people are attempting to use to shut-off the discussion. Imo, the best solution would be to have another go at an WP:RFC, but this time with broad community participation, so that it isn't written-off immediately as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Ignocrates (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Btw, this discussion was continued on Jimbo's talk page. I point it out only as an fyi. Ignocrates (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I must be rather dim-witted because I cannot figure out for the life of me what Ret. prof wishes to advance as an argument. You want to state that The historical data is both striking and incontestable. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. This is a WP:FRINGE view as evidenced by the fact that scholars (including some you cite above in favour of this view) explicitly reject this idea (e.g. Ehrman). Taking this topic to the Fringe noticeboard is absurd, misguided and frankly smacks of an attempt to WP:GAME.

This is disruptive editing: instead of raising a serious content issue, you are merely obfuscating, as evidenced by the fact that you offer scholarship that directly contradicts your contention. The Papias claim should be mentioned, and indeed it is - nicely - in the first paragraph of the article along with an explanation of why scholars have come to the conclusion that Papias should not be used as evidence for a proto-Matthew in Hebrew. That reflect the scholarly consensus - et ça suffit!

So let me say this. Wasting editors time with this kind of cavilling nonsense is disruptive and uncivil. If you would like to craft a nice paragraph that notes how scholars have come to reject Papias' claims of a Hebrew original while mentioning that there is some scholarship that has tried to maintain the theory is fine. Statements like "Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect" is, however, FRINGE-laden OR.

Do we really need an RfC to determine that scholarly consensus rejects the idea of an original Hebrew Matthew gospel? No, because we can read. What we do need is a way to prevent disruptive editing from consuming the time of editors who, having committed to engage in good faith, are forced to take time to note that citing material that explicitly rejects the idea an editor is trying to promote, and having this advanced as a "shift in consensus", is nonsensical to the point of incomprehensibility.

In other words: you're being rude. So stop. Eusebeus (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Eusebius, I suggested an WP:RFC because Misplaced Pages works, for better or worse, by building WP:CONSENSUS. Ignocrates (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, please be advised that I suggested an WP:RFC/U for Ret.Prof on Dougweller's talk page User_talk:Dougweller/Archive 26#Propose an RfC/U for Ret.Prof, and my suggestion was either explicitly rejected or ignored. Imo, this is a necessary step in the dispute resolution process preceding any involvement by WP:ANI. Ignocrates (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right about RFC as a process for consensus, and we can go through one and confirm the view that fringe theories are just that. And RFC/U may be a better route given that this is about one editor whose engagement is repeatedly disruptive. Eusebeus (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I think we should do both at the same time. It takes two editors and an active dispute to initiate an RFC/U. We have several editors engaged in disputes with Ret.Prof at the moment, so I can't think of a better time to do this. As I said the first time I proposed it, I consider the purpose of this RFC/U to be instructional. We have an opportunity as a group to explain to Ret.Prof what he is doing wrong and how he can improve going forward. The unspoken assumption of this good advice is that it's a last warning. Ignocrates (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Ret.Prof's talk page indicates he is on an indefinite break. The same thing happened last time. Ignocrates (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Aramaic Gospel of Matthew

Concerning . So I reverted this edit once, User:Davidbena, and now you've added it again. In my revert I gave my reason: Duling 2010 says on page 299: "it is generally accepted that the original language of Matthew was Greek". I want to remove your claim again. What source do you have for your claim? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Atethnekos, you wrote by quoting Duling, who said: "it is generally accepted that the original language of Matthew was Greek." Perhaps what may have led Duling into that conclusion is the fact that Matthew often refers there to "the Jews" who did this, or "the Jews" who did that, as if he was addressing a gentile (Greek) readership. The truth is, however, the Aramaic word for Judaea (the country) is יהוד, just as we find it written in the Aramaic "Scroll of Antiochus," while the Aramaic word for Judaeans (the people of that province) is יהודאי. Matthew was merely telling us what the Judaeans did to Jesus, as opposed to the Galileans. The word "Jews" should be understood, therefore, in the context of "Judaeans."

Moreover, since Jews of the 1st century CE primarily made use of Aramaic in their writings, except when writing to foreigners, it is only logical to say that Aramaic was the vehicle used in writing the Gospel of Matthew. It is preposterous to think that the early Jewish following of Jesus - who spoke Aramaic (Matthew, too!) - would have needed to write the first gospel in Greek, and then turn around and translate it into Aramaic. It's usually the other way around! But why do we need to conjecture? Are there not ample testimonies to this effect in Klijn's "Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects"?? Why guess when you have the testimony of the Church Fathers who saw the original Aramaic Gospel of Matthew and who quoted from it, being preserved up until their time, even though the early Church Fathers also made use of a similar Greek Text (Evangelion) transcribed some years before their time!?

Both, the Ebionites and the Nazoraeans made use of the same Gospel, as we learn in Jerome (Commentariorum in Mattheum Libri IV, ch.12, vs.13, ed. D.Hurst): "…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, etc."

This will also explain why some people call this Gospel, "the Gospel of the Ebionites," or conversely, "the Gospel of the Nazoraeans," since it alone was used collectively by both groups. They - being Jewish - made use of a text written in the Aramaic language! Elsewhere, Jerome writes (Dialogus adversus Pelagianos, in: Migne, Patr. Lat. 23, Parisiis 1883, III, 2): "From the Gospel 'According to the Hebrews.' 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, etc." Here, again, the Nazoraeans were using the same Gospel mentioned earlier, only the Gospel used by them had its own appellation. It was called "According to the Hebrews," which same name is repeated by the Church Fathers in other places as well when describing the Gospel written by Matthew. In short, all of these titles are used to describe the one and the same book, the original Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. Davidbena (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe, since Duling is a legitimate scholar with academic integrity, his editor, Aune, is a legitimate scholar with academic integrity, and the publisher, Wiley-Blackwell is a legitimate press with academic integrity, what led him to make that claim was the fact that it is true. But that doesn't really matter, because we're not here to judge whether the reliable sources are true or false. We are just here to represent the reliable sources.

It is only you who are saying that these church fathers "saw the original Aramaic Gospel of Matthew and who quoted from it". Find a reliable source which says that rather than merely making the claim. There are a lot of reliable sources which disagree. I already gave Duling, here is another: Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (Eerdmans, 2009), p. 34-35: "But like Epiphanius, Jerome does not equate his Hebrew gospel with Canonical Greek Matthew ... a different and presumably earlier Hebrew Gospel attributed to Matthew in addition to Canonical Greek Matthew".

To be absolutely clear: This article, Gospel of Matthew is about the canonical Gospel of Matthew. That is, when you open pretty much any edition of the New Testament, it is the first book included. Every reliable source which has been presented says that the gospel to which Epiphanius, Jerome, etc. are referring is a different book which also just happens to be attributed to "Matthew". Until you present a reliable source which says otherwise, the fact that the same word "Matthew" is used with regards to both is just a coincidence and nothing more. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Atehnekos, you wrote: "...what led him (Duling) to make that claim was the fact that it is true..." Are you saying that academicians are unassailable? That would be an incorrect assertion. Rather, the matter in question is disputed by academicians. It just so happens that Duling, here, is wrong. We have already cited conflicting opinions by those of the academic ranks. Albertus Frederik Johannes Klijn, in his "Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects" (1973 - E. J. Brill Co. Leiden), proves most consummately in his Introduction that scholars are divided as to how many Gospels there actually were in Aramaic! Scholars are not in agreement about this fact, when, in actuality, there was only one Aramaic Gospel of Matthew.

Yes, the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew differed from the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew. When we brought up the subject of the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew, it was only to suggest that it should be mentioned alongside the canonical Greek text of Matthew's Gospel since some of the early Church Fathers believed that it was the original Gospel, or Proto-Matthew, making our Greek text of the canonical Matthew a translation, with later interpolations. As for citing a scholarly source that supports our view, I think we have fulfilled the requirement. "The Gospel of Matthew," written by co-authors Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri, p. 18, says:

"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."

Footnote:

E.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.24.6; Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3.Davidbena (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You said that maybe why Duling said that was because he was under some misapprehension. So I said, "Or maybe...what led him to make that claim was the fact that it is true", but then you quote me and leave out the "or maybe" part and claim that I seem to be be saying that authorities are infallible. I wasn't claiming anything of the sort. I could not have been clearer: Whether the reliable sources are right or not, is not our job to decide. This is not a general discussion forum for the Gospel of Matthew. This is a discussion page to help make improvements to the article. Challenged material which is not cited accurately to reliable sources are not improvements to the article. That is the position of nearly every editor of this encyclopedia.

Your edit is this: , which says: "Some say that this was a later interpolation, since the genealogical record of Jesus did not appear in the original Aramaic Gospel of Matthew." Mitch and Sri 2010 do not say that it was an interpolation, nor do they say that the Gospel of Matthew original was in Aramaic, nor do they say that "some say" this. So Mitch and Sri 2010 in no way supports your view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Atethnekos, you are correct. "Mitch and Sri 2010 do not say that the Greek canonical text of Matthew's Gospel was an interpolation," but it is implied by their words that the Greek text which came after the original Gospel penned by Matthew (in either Hebrew or Aramaic) was merely a translation. Having established this fact, by simple comparison with the Aramaic Gospel mentioned by the primary sources named by Mitch and Sri 2010 (e.g. Jerome and Eusebius, and I will add Epiphanius, since he, too, refers to the same Gospel), we can see that the current Greek canonical text of Matthew's Gospel was indeed interpolated in its beginning - with the inclusion of the genealogical record of Jesus. I'm not saying that this was wrong. I'm just saying that we should see the Greek canonical text for what it is, viz., a translation. Since Mitch and Sri 2010 cited Irenaeus and Jerome and Eusebius, it is clear, beyond any doubt, that they were referring to the original Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. I would recommend that this particular "dispute" between scholars be given equal attention in the current Misplaced Pages article, and I sincerely believe that it will contribute vastly to the article's veracity. Davidbena (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You say that it is a simple comparison which gives that result, but all the reliable sources cited so far that speak to that point disagree. Again, find a reliable source which makes that claim. And that is not what Mitch and Sri 2010 implies, either. They don't imply that it was written by Matthew, only that there was an ancient tradition which said so. They never endorse this ancient tradition.

P.S., and this is a matter of civility: Don't change the substance of your comments when someone has specifically remarked on that substance, as you did here. Read Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments on how to change your own comments in a discussion page setting. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So here you cite Against Ebionites 13,1 and 14,1. But Epiphanius is not talking about the canonical Gospel of Matthew: He is talking about the Gospel of the Ebionites which he explicitly contrasts with the canonical Gospel of Matthew ("they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not entirely complete, but is corrupt and mutilated"). Neither does he say that Gospel to which he is referring was written in Aramaic. Finally: Epiphanius isn't even a reliable source for authorship of the Gospel of Matthew. I cite Dennis C. Duling , published by Wiley-Blackwell in the Blackwell Companion to the New Testament, edited by David Aune .

Please reconsider your edits. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Same problem with this ] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Klijn seems to state what was the consensus/debate 40 years ago. Time has passed since then. On Mitch and Sri, Eric Vanden Eykel wrote "The commentary does at times suffer from a somewhat apologetic desire to maintain consistency with the Catholic tradition, even when Matthew seems to be in tension with it." We may therefore guess that the authors have sided with the Catholic tradition in respect to the authorship of the book. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Solution to Fringe

User:Eusebeus and User:In ictu oculi ask above what can be done about continued fringe inclusions. What we need is a right to revert single-handedly, without being guilty of edit-warring, any inclusions of claims of Hebrew/Aramaic primacy before there is a consensus on the talk page for such an inclusion. I'm not sure what is needed to allow this: Would Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions have to apply? Or can something less serious help? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Atethnekos - I would think that the prevalence of sources saying the language is Greek, justify the removal. If Aramaic is mentioned (and I thought it was) it should be to dismiss it as fringe. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It might not be unreasonable to add some hidden text in the coding of the article to the effect that there should be consensus on the talk page for adding any claims regarding Hebrew or Aramaic primacy in advance, and, maybe, starting some sort of FAQ page to link to on the talk page here which might include that topic. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would support something to this effect. How much casual, good faith drive by edits do we see pushing the Aramaic/Hebrew hypothesis? If it's common enough, a pointer to earlier discussions and an FAQ may be salutary. Eusebeus (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also support, good idea. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

An easy way to manage drive-by editors of this type would be to ask AN (not AN/I) to apply a 1RR edit restriction in a 24 hour period to anyone that edits the page. There is no edit warring with a general 1RR, and since the restriction applies uniformly, it doesn't require convincing them of the correctness of your side of the content dispute. Many regular editors patrol this page, so that restriction should not be too burdensome. Ignocrates (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

May be an additional good idea. Might not help with IPs and sockpuppets. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Is showing the sources for Jesus' sayings not considered "scholarly?"

I'm lost. Can someone explain why it isn't acceped?

Jewish exegeses in the teachings of Jesus: In Matthew 5:22, Jesus said: “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment (Heb. mishpat): and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, 'Thou fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire!”

This teaching can effectually be broken down into three parts, meaning, Jesus was expounding on three different biblical sources. The first clause, “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment,” with emphasis on judgment, is based on a verse in Ecclesiastes 12:14, “For G-d shall bring every work into judgment (Heb. mishpat), with every secret thing, etc.” Meaning, the matter of hating one's brother is a thing often concealed away in a man's heart and is not always readily discernible or evident to others (hence: every secret thing). Here, Jesus says that if a man hates another or is angry at another for no reason at all, his punishment (i.e. judgment) is forthcoming, just as implied by Ecclesiastes 12:14.

The second clause, “whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca (empty headed!), shall be in danger of the council (i.e. judges in a court of law),” is taken from a verse in Exodus 22:9: “For all manner of trespass...the cause of both parties shall come before the judges, etc.” The words “manner of trespass” are written in Hebrew as devar pesha = דבר פשע.

By changing the traditional vowel markings from devar pesha (manner of trespass) = דְּבַר פשע to dibbur pesha (word of trespass) = דִּבֻּר פשע , that is to say, if we change the vowel “patach” beneath the Hebrew letter bet (ב) in the word דבר so that it will now be read with the vowel “qubbutz,” as in בֻּ = bbu = “dibbur,” the word’s meaning changes to, “For all criminal speech...the cause of both parties shall come before the judges, etc.”

Thus, Jesus, using well-known dialectic principles, came up with his own teaching in Matthew 5:22: “…and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca (i.e. empty-headed), shall be in danger of the council.” In other words, such "criminal speech" mentioned in the middle clause will eventually bring a man to stand trial in the courts, hence: council or Sanhedrin, just as implied by Exodus 22:9.

The third clause, “…but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire!,” with emphasis on “thou fool,” is a conflation of two teachings (in accordance with certain hermeneutical principles used in Jewish teachings); one found in Proverbs 11:12, “He that despises his neighbor LACKS A HEART,” and the other in Proverbs 6:32, “He that commits adultery with a woman LACKS A HEART; he that does it destroys his own soul.” The words, lacks a heart, in the one scriptural verse is analogous with, lacks a heart, in the other scriptural verse. Just as the words "lacks a heart" used here in connection with adultery (Proverbs 6:32) is a cause for destruction, so, too, the words "lacks a heart" in connection with despising others (hence: “thou fool!”) is a cause for destruction, hence: hell fire! Unfortunately, Christians who have no Jewish background do not readily recognize the source for these teachings.

NOTES:

So is this exegesis explained in the book, “Menorat Ha-Meor” of Rabbi Yitzhaq Abuhav the Spaniard (15th century); cf. Eliezer Kahana’s book “Siach Sefunim – Megillat Kohelet,” p. 119, Warsaw 1878, on Ecclesiastes chapter 12:14, where he explains: “Over every secret thing, meaning, the evil thought concealed in man’s heart, God will bring to judgment.”

Based on a teaching in "Avoth deRebbe Nathan," chapter 37, verse 10, that Hillel the Elder - a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth - taught seven hermeneutical principles of logic, and which same principles of logic, amongst others, were well-known to his generation. This particular hermeneutical principle is also mentioned by Sherira Gaon, in his "Iggeres of Rav Sherira Gaon," chapter 6, p. 54, Jerusalem 1988.

This exegesis is brought down in the Babylonian Talmud (Baba Metzia 43b) and holds a man liable even for speaking his criminal thoughts! See also RASHI, ibid. s.v., החושב לשלוח יד, and see Tosafot, ibid. s.v., החושב.

Heb. “shoṭeh” = שוטה, meaning, a mad man, or someone who has become crazy. According to the Midrash Rabba (Numbers Rabba 19:5), the word which was called by the Greeks, moré (foolish man) = μωρε, was called by the Hebrews “shoṭeh.”

This particular hermeneutical principle is called in Hebrew, “gezerah showah” – meaning, “the drawing of analogies,” an example of its kind is found in the Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 17a). Davidbena (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena,

Thank you for having come to Talk page to discuss your edits.

Re your subject heading "Is showing the sources for Jesus' sayings not considered "scholarly?"" - no, because without WP:Reliable sources it is WP:Original research

You say "Unfortunately, Christians who have no Jewish background do not readily recognize the source for these teachings." - this is not true, scholars do not have to have Jewish background to recognise many Jewish aspects to Jesus' teaching, and many in Matthew are widely recognised, from John Lightfoot onwards. But it needs to come from a reputable source. And be relevant to the article; this article is only for material about Gospel of Matthew which is recognised in WP:reliable sources.

In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that other editors reverted his work 4 times before anyone explained what he did wrong per WP:TPG, and that was after he received a talk page warning. WP:BITE applies here. Ignocrates (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. Davidbena is the same as IP user ]; I gave a source briefly in the edit summary revert, but after David's re-edit, I went straight to the talk page with my evidence. Then Eusebeus referenced the discussion page with his revert. Then another revert cycle. Now he has moved on to including different stuff. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see that now. Thanks for letting me know. Ignocrates (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Petition

I am loathe to begin this humble petition, or what should already appear as plain and evident to the administrators/moderators (Assistant editors) of Misplaced Pages, and to all minds of rational beings. There is something terribly flawed with the logic that, on a Misplaced Pages page entitled "Gospel of Matthew," there isn't any room for scholarly input with references (published) treating on the sub-topic of "Jewish Exegeses in the Teachings of Jesus," meaning, how these teachings were derived based on known principles of Jewish logic and which have been used by Jews in biblical exegesis for thousands of years.

When I first sought to address this topic, I was deferred on grounds that I had omitted academic references (published sources). Having fixed this problem, I was again deferred under the pretext that I should first seek a consensus with Misplaced Pages editors whereby they'd agree to mention anything about Matthew's Gospel from the standpoint of non-important "Aramaic fringe" texts associated with the original Gospel of Matthew. I was taken aback by their classification of the language spoken by Jesus as being "fringe," given the fact that some of the words passed down unto us in the Greek translation of Matthew's Gospel are actually Aramaic words! How can something so basic be classified as "fringe," when the Misplaced Pages page itself seeks to discuss varied aspects relating to the "Gospel of Matthew" from an academic point of view? Could it be that they are not familiar with the Aramaic language?

It would be commensurable with Misplaced Pages's good reputation to address this situation in a forthright manner, and not shun away from something which is so elementary! The argument which I've heard from some that "scholars disagree" with our view is always a subjective argument. If my disputant can produce one or two scholars who disagree with a certain theory, I can produce four or five scholars who would agree with the theory! It is a non sequitur. Moreover, calling any sub-topic which addresses the Aramaic language spoken by Jesus and employed in the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel as "fringe" is, in my view, a wrong designation. Davidbena (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw your edits, they constitute WP:OR, see especially WP:SYNTH. Such edits are prohibited in Misplaced Pages. You are not allowed to pass your own opinion on scholarly subjects, even if you were a full professor of Biblical exegesis. You may only render the viewpoints of reliable sources and draw no further conclusions than those clearly expressed by such sources. Sources like the Talmud and the Bible are problematic, since they are multi-interpretable. We let reliable sources interpret them, we don't state our own opinion upon them. Contrary to popular opinion, Misplaced Pages is not the place to ventilate your own opinion or your own theory. These have to be published in peer-reviewed reputable journals and only after such publication may be they accepted within Misplaced Pages. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

David, one of the quirks of Misplaced Pages is that it works by building WP:CONSENSUS. There may be times in a spirited discussion when you are convinced you are right and the consensus view on the talk page is wrong. That's the way it goes sometimes. It works much better to lay out your ideas for improving the article on the talk page before you make major changes. Ignocrates (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can only be built on something based upon reliable sources. He did not even mention a reliable source, so he has to find such sources before attempting to build consensus on certain edits. It's not that he quoted sources which are controversial, his edits are "not even wrong", they fail to be verifiable and they must first be verifiable before saying that they are wrong or correct. The gist is: his edits are completely unacceptable and he has to understand this instead trying to build a consensus around using no sources whatsoever. There isn't and it ain't gonna be such sort of consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to a little clearer on our interpreation of WP guidelines here. The problem with sources such as the Hebrew Bible or the Talmud, referred to above, is not that they are "multi-interpretable" (and they certainly are!). According to WP guidelines (and the WP professionals can point the user to the proper documents), is that they are Primary Sources, in this case. WP bases its articles on reliable and verifiable Secondary Sources, in this case, not Primary. This means that published Secondary works by academic reliable and verifiable publishers and researches on the subject have to cited as the sources, not the original texts or Primary Sources, as he is doing here so far in this case. Now, he implied also that he has 4 or 5 scholares with a contrary opinion on the issues he raised. So what he has to do is quote these works by these scholars, that support or actually published his "original research," and then anyone here can read these arguments and verify what type of proposition they are supporting. I just hope this maybe makes a little clearer to the new editor how WP works, and what guidelines have to be applied to adding content to it. warshy 17:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is probably too controversial an article for a newbie to begin their editing career. I suggest reading WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:FRNG, and WP:PRIMARY to get up to speed on the basics. Otherwise, you will be like chum in a shark tank on pages like this one. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's input here, and I will take your advice and begin to read the WP guidelines for editing. Already I have found things that do not exactly "fit-in" with the current article on "the Gospel of Matthew," such as the guideline which states: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." The current article seems to hold the view that the Greek NT Gospel of Matthew is not a translation from the original Aramaic Gospel, but does NOT present a neutral position. As for showing reliable, published "Secondary Sources," I will try to find them. Again, thanks for your encouraging words. Davidbena (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena

Thanks. Re why we do not use the Bible and Talmud as sources see WP:PRIMARY as Ignocrates linked. As for "but does NOT present a neutral position" - no it doesn't, the article presents the position of scholarship that Gospel of Matthew is Greek and was not written in Aramaic. Since no credible scholar supports the view that it was written in Aramaic this is not a view that needs to be represented. Also if you are interested in the New Testament text you may wish to buy and read an introduction to the New Testament text such as Metzger. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

But isn't the Talmud, as commentary on the Bible, a published secondary source? A Georgian (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The distinction between primary, secondary, tertiary sources is not well-defined. Nor is it actually important most of the time. Most of these policies and guidelines are usually written in response to particular problems. The problem here is that there is a bunch of material (e.g., ) which is not represented in any reliable source, or at least no one has presented any such reliable source. It's not enough that some source mentions something. For example, that Bava Metzia 43b concludes that a man is "liable even for speaking his criminal thoughts" is well and good and no one is doubting that, and that would be perfectly fine to include in an article on that topic. But what does it have to do with the topic of this article, the Gospel of Matthew? Only if someone can produce a reliable source for this topic which mentions such a thing, can we mention it as well. This is the implication of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, which is probably the most widely-accepted policy that this encyclopedia has.

For example, I can go over to psychopathy and find the claim "Rapists, especially sadistic rapists, and sexual homicide offenders have a high rate of psychopathy. Some researchers have argued that psychopaths have a preference for violent sexual behavior", which references a article in Criminal Justice and Behavior. A great source! So, should I include the claim in the article Barack Obama? No, because no reliable source is produced which says this has anything to do with Barack Obama, and the material would be rejected by other editors for just that reason. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not defending the material in question, I was questioning lumping the Talmud, which is secondary, with Torah/Tanakh, which is primary. A Georgian (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough; really I don't mean just to respond to you, but lay my thoughts out in general. I would just say again on that issue: these categories are not well-defined, but also not usually important. For some topics is is really helpful: because the distinction is so much clearer and it helps define what are the reliable sources, but for most topics it doesn't matter. For example, the Russian revolution. The primary sources are Lenin's etc. letters and telegraphs etc. The secondary sources are the historians who read all or most of these documents (and also consult other specialists), and then the tertiary sources are those that read these historians and then give a view on some balance of those. But not every topic has a comparable division. For example, the historical Jesus. Is the testimonium flavianum a primary source? Almost everyone would label it as such. But it's nothing like Lenin's telegraphs to Stalin or Trotsky. Lenin's telegraphs represent the views of someone who was there making the Russian revolution happen, and some of them were commands, actual speech acts which were part of the Russian revolution itself. Josephus was just a scholar who heard and read things about what happened before he was born and repeated them. He's nothing like Lenin; but because they are both "old" documents which historians use to give an account of what happened, they are called primary sources. Similarly here for the Gospels of Matthew and the Talmud, maybe some people are going to say that some texts in the Talmud are primary sources, because they are "old" documents used by scholars to help give an account of the gospel. But maybe others would say they are secondary sources. Maybe some would say that some Talmudic texts are primary and some are secondary. Maybe, but actually you rarely ever see the reliable sources discuss such categorizations, because for this topic it is not very important. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

User:AGeorgian, the Talmud is a primary source per WP:PSTS, and in any case the Talmud has very little to say on Jesus in the Talmud/Yeshu let alone any awareness of Matthew. Since Matthew was not translated into Aramaic until late and not distributed among the Talmudic authors why would they know anything specific about Matthew. Fully agree with Atethnekos' explanation above. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, you stand to be corrected. It is not against WP rules to cite "Primary Sources." According to WP:PSTS, "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The wording here still makes it permissible to use "Primary Sources" if the situation calls for it. Davidbena (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry but I don't stand to be corrected. For your purposes you should understand that as none. NONE. NO PRIMARY SOURCES. Since you have already gone over the limit. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, if I might correct you, Jews did not discuss Matthew's Gospel in the Talmud, not because it was not known to them, but rather, because it was rejected by mainstream Judaism. Jews came to the realization that Jesus could not be the expected Messiah if he could not establish peace in the world, which is the most basic and fundamental thing the Messiah is supposed to do (Isa. 11:1-12). With that said, however, we still find original Aramaic quotes used by Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud. The famous words of Hillel the Elder, quoted by Jesus, are contained in Tractate Shabbat 31a, namely: דעלך סני לחברך לא תעביד. זוהי כל התורה כולה, meaning: "That which is hated by you, refrain from doing the same to your neighbor. That is the entire Law." It seems that the Greek translators of the Gospel of Matthew simply paraphrased his words, by which today we find: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12; KJV, Authorised Version). Although similar statements have been made by many early writers and sages, it is plain that Jesus was quoting Hillel by his adding the concluding words, "for this is the Law, etc." We also find that Jesus quotes from Ben-Sira, whose original words are also brought down in the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 100b), such as: אל תצר צרת מחר = "Take no thought for the morrow." (Matthew 6:34; KJV). Davidbena (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena

You evidently did not understand what I said. I said "Since Matthew was not translated into Aramaic until late and not distributed among the Talmudic authors why would they know anything specific about Matthew. Fully agree with Atethnekos' explanation above". Now, please do not quote the Bible or the Talmud on this Talk page again. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your premise is wrong, In ictu oculi. Matthew's Gospel was not translated into Aramaic from Greek, except the Syriac "Peshitta" which was translated into Aramaic for the Aramaic-speaking Christians. Jews, however, had no need of a Greek text since they spoke Aramaic in the 1st century CE, as evidenced by all of our ancient Aramaic texts preserved today (in the Hebrew alphabet). Now, if the Jews who believed in Jesus (i.e. the Ebionites and the Nazoraeans) read from the Aramaic gospel of Matthew, is it then conceivable to think that Jews who speak Aramaic will write a book in Greek only to have it translated back into their native tongue, Aramaic? There are no historical records or ancient texts suggesting that it ever happened that way. It is pure nonsense to think so, my friend! Frankly, anyone who says so doesn't understand Jewish custom or mentality.

Moreover, when Jerome says in another place that "a good many" call it (the Ebionite Gospel) the authentic text of Matthew, he was simply telling us in his own words that there was an oral tradition in his day regarding the book's authorship and authenticity, saying that it was widely known to be the original text of Matthew's gospel. Davidbena (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not his fault. You do sound like don't understanding that there is a distinction between Talmud and present-day historical research. In fact, you sound like having no instruction in history or any other empirical science, beyond high-school level. Even a year passed at the university studying any empirical science would have taught you that recent academic publications matter in respect to the scientific consensus, since the rest belong to the history of science. Sources like the Talmud don't even pretend doing empirical science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, lol! I can't help but be amused by your accusations. I am a Jew and I have studied the Talmud for seven years in one of the finest Yeshivas in Jerusalem. You and I approach this subject from two different perspectives. We, who are religious Jews, adhere to ancient customs and traditions, and we do not seek novelties, or ways to change our ancient customs. You, on the other hand, revel in novelties and in "empirical science," which latter, mind you, still isn't necessarily the truth, or factual, but is often based on speculation. We are not insensible to the fact that, sometimes, man's observations are misguided. So, when I support the ancient texts of ancient Greek and Latin authors who saw with their own eyes Jews reading from an Aramaic copy of the Gospel of Matthew, this, in my view, is significant! By the way, I have studied Jewish logic. I will add, most Jews revel in debate, and I am no exception. Davidbena (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

For Your Information

Note that Jerome writes about Matthew's gospel on this wise (De viris inlustribus, ed. C.A. Bernoulli, III):

"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. From the Nazoraeans who use this book in Beroia, a city of Syria, I also received the opportunity to copy it. In this it is to be noted that where the evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimonies of the old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two (quotations?) exist: Out of Egypt have I called my son, and For he shall be called a Nazarene…" Eusebius also wrote (hist. eccles. III. 39.16-17):

"…But concerning Matthew, he (Papias) writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the words in the Hebrew-language and every one interpreted them as he was able. And he (Papias) related another story of a woman accused of many sins before the Lord which is available in the Gospel according to the Hebrews (i.e. what is now written in John 8:1-11). These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has already been stated." Davidbena (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena, this is all WP:OR. Please please please please stop posting WP:PRIMARYSOURCES In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I do not understand why a quote, without my commenting upon it, is considered original research. But let's say that you are right. Is it wrong to discuss such "original research" on a Talk page, in order to help clarify a certain point? Here, I never asked to publish this material in a WP article. Davidbena (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Because as per WP:PRIMARYSOURCES it isn't for us to handle primary sources on the Talk page. Because the article doesn't use them, we need secondary reliable sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, one more thing: You stand to be corrected. It is not against WP rules to cite "Primary Sources." According to WP:PSTS, "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The wording here still makes it permissible to use "Primary Sources" if the situation calls for it. Davidbena (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you have already gone several times over that minimum in edits to the article and here on the Talk page. Please do not further cite primary sources here. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, what you are now saying is merely "apologetics," since you have never once suggested that it is permissible to use a "Primary Source" on Misplaced Pages. Why are you so antagonistic? You should try to encourage new editors, instead of playing the role of antagonist. Our primary objective here should be to present the truth (i.e. facts) to our readers. Moreover, a good editor will recognize when information presented is biased. By the dupes of words artfully framed it is, sometimes, easy to fool the scholar! Be well. Davidbena (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not apologetics.

The reason I am being "antagonistic" (actually I'm not, I'm just getting very tired of saying the same thing again and again and again) is that you are not taking WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on board. We try to encourage new editors who study. Study means buy a book and read it. We don't encourage new editors who dismiss all of scholarship and do their own DIY amateur study. That is WP:OR. If you want to do your own study, go and join an Aramaic-original NT blog. There are dozens of them. But this is an encyclopedia, and it is our job not to do our study of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES]].

If you want to edit here you need to use scholarly sources, not your own ideas. Do you understand? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you call the sources I mentioned so far "amateur," or "non-scholarly," you have no idea what scholarship is. You will not find a more authentic or reliable "Primary Source" than the ones that I mentioned. Jews revel in debate. Having studied Talmud for seven years, and having engaged in the polemics brought down in the Talmud, I guess by many you would be considered "easy bait." The truth is, it is not entirely against WP rules to cite "Primary Sources." As a rule of practice, one should cite only reliable "Secondary Sources." However, "Primary Sources" can still be used occasionally. According to WP:PSTS, "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The wording here makes it clear that it is still permissible to use "Primary Sources" if the situation calls for it. Davidbena (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead with that and you will be reported to WP:ANI for disruptive editing. The Talmud is important as a historical document, but it is in no way something like modern historical scholarship. Unless you want to comply with the idea that contemporary historians (who live by publish or perish) decide what counts as history, you don't belong editing this article, in fact you would not belong at all editing Misplaced Pages articles. See WP:ABIAS for details. You should also read Misplaced Pages:Advocacy: Misplaced Pages is not the place for promoting your world-view or your religion (this applies to all world-views and all religions). Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Tgeorgescu, I will not be reported to WP:ANI for disruptive editing, since I am trying to build a consensus here for change in the current flawed article, Gospel of Matthew, and this I am doing on a Talk Forum suggested to me by the editors themselves for advancing my views and making them known. Contrary to your opinion, modern historical scholarship does not decide history for us. Historians are only as good as the sources which they have at their disposal. For example, the Hebrew Bible, is an accurate historical record of events that transpired long ago. If a modern historian comes along with speculative theories of what may or may not have happened, based on "empirical evidence," I disregard his theories and remain firm with the ancient biblical texts bequeathed to us by Israel's Sages. Why? Because Israel's prophets were eye-witnesses of those events. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Catholic commentary

Davidbena you ask concerning this quote Gospel of Matthew, The (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture) 1441213864 Curtis Mitch, ‎Edward Sri - 2010

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."

Yes. Curtis Mitch, ‎Edward Sri are saying that early Catholic church writers agreed with you. Yes. But now please look at the next paragraph. Misplaced Pages represents modern scholarship, not traditions, not dark ages nor medieval scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, is there any room for mentioning the "development of traditionally held beliefs" regarding the Gospel of Matthew in our current article, or should we keep this information hidden from the public's view? Davidbena (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes we should keep it hidden, ... no seriously a small section about church traditions is worth having... but this isn't an article about church traditions patristics this is an article about a Greek text. Look, to be honest, you've been told several ways, in polite ways to bring some modern scholarship, to do that you need some basic knowledge. What is your basic start text for this subject? Can you cite a standard basic introductory academic work you have read? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that would depend on what you mean by "...standard basic introductory academic work...." If you mean academic works published by University Professors, I have not only read several, but I have translated from Hebrew into English more than two dozen works published by Professor Yosef Tobi of Haifa University (Israel). You may want to do a Google check on his name. But that is beside the point. You are assuming things that you should not be assuming. As for the sources that I have quoted, they are reputable and reliable sources, by all accounts. Rather, you are bent on your own prejudices. Davidbena (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Isaiah

Isaiah has zilch to do with Matthew (except for the odd messianic prophecy), but I've been putting rather a lot of time into a revision of it lately. Since this seems to be the current waterhole where one finds religiously inclined editors, I'd just like to invite anyone with an interest to go over and see if you can suggest improvements. Thanks. PiCo (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

PiCo, the article entitled "Book of Isaiah" is written well, but I am interested in seeing the academic research which led scholars to the conclusion that chapters 40-55 of Isaiah were "the work of an anonymous Exilic author" (Deutero-Isaiah). You cited Lawrence Boadt (1984), "Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction," Paulist Press, for this claim, although Jewish tradition (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Bathra 15a - top) avers that it was "...Hezekiah and his party..." who compiled the books Isaiah, Song of Songs, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Of course, this refers to the Vorlage of the Masoretic text used by us today, a text which, itself, was transliterated from a Proto-Paleo-Hebrew text into the current Assyrian script (modern Hebrew script) which Jews make use of today. The Assyrian script (modern-Hebrew script) was learnt by Israel during the Babylonian exile, and was introduced by Ezra into the canonical books of the Hebrew Bible. This might explain why some "scholars" (who are not without error) think that part of the Book of Isaiah was composed during Israel's exile. We might also rectify this discrepancy between Jewish tradition and modern-day scholarship by saying that scholars rightfully observed an Isaiah text written in late antiquity, rather than early antiquity, because - in Jewish tradition - the Babylonian exile occurred in 422 BCE, rather than in 586 BCE (as generally assumed by chroniclers today). In short, the Book of Isaiah, according to Jewish tradition, was indeed compiled in late antiquity.

Verifying Jewish Tradition as Fact

According to the Third Book of Manetho who brings down eight successive Persian kings and the number of years in which they reigned after Cyrus, Cambyses succeeded his father (Cyrus) and reigned over Persia five years, while Cambyses was succeeded by Darius, the son of Hystaspes, who reigned 36 years. It is this Darius who renewed the decree of Cyrus to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. According to Ezra 6:15, the Temple was finished in the 6th year of the reign of Darius the king. It began to be built in the 2nd year of his reign (Ezra 4:24), in accordance with the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah. This one date, the 6th year of Darius, being the year in which the Second Temple was completed, is perhaps the most crucial date we have in helping us to determine the number of years which have transpired since that time down to our own present age. For if we take this date, comparing it with the time frame mentioned in the Aramaic Scroll of Antiochus, we learn that from the Second Temple's rebuilding till the 23rd year of the reign of Antiochus Eupator, son of Antiochus Epiphanes, who invaded Judaea, there had transpired 213 years in total. Now Antiochus Eupator's father, Antiochus Epiphanes, had died in anno 149 of the Seleucid Era (162 BCE), in which year his son obtained the kingdom, just as we learn from Josephus’ Antiquities (xii.ix.2). Twenty-three years later, that is, in the year 172 of the Seleucid Era, or what was then 139 BCE, which happened to be the 23rd year of the reign of Antiochus Eupator, the Second Temple had already stood some 213 years, meaning, it was built in 352 BCE! If these figures are correct, and we have no reason to doubt them, this puts Darius' 6th year of reign as 353/2 BCE. Seventy years prior to this time was 422 BCE, the beginning of the Babylonian captivity!

FOOTNOTES:

See: The Ancient Fragments, ed. I. P. Cory, Esq., p. 65, London 1828. Manetho was the high priest and scribe of Egypt who wrote down his history for Ptolemy Philadelphus.

Josephus' account of the same period is erroneous. According to Josephus (Antiquities xi.iv.7), the Second Temple began to be built in the 2nd year of Darius and was completed in his 9th year.

Also known as Megillath Benei Hašmonai (The Scroll of the Sons of Asamoneus). According to medieval Jewish Rabbi and scholar, Sa‘adia Gaon (882 CE – 942 CE), in the introduction to his book on Hebrew grammar, Egron (Kitāb asūl al-ša‘ar al-‘ibrāni), The "Scroll of Antiochus" was written by the elders of the schools of Hillel and Shammai in the Chaldaic language. This would put its composition in the early 1st century. Davidbena (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of WP:OR, which you have already been reminded is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Besides, it has nothing to do with the discussed articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2013 (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