Revision as of 22:27, 19 July 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

My Edit

My edit is from:

• Ehrman 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 87-88
• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3

- Ret.Prof (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, I'm a bit confused. You are stating that Hebrew Matthew is the original and authentic Gospel of Matthew, correct? There is no text-critical evidence that canonical Greek Matthew was translated from a Hebrew original, so what are we to make of canonical Greek Matthew? Ignocrates (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Another good question. The short answer is no. We must track the reliable sources on the Gospel of Matthew carefully and not go beyond what is in them. My edit "Today, scholars such as Casey believe it is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in a Hebrew dialect, as the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves. Indeed, Papias's relevant testimony may have come from the apostolic fountainhead. In any case it is very early within living memory of the apostolic age." is solidly referenced although it may need a bit of work. Any OR must be deleted. If we get consensus then I plan to move on to "Possible earlier versions of the Gospel of Matthew". I have been reading material and it will be challenging! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what "the short answer is no" means. Just give me the short synopsis. Are you saying this Hebrew Matthew is (a) a lost gospel, or (b) the source from which canonical Greek Matthew was translated, against all text-critical evidence, or (c) something else? Ignocrates (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not give "my opinion" on Misplaced Pages. I truly believe that the opinions of editors are not important and can be counterproductive. What is important are the reliable sources. All the positions you mentioned above have some support and some opposition. It is our job to write an article from a NPOV. Also, to be quite honest my views are evolving. Obviously I have been impressed by Ehrman, Casey and Edwards and believe their scholarship has a place at Misplaced Pages! Hence the conflict. Thanks again for all your work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, an evasive answer. Of course, I was referring to a synopsis based on your understanding of the secondary sources you have been repeatedly citing - Ehrman, Casey, and Edwards - that you referenced in the article. If you are now claiming you don't understand them, why are you adding content to the article based on them? Ignocrates (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I applied a POV-tag to the section you created until you respond with a straight answer. Based upon your understanding of the sources you are citing, are you adding and do you intend to add content to this article stating that Hebrew Matthew is (a) a lost gospel, or (b) the source from which canonical Greek Matthew was translated, against all text-critical evidence, or (c) something else? Ignocrates (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You added a POV TAG because I refuse to push a POV? In any event, I am not trying to be evasive. I will try to be more direct. Most scholars believe that (a) Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew has been lost. (b) Greek Matthew is related to the Hebrew Gospel (but it is not a translation due to text-critical evidence). Parker takes an interesting position. See diagram (c) I like Papias because his comments support a chaotic model of the 'Q' material. Papias attributed the collection of Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/ interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. I do intend to add content material from Casey's section entitled The Gospel according to Matthew pp 86-93 and hope it will be helpful to this article. Sorry for frustrating you but this is the best I can do at present. In any event my edit "Today, scholars such as Casey believe it is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in a Hebrew dialect, as the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves. Indeed, Papias's relevant testimony may have come from the apostolic fountainhead. In any case it is very early within living memory of the apostolic age." is solidly referenced Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101, Maurice Casey, 2010. pp 87-88 and James R. Edwards, 2009. pp 2-3 although it may need a bit of work. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Two problems I see with the Composition section of this article are WP:SOAP and WP:SCOPE. The first point is evident in this self-deleted talk page diff. The Hebrew Matthew content is vastly over-weighted compared to the text-critical hypotheses of modern scholars. That brings me to the second point. This article is about the canonical Gospel of Matthew; it is not about all possible lost or theoretical gospels and sayings sources that may have been associated with authorship by Matthew. There are other articles for those things already, specifically, Hebrew Gospel hypothesis for scholarly hypotheses about lost and theoretical Aramaic or Hebrew Gospels of Matthew, and Hebrew Gospel of Matthew for Rabbinic translations of the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Consequently, locating material about the aforementioned topics here, beyond, perhaps, a tiny mention for wiki-linking purposes, creates a WP:CFORK that needs to be addressed. The POV-tag stays in place until all of this mess is cleaned up. Ignocrates (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally... at long last...I have actually figured out your concerns...the penny has dropped...my eyes have been opened! Sorry for being so dim witted. Maybe I should change my user name from "Ret.Prof" to "Ret.Twit" ! I agree that the Composition section needs work. Also should the Papias quote even be a part of the Gospel of Matthew?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you have misread Ehrman's standpoint. Here is an outline of what he taught for The Great Courses (quoted from the handbook of the course The Historical Jesus): Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes but Ehrman (2012) pp 98-101 goes into much more detail showing Matthew composed a gospel in Hebrew but that it was very different from our Greek version of Matthew. See also Composite Authorship - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Par. 3

The Blackwells article on the Gospel of Matthew explains that the Papias tradition about Matthew is generally "held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. p 301 and "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" Blackwells 2010 p 302 It is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language." Maurice Casey, 2010. pp 87-88 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

I have also noted your numerous other concerns raised above (ie "apostolic fountainhead" etc) and revised the material accordingly. The revised edit reads "Modern scholars now believe the Papias tradition to be fairly trustworthy and usually interpret the tradition to mean Jesus' disciple Matthew had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic. Maurice Casey states that it is "genuinely true" that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in a Hebrew dialect, as the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.

I have a few comments about your citation format: (1) Dennis C. Duling is the author of the chapter you cited; David E. Aune is the editor. I have fixed this citation. (2) Casey and Edwards are not even in the list of sources. (3) We don't link to websites in citations of books as sources: they include a name, year, and page numbers. That's all. Ignocrates (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE concern

This is WP:FRINGE and PiCo was right to revert it and other editors wrong to restore it. A 1385 translation from Latin to Hebrew by Ibn Shaprut has no place in this article, it belongs in Rabbinical translations of Matthew.

We should not have to keep deleting the same WP:FRINGE content every 12 months. If someone wants to develop James R. Edwards The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition 2009 and Edwards' "Papias's testimony comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead." then that can be done in James R. Edwards. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have removed Edward's "apostolic fountainhead" as well as the "1385 translation" from the article. I also revised the wording to fall in line with the suggestions made at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Finally I added a statement of fact from Blackwell (2009) p 602 - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of material without references

I agree that material at Misplaced Pages needs to be supported by reliable sources. I further agree that an extensive discussion of the Jewish Christian Gospels including the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazoraeans, the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew which have almost nothing to do with the Gospel of Matthew are not a good fit for this article. Therefore I have deleted the following:

• There are numerous testimonies, starting from Papias and Irenaeus, that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew letters and in the "Hebrew dialect", which is thought to refer to Aramaic. The sixteenth century Erasmus was the first to express doubts on the subject of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." Here Erasmus distinguishes between a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew letters and the partly lost Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, from which patristic writers do quote, and which appear to have some relationship to Matthew, but are not identical to it. The Gospel of the Ebionites also has a close relationship to the Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, and hence some connection to Matthew. The similarly named Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew has almost nothing to do with Matthew, however, and instead is a combination of two earlier infancy Gospels.

If you have any other concerns, let me know and if I am unable to find reliable sources to support my edit I will promptly delete the material. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved

I moved the following material from "Possible earlier versions of the Gospel of Matthew" to "Modern theories" as it seemed a better fit.

• Most contemporary scholars, based on analysis of the Greek in the Gospel of Matthew and use of sources such as the Greek Gospel of Mark, conclude that the New Testament Gospel of Matthew was written originally in Greek and is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (Greek primacy). If they are correct, then the Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome possibly referred to a document or documents distinct from the present Gospel of Matthew. A smaller number of scholars, including the Roman Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission, believe the ancient writings that Matthew was originally in Aramaic, arguing for Aramaic primacy.

- Ret.Prof (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed Tags

I have deleted those edits that have given rise to the tags. Feel free to restore, if you still have concerns. Remember Tags must be specifically supported by WP policy and reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The striking and incontestable fact!

The Blackwell Companion series in its study of the historical evidence re Matthew, now points to a "striking and incontestable fact. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship and composition of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was the first written, that it was written in the Hebrew language," Blackwell (2009) p 602 and even in the subscriptions to Arabic and Syriac manuscripts of Matthew, we find consistent corroboration, Blackwell (2009) p 602 for example:

• 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 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.

- Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I have a slight issue with this section in how it is worded and sourced. The text in question is this:

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. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another."

My issue is that the article is presenting this as a "striking and incontestable" fact without referencing possible bias in the source. When I read the paragraph, my immediate question was, "According to whom?" When I looked up the source, it turned out to be a book on theology, and given the subject matter, it is easy to assume that the authors would have some motivation for putting forward this particular model for the origin of the New Testament. That being said, I don't think it is a bad source necessarily. My opinion is that we should add an in-text attribution to make it a bit more clear (as per Misplaced Pages:INTEXT). Ideally, we could cite an opposing view concurrently, to give the full breadth of thought on the issue. Honestly, I have the same issue with citation 16, but that will be for another time.

Thanks - Ljpernic (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Most interesting!...at first I agreed with you. However, it is not possible to reference a "possible bias" or "cite an opposing view", because it is a "statement of fact". To your question "According to whom?" the answer is everyone. No scholar has opposed the "striking and incontestable fact! The statement is supported in a detail by James Edwards who does the math! 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.

Conclusion: Some scholars such as Casey and Ehrman (see above) argue that the facts show that Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel while other scholars have yet to be won over by the New Scholarship.

However, I do agree that the following from the Blackwell Companion series has no place in the article: To those cynical of excavations of imaginary strata in an imaginary source document, the external evidence looks like a rock in a weary land. And indeed, if we go back to the door of that library at Harvard and listen closely, we can hear a few ... is POV and probably contains original research. I do concur that it has no place at Misplaced Pages. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Translation verses Composite Authorship

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 real problems with this position. First 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.

Today, most scholars embrace composite authorship (See Two-source hypothesis, Four document hypothesis & Diagram) 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." Casey (2010) p 108. 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." Casey (2010) p 88. 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. Casey (2010) p 89 (See also Fountainhead and Sources of Matthew) - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Deviant group within the Jewish community in greater Syria

I also agree that this section went into way to much detail. Two problems I see with this section are WP:SOAP and WP:SCOPE. Although scholars do speculate as to where the Gospel of Matthew was composed, there is no way we can be sure. The internal evidence is all over the place while the external evidence points to Jerusalem or Judea. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Toned down the anti-Semitism

I had difficulty with this statement in the lead "Israel's Messiah, having been rejected by Israel (i.e., God's chosen people) passes judgment on those who had rejected him (so that "Israel" becomes the non-believing "Jews"), and finally sends the disciples to preach to the gentiles. "

I think the editor misread Luz who is actually talking about the "leaders" and the "judgment on Israel's leaders". In any event I toned it down. Please let me know if I went too far. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Composition and setting

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)

1. David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. p 301 & p 302
2. Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 87-88
3. Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101
4. James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3
5. Brown 1997, p. 210-211

• 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