Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:55, 2 September 2013 editJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits Unbalanced tag: final response to the irrelevance comments which in no way address any of the concerns raised, although I would be obviously open to responding to useful comments which address real issues instead of veiled personal attacks← Previous edit Revision as of 02:33, 2 September 2013 edit undoIgnocrates (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,170 edits Unbalanced tag: John Carter, please refrain from applying spurious tags to the article to disrupt Misplaced Pages.Next edit →
Line 109: Line 109:
:::], you can't unilaterally undo a talk-page consensus by ]. Please stop ] Misplaced Pages and abide by ]. ] (]) 01:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC) :::], you can't unilaterally undo a talk-page consensus by ]. Please stop ] Misplaced Pages and abide by ]. ] (]) 01:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Ignocrates, please try to make some degree of sense in your comments. The RfC which you started about a week ago is an RfC, which are in general open for more than a week before there is any declaration that consensus has been arrived at. Also, even beyond the fact that it is too early for you to declare consensus, there also has to be some sort of evidence that material presented has actually been responded to. The only one I've seen who has said anything since I presented the two more recent reference books is you, and honestly, so far as I can tell, you have completely and utterly ignored everything said therein. Therefore, honestly, it is both too early to determine that there exists a consensus regarding the new material presented, and, honestly, there isn't even any real evidence that the material presented has even been considered, which itself might be considered a violation of ] and other behavior guidelines. Please make an attempt to familiarize yourself with ''all'' relevant guidelines, and perhaps make some sort of overt display of your familiarity with them. Thank you. ] (]) 01:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC) ::::Ignocrates, please try to make some degree of sense in your comments. The RfC which you started about a week ago is an RfC, which are in general open for more than a week before there is any declaration that consensus has been arrived at. Also, even beyond the fact that it is too early for you to declare consensus, there also has to be some sort of evidence that material presented has actually been responded to. The only one I've seen who has said anything since I presented the two more recent reference books is you, and honestly, so far as I can tell, you have completely and utterly ignored everything said therein. Therefore, honestly, it is both too early to determine that there exists a consensus regarding the new material presented, and, honestly, there isn't even any real evidence that the material presented has even been considered, which itself might be considered a violation of ] and other behavior guidelines. Please make an attempt to familiarize yourself with ''all'' relevant guidelines, and perhaps make some sort of overt display of your familiarity with them. Thank you. ] (]) 01:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::], while the RfC is indeed still open, the only respondent who has opposed PiCo's proposal to maintain the present scope is <U>you alone</U>. If you believe it is too early in the RfC discussion to determine a consensus, then your unilateral tagging of the article while a discussion is still in progress is ]. You can't have it both ways. ] (]) 02:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:33, 2 September 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gospel of the Hebrews article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Gospel of the Hebrews is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee. Nominated by Ignocrates (talk) PiCo (talk) at 17:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.


Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 24, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
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.
WikiProject iconReligion: Interfaith Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChristianity Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6


This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

GAN

I have co-nominated this article for WP:GAN along with User:PiCo. You can help to improve the article during the review process or leave suggestions for further improvement here. Ignocrates (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

His user page says he is no longer active. I guess that needs to be updated? Newjerseyliz (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
PiCo indicated he still wants to be involved in GAN. I don't know what his plans are after that. Pyrotec says he will review the article, but it may take a week or two as he is currently tied up with other reviews. Ignocrates (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 16:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I see myself multiple problems with the article, as it compares to other encyclopedic reference sources regarding this topic, and to my eyes they are sufficient for the article not receiving GA status at this time. A comparison to the rather substantial entry in the Anchor Bible Dictionary is I think relevant. Their article on this topic indicates from the first sentence that there were multiple sources, at least two, which have been referred to by this title. This specifically includes the work Jerome called the Gospel of the Hebrews, which has been, more or less, generally linked to the Gospel of the Nazoreans by modern scholarship, despite the lack of any real sourcing to support that. On the basis of its apparent failure to give what seems required weight to the Gospel of the Hebrews Jerome used, which he did call by that title, and which so far as I can tell most of the existing scholarship on Jerome uses, to some degree, in discussing his material on it, and the substantial discussion of the mild "controversy" on the topic in the ABD, I would have to say that the article strikes me as unbalanced and in no way giving remotely sufficient weight to a substantial area of discussion regarding it, the nature of the Jerome material. John Carter (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is about the Greek Gospel of the Hebrews used in Egypt. The WP:SCOPE was restricted as a result of the merge discussion archived on the talk page. As a result, the discussion of the controversy was moved to the Jewish-Christian gospels article. Please note that the ABD is already used as a source for the article (Cameron 1992) and provide specific examples of topics covered in the ABD encyclopedic article that you feel have not received sufficient weight in this article. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I thought I did indicate specific examples, the use of the title by Jerome. I'm sorry you apparently didn't see that, or perhaps chose to ignore them. I can see no logical reason for the material regarding the use of the term by Jerome not being covered with roughly the same weight and attention in this article as it receives in the ABD. Also, as per WP:CCC, consensus can change, and I can see no valid reason to basically exclude the material relating to Jerome from the leading reference source on this topic based on an archived merge discussion. At this point, I believe the more reasonable thing to do would be to determine if the rules of that earlier, rather dated discussion, are enough to warrant not being considered when the article is being nominated for GA. On that basis, I am posting a message at WT:X regarding what the scope of the article should be, according to the more reliable sources, and how that should be reflected in the content. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion should not affect GA, since that is mostly about the proper use of sources and formatting issues. However, a content RfC on scope can happen on the talk page at the same time, or the GA can be put on hold pending the outcome of the RfC. Ignocrates (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe it most reasonable to allow the GA reviewer to determine that, don't you? John Carter (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I will leave it to Pyrotec to make that call. Ignocrates (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've held off reviewing this nomination, for various reasons not least the controversy on the the talkpage. However, I want to make one thing perfectly clear. Reviewing a wikipedia GAN nomination does not involve comparing the relevant article against a "similar" article on wikipedia or one on the Anchor Bible Dictionary and then awarding GA-status, or not, based on outcome of that comparison. The article appears to be stable, but it now has a {{tag}}, added yesterday, which is somewhat disruptive. I'm therefore going to ignore it for now, and review the article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No objections whatsoever. And no one would not acknowledge that any single independent print source is necessarily an absolute dictator of content. Regarding questions of disruption, if editors review the talk page history, which I believe they do, I think they might find that perhaps dubious behavior did not begin with that tag. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't wish to read the talkpage and make value judgements on "dubious behavior". I've reviewed quite a few Israeli and Palestinian GANs and also Northern Ireland ones (and I'm English) with far far less controversy than this one. I expect those topics to be "sensitive" (and wikipedia has protocols for articles on the Middle East). The criteria for Good Articles are to found in WP:WIAGA, so the relevant decision (mine to make) in this particular instance is whether the apparent lack of the some "information" leads to a non-compliance with clause 3(a). That is the only argument I'm going to accept, not whether a "thing" is in some highly regarded book and its not in this article. However, having made these points, you (and others) are welcome to add contributions to this review. I will consider them. I'm not a subject matter expert on the bible, so I will not be reviewing this nomination as a "bible subject matter expert". Pyrotec (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It isn't the behavior on the talk page that I think particularly relevant, but the sourced material included in it and, possibly, the history of removal of content from this page, as indicated in the talk page archives, to another article, without apparently leaving a indication of its having been here which seems to me problematic. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
A few years ago I added a big block of fully-referenced material about a historical building and its surrounding land to a "village" article and a PR-guy for the developer of the (by then derelict site) property stripped out all the relevant parts and created a new article on "his new property" against his username and just added a wiklink to the "village" article. He also added spam to this new article, about his restaurant (with links to his menus) so I stripped out the spam. I was very angry about what was done (and it seems to fit with what you are summarising), but reviewing a nomination means assessing it against WP:WIAGA and none of this "history" (or apparent history) is likely to be considered. Pyrotec (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if you read the quotes provided, the "history" is more or less, according to those reference sources, the primary reason the topic is known, even including the group of quotes which have more or less been identified by modern scholars under the name "Gospel of the HEbrews". In all honesty, I am myself far from sure that the article as it stands meets even basic WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, as the articles I have seen rarely if ever discuss this source separately. I realize that may be irrelevant to the GA review, which requires assuming good faith, even when, honestly, there is no reason to do so, but it is still I believe a valid concern, even if it does fall outside the scope of the GA review. John Carter (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the first part of your comment; and from the second part of those comments, I'm not sure that you understand the GAN review process. Assuming good faith is not a GA requirement, but neither is notability. GA has a requirement of verifiable sources: where I'm in a position to check sources, I verify the claims in the articles against the sources. In addition, there are arguments that flair up from time to time about the degree of checking that should be done to guard against copyright violations. So, there is some degree of checking for copyright violation. I'd suggest that a conscientiously-done GAN review is diametrically opposite to just accepting what is written is on a WP:AGF basis acceptable "as is". P.S. is "Gospel of the HEbrews" some kind of message, or is it just a fliped case with an "E" instead of "e"? Pyrotec (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Just a typo. And the first part was more or less referring to the fact that the "Jewish gospel" had until recently been used more or less as an umbrella term for what are now called here the Jewish-Christian gospels, according to the sources. That being the case, considering variations on this title have been until very recently used for all three or four such gospels, there is in at least all the reference sources with reference articles of any length that I've checked, and I think in most of the journal articles, some early content in them relating to the historical ambiguity of the term, and then a narrowing of focus to the one source which is today commonly referred to by this title. And thank you by the way for the clarification of what the GA process involves on the part of the GA reviewer. I myself only ever did one, kind of badly by my own acknowledgement, so it's been awhile since I checked there. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Walter Bauer (1934), which I refer to be below, and with a 1934-date I accept is old, stated that Jerome used that "label" to refer to a Jewish-Christian revision of the Gospel of Matthew and Epiphanius confused the Gospel of the Hebrews with that of the Ebionites. However, if by the end of the review I think that this clarification is both needed and is not adequately covered in the article I can raise it as a possible non-compliance with WP:WIAGA clause 3(a). In contrast, I might consider some things unnecessary and use clause 3(b); however all of that is for the future and I've not yet got there. Pyrotec (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
To return to the main point: I'm going to do a quick read of the article from start to finish and then work my way through the article, starting at the Origin and characteristics section and finishing with the WP:lead. I will be adding comments section by section, below, where necessary. I don't have access to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, so I shall not be referring to it. This is likely to take a few days, but I would like to finish it by the weekend. However, I'll not be doing any more work today on this nomination. Pyrotec (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Pyrotec, as co-nominators of this article, PiCo and I are prepared to address your comments. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Ignocrates (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm going to read it today (first time round) and then I will start to add comments during the second reading: which might be today or it might be tomorrow (it just depends on how much time I've got and how long it takes to read it). Pyrotec (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I've now done that first quick read through. It was done 3rd and 4th September but I possibly misread the Lead. I "read" it as saying that the gospel existed in fragmentary form, so I (wrongly) leaped into thinking of the Nag Hammadi library and / or Dead Seas Scrolls and that lead me to asking why are this not mentioned in the article. I now know that I was wrong: I've subsequently been reading the English-translation of Walter Bauer (1934) about the Gospel(s) of the Hebrews, there were several called by that name; and discussions on what label "Hebrew" meant. I'm likely to make some comments about the lead, but as I stated above in my review I'm doing the body of the article before I do the lead. Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Bauer, Walter (1971) . Kraft, Robert A.; Krodel, Gerhard (eds.). Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. SCM Press. ISBN 978-0-8006-0055-6. (2nd German edition)
Keep in mind that Bauer's book is considered a historical work by the majority of modern scholars. He wrote before the Nag Hammadi discovery, when many scholars assumed that the Greek Gospel of Thomas was part of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Ignocrates (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Thanks for that contribution. I was working my way through one of Bart D Ehrman's sets of lecture notes a few months ago, (I have three of his courses from ) and he cited Bauer which was readily available to hand. He (Ehrman) also cites his own book (and DVD) Lost Christianities, which is on my "to get" list, but I don't yet have a copy of either to hand. So, I'm unlikely to quoting them much in this review. However, Ehrman is cited in Gospel of the Hebrews (Ehrman, Bart D. (2005a) & Ehrman, Bart D. (2005b) ) with broken web links to www.shareislam.info. I'm not sure why that link is given, the books are viewable on Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com . Pyrotec (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't aware those links were dead. I have removed them, and replaced them. Ignocrates (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Origin and characteristics -
  • This short single-paragraph appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA, however I may need to revise this view by the time that I get to the end of the article (note: by this I mean the Lead).
  • See comments immediately prior to those on the Lead.
  • Content -
  • The first paragraph looks OK.

...stopping at this point. To be continued tomorrow, onwards. Pyrotec (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

  • The rest of this section, which was an introduction and commentary on seven fragments, was OK, but I added a few wikilinks.
  • Christology -
  • This section appears to be compliant.
  • Reception -

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

  • This section appears to be compliant.
  • Relationship to other texts -
  • What is stated in this section, is verifiable and appears (on the basis of checks carried) to be consistent with what is given in the sources used to provide verification.
  • See section below.
  • Minor comment on scope -
  • I'm adding a minor comment here rather than putting it in with the Origin and characteristics or Relationship to other texts sections, since I don't want to prescribe how and where it is addressed.
  • This article gives some quite detailed and verifiable, by citations and notes, using a wide range of relevant reference material, information on the Gospel of the Hebrews. However, I'm aware that older material, such as Walter Bauer (1934), 2nd Edition, in its English language translation (of 1971), which states that in addition to the Gospel of the Hebrews (which this article covers in some depth) two other books were sometimes mis-described by this name. This book is referenced by Ehrman and some of this information appears in Ehrman & Plese (2011). I'm not really suggesting that much more than this is needed here. The other two books are described as Jerome (mis)-refering to a Jewish-Christian review of Matthew and Epiphananius refering to the Gospel of the Ebionites. Relationship to other texts discusses the Gospel of the Ebionites, but does not (perhaps I've missed it) say that it was sometimes (mis-)known as the Gospel of the Hebrews. I think this is also one of the points being made on the talkpage.
  • I'm not a subject matter expert in any way, could this be accommodated in the article?
Yes, this can be handled by inserting two sentences, about Jerome and Epiphanius, respectively, in the Relationship to other texts section. Do you have the page numbers for this topic in Bauer (1971)? I will also check Ehrman & Plese (2011). I will make this minor change and leave it to PiCo polish up the wording later. Ignocrates (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I added a sentence about Jerome's use of the name Gospel of the Hebrews, and I cited Cameron (1992), i.e. the ABD, as a source. I expanded the note about Epiphanius' understanding of the gospel in his possession to include the terms "Hebrew" gospel and Gospel of the Hebrews. I prefer to leave Epiphanius' description as a note, since it has not been a source of confusion. Are you are ok with these changes? Ignocrates (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, I was using Bauer, Walter (1971) . Kraft, Robert A.; Krodel, Gerhard, eds. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. ISBN 0-8006-0055-X. (2nd German edition with added appendices by Georg Strecker) and I was summarising material on pages 51-53. Pyrotec (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This is quite a good introduction to the topic and summary of the points in the main body of the article, as it is required to do as per WP:Lead. But, I have a few very minor observations:
  • I "mis-read", the first time round, what the article was saying in respect of the gospel existing only in fragments / fragmentary form, so I (wrongly) leaped into thinking of the Nag Hammadi library and / or Dead Seas Scrolls. Strictly the "gospel existing in fragments" seems to be correct, but I'd like to ask whether this could be slightly reworked / expanded without unduly changing the balance of the lead versus the main body of the article? The cause (?) of its loss is that it was regarded by the Latin church at end of the 4th century as heretical so they stopped referring to it; and presumably there are no extant Latin versions of it? Note: does it exist in Coptic? So, the "fragments" are reconstructions of bits of it from its mention prior to the 5th Century; and there is some academic agreement / disagreement over what was in it.
  • What I added above is probably longer than it would take to write in summary, but is this the way forward? Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Reworded per your suggestion. It is the quotations which survive, not actual fragments. They are inferred from the quotations. Ignocrates (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Much better. I like the use of the words "...as brief quotations by the early Church Fathers which preserve fragments of the original text". Pyrotec (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have made all of the requested changes. Let me know if anything more is needed. Ignocrates (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think anything else is needed (well, appart from the "flag" to go). Thanks very much for expediting this assessment. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


An interesting and informative. I enjoyed reviewing the article and reading the associated references (books etc, were available on-line).

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    y
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. I think that it has the potential of making FAC at a future date, but for that to happen the diverge views expressed on the talk pages will need to be resolved somehow. I enjoyed reading this article, so congratulations all to the editors involved in creating this informative article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Scope of this article

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this article be about only the single source identified by modern scholarship as the "Gospel of the Hebrews", or should it also deal with the source identified by Jerome as the "Gospel of the Hebrews"? The article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, arguably perhaps the most highly regarded reference source on the topic of the Bible in general, includes a great deal of information on the book called GotH by Jerome, and the resultant scholarly questions, in its article on the "Gospel of the Hebrews", and I believe that it would be reasonable, and in accord with WP:WEIGHT, for our article to do so as well. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers: Please see the above section on GA review for background to the current discussion. Ignocrates (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I should also have mentioned that the material that was taken out when the scope was restricted was migrated to a work-in-process page and the talk page discussion of the implementation of the cleanup resulting from the merge decision runs down to Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews/Archive 5#Wrap up merge proposal. Ignocrates (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a general observation that doesn't touch on the main question: When I looked at the publisher's page for the Anchor Bible Dictionary, I noticed that it has a publishing date of 1992. Surely there has been substantial textual analysis that has happened over the past 21 years, right? Or are you looking at a newer, abbreviated version than the 6 volume collection, John Carter? Because I see you refer to this reference work often as the authoritative source of information. Liz 18:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
It has been described by other, later, reference sources as possibly the best reference source out there, which is why I take recourse to it. With its length, it's articles are also among the longest out there, and on that basis useful in that regard as well. However, I acknowledge that it is somewhat dated. However, I have seen nothing in any other sources which indicate in recent years that there has been some sort of discovery of documents directly relevant to this topic, so I would assume that the conclusions drawn then are still valid, those conclusions being, basically, that (1) we have no extant copies of any work by that title, and (2) that, pretty much, most everything discussed is, well, guesswork, if reasonable guesswork based on the admittedly limited amount of evidence of any sort available. Having said that, I would welcome some input on the question asked in the RfC itself, specifically, whether material about the discussion/controversy relating to the source Jerome called the GotH should be included in this article, and if so, how much weight it should be given. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that one would need to be quite an expert in this rather specialised subject area to have a valid opinion as to how much weight should be put on what Jerome said (I see quite a few references to Jerome in the article as it is), but I do think that "this article varies from the Anchor Bible Dictionary" is not a good reason, by itself, to change it.Smeat75 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
There has been a substantial amount of scholarly work done in the field since 1992 which is reflected by the reliable secondary sources in the article. Ignocrates (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
It would be helpful if the above statement actually gave any information directly relating to the question of what the sources say about the question under discussion here. A simple statement, which seems almost to be a bit of a brush-off, of those concerns which a non sequitur comment such as the above does not really help the discussion. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
That's the point of having article content supported by reliable sources; you can read the original information for yourself. Anyway, the point of an RfC is to seek the opinions of the wider Community, not to use it as a platform to further expound on your own views. Ignocrates (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Ignocrates, your comment above seems to again completely miss the mark of the request. Please provide a source which specifically addresses the question of the identity of the texts, rather than vague generalities such as the one above. And I would note that the RfC is not to allow you to make statements which seem to be unfounded aspersions on the motivations of others, either.
This particular quote from the ABD seems relevant to me for the discussion here: "Thus, in spite of himself, Jerome attests to the existence both of a Greek Gos. Heb. and another Jewish-Christian gospel, one which appears to be closely related to or identical with an expanded version of Matthew's Gospel that was translated into Greek from Aramaic or Syriac." So, according to that source, Jerome himself seems to clearly indicate that there were at least two books called the GotH. This is also affirmed in the first sentence of that article, "The title ascribed in antiquity to at least one and probably two Jewish-Christian narrative gospels that are extant in fragmentary form in a few quotations preserved only in early church writings." Therefore, as these seem to me to be rather clear statements that academia at that time indicated that there were multiple GotH's, I can see no good reason for us not to indicate as much in our own article on the topic, unless there has been some change in evidence or otherwise overwhelming change without evidence in the opinion of the academic world. And, yes, as Jerome did call it the GotH, it is reasonable that the discussion about the one or more works referred to by that title would take place in the first article people looking for information on it would consult, this one. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

John Carter asks, "Should this article be about only the single source identified by modern scholarship as the "Gospel of the Hebrews", or should it also deal with the source identified by Jerome as the "Gospel of the Hebrews"?

The problem is, nobody actually knows what Jerome was referring to. John Carter suggests it was the hypothetical original Aramaic/Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew, later translated/enlarged to form the present-day Greek Matthew. Aramaic Matthew is valid subject for an article, but quite separate from the not-quite-so-hypothetical gospel used by Jewish Christians in Egypt that's the subject of this one. (At least for this one there are extant quotations). So I'd say, keep these two articles separate.

The last para of the lead does deal with the potential confusion between various Jewish-Christian gospels, and I hope it's enough, but if anyone feels it isn't then by all means let's enlarge it.

I also think an additional para or at least sentence is needed to introduce the section "Origins and characteristics" - at the moment it just jumps right in with "The Gospel of the Hebrews is the only Jewish–Christian gospel...". I think the subject of Jewish Christian gospels needs a little bit of explanation, or else the reader is going to be asking just what a JC gospel actually is. PiCo (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

  • John raises some good points, but it seems to me that the issue can be resolved using PiCo's suggested clarification. The earlier discussion to separate the content raised important issues that justify (what might be considered) a content fork and I don't see any harm - and indeed quite a lot of good - in maintaining separate articles. Eusebeus (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Does this proposal from PiCo meet with general approval? Liz 18:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. PiCo's proposed changes can easily be handled in the normal course of editing or even as part of the GA review. The important thing to decide in this RfC is whether to abide by the consensus decision that was reached during the merge discussion or change the scope in a way that would require a major rewrite of the article. Ignocrates (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
First, Ignocrates, I very much wish you refrained from the pontification you are so fond of, such as, basically, your entire last sentence above. The record of this page will show that I started the thread as a general point, and then that you decided to turn it into an RFC, without any sort of discussion or consultation, after the fact. Honestly, it only became an RfC because you, unilaterally, and without any form of discussion, determined to make it one. I do not myself necessarily object to their being an RfC, but the way in which you apparently unilaterally decided to turn my comment into something it was not written to be, the start of an RfC, could not unreasonably be seen as being at least a little problematic.
Secondly, I have rather serious reservations about the proposal from PiCo, only because, so far as I can tell, it seems to me to minimize the level of controversy about this topic. Also, honestly, like I said, the source is described by Jerome as being the "Gospel of the Hebrews," or some variation on that, (he uses four different variant phrasings). I believe it would probably be most reasonable, and at least in my opinion, be most neutral, to begin the lead indicating the existence of the problem, and then perhaps add something similar to the second two sentences of the ABD article, "Because of the scantiness of the citations and the uncertainty of the patristic source attributions, assessing these fragments is one of the most vexing probems in the study of early Christian literature. Determining the precise number of these gospels, identifying which fragments may plausibly belong to which text(s), appraising the nature and extent of these texts, and establishing the relationship of one gospel to another are extremely problematic tasks that continue to challenge scholars.". This is I believe important for the reader to know up front. The following sections of the article might then start with a comparatively short description of the controversy regarding the matter, with a "Main article:X" subheading to that section. Also, in the ABD, in the sentence directly following the first sentence I quoted above, the one ending in "...Aramaic and Syriac," it says that the "other" source Jerome used was the Gospel of the Nazoreans": "This expanded version of Matthew is customarily referred to today as the Gospel of the Nazoreans, a document whose original title is unknown but which seems to have been used since the 2nd century C.E. by the Nazoreans, a group of Jewish Christians in W. Syria." The information about all the documents with which this source is confused is I think worthy of mention in the lead. The article also says, "Although the existence of Gos. Heb. Is not in question, identifying its fragments and appraising its character remains difficult," and goes on, after a quotation from Jerome, to say "countless difficulties in our attempts to isolate and verify the gospel(s) in which these fragments belong".
That possible first section would also probably include a lot of the information from the "Relationship to Other texts" section currently in the article. It could also probably mention the disagreements which seem to exist between some scholars, like Vielhauer and James, about which quotes come from which books.
Then, a second section could reasonably contain most of the information already in the article, starting with a statement to the effect of "although there are clearly disagreements in the academic community regarding this topic, there is a broad general consensus regarding the allocation of most of the quotations. They include the following: (list). Although it would be a mistake to attempt to read too much into the information we do have." This last statement can be supported with the following quote from the 2006 The New Interpreters Guide to the Bible" "It is impossible to draw solid conclusions regarding the scope, plan, and aims of this Gospel, given the fact that it is available to us only in a few fragments that vary greatly in their nature, style, rhetoric, and theological orientation." and a similar quote from the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, 2007, "In the circumstances it is difficult to be certain of the character, form, and compass of these documents, and precarious in the extreme to build hypotheses upon what little is known."
Having said all that, I am grateful in the extreme for the work PiCo has done, but like I said, I do think it would probably be most useful to some of those who might use this article, like maybe lazy college students looking to find out something about some of Jerome's quotations, if we gave a bit more discussion early on about the nature of the disputes about this subject, and then went into more depth about the general consensus regarding the nature of the work which the scholarly community has decided to use this title to describe. John Carter (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
As I said, the controversy about the identity of the Gospel of the Hebrews vs. the Gospel of the Nazoraeans was consolidated onto the main Jewish-Christian gospels article where the two are examined in parallel as the History of scholarship in the Jewish-Christian gospel problem rather than replicating the same content on all three articles. All we need to do here is add a link with a brief explanation to direct the reader to the "History of scholarship" section of the main article. It doesn't matter if other encyclopedias organize the material differently. We are not here to clone the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ignocrates (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I added a link in the lead to the "History of scholarship" section of the Jewish-Christian gospels article. The sentence could be clarified a bit more to direct the reader to the link, but the details of scholarship on the "Jewish-Christian gospel problem" should be further developed in the main article. This article is for content uniquely attributed to the Greek gospel known as the Gospel of the Hebrews that was used in Egypt. Ignocrates (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Ignocrates, although I am more than a bit surprised that you added a link, I also very much believe as per WP:WEIGHT that based on the information in the independent reliable sources on the topic the link is not enough, as per my comments below. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani left his comments on his talk page for whatever reason. There doesn't appear to be any enthusiasm for changing the consensus that was reached during the merge discussion. Ignocrates (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Modification of Existing Article "Gospel of the Hebrews"

I would like to suggest a modification of the present article entitled Gospel of the Hebrews, without erasing existing texts. This will only be a small addition. Where the text currently says: “The Gospel of the Hebrews is classified as one of the three Jewish–Christian gospels by modern scholars, along with the Gospel of the Nazoraeans and the Gospel of the Ebionites,” it is being advised to add “although it is speculated by some scholars whether or not these were all one and the same book, or individual compositions.” This addition will include a reference,

See: Kijn, “Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects,” pp. 24-27.

Because of this modification, it will be necessary to add "also" in the succeeding line: "The relationship between the Jewish–Christian gospels and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel remains a speculation."

It should now read, "The relationship between the Jewish–Christian gospels and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel also remains a speculation."

Off the record, and in accordance with directives in WP:OR, “This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages,” it is easy to see how someone reading these testimonies on a superficial level can be led into thinking that there were two or three gospels used by the early Jewish following of Jesus when, in actuality, there was only one Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew. Anyone who examines these testimonies with a critical demeanor can't help but come up with the same conclusion. For one obvious reason: 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."

You can see, then, why some might 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.

If anyone is interested that I cite more proofs to this effect, I shall be happy to do so. Davidbena (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena, I will take a look at this in the context of the other changes PiCo proposed above. In the future, please build your arguments around reliable secondary sources, e.g., "According to reliable secondary source A, Jerome mentioned (fill in the blank) in primary source B, and this is how the author of reliable source A interprets Jerome's remarks (complete citation with page numbers provided)". Thanks for the suggestion. Ignocrates (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, here, I was just making a suggestion. It is not absolutely crucial. Anyway, as for Jerome being a "Primary Source," were you saying this as a means to obviate his claims? Just curious. There are other ways of circumventing having to use a "Primary Source," such as by quoting the literary work of co-authors Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri, 2010 p. 18, who mention Jerome in this regard in a footnote. I am NOT being insistent, but only trying to show you the other side. You can take it or leave it. No hard feelings. According to the rules of WP:NPOV, we ought to present a neutral stand where scholars are divided about a certain issue. Davidbena (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to all editors

Although editors on Misplaced Pages should not, as a rule, use Primary Sources, there is still a provision for its use occasionally, as we find in WP:PSTS, which rule states explicitly: "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. HAPPY EDITING! Davidbena (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of reminders, I hope this recent incident reminds the veteran editors on this page why we decided to restrict the scope of the article during the merge discussion. Ignocrates (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

I have added the unbalanced tag to this article for the following reasons. I have produced multiple recent reference sources above, even if one editor might have acted against WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and ignored the later ones, which specifically discuss at length material relating to the historic dispute about which quotes said to be from the GotH or similarly titled gospels actually come from which original source. And it should also be noted that all those sources are specifically articles called "Gospel of the Hebrews", not something else. If there is a belief, which I myself have no particular objections to, that the material relating to the debate should be primarily included in another article, that's fine, but if that is the case then I have every reason to believe WP:SS should be adhered to. And, yes, considering the rather short length of those articles I have produced above, I personally cannot see any obvious reason why all the material discussed in them could not be included here, as per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. In any event, if the material is to be primarily included elsewhere, that is no reason for there not be a summary section in this article, there should be some degree of prominent, if abbreviated, section relating to it in this article, probably with roughly similar placement and emphasis in those articles.

I also believe it is worth noting that I myself probably would have gone into more length regarding this in a separate RfC section earlier on. However, as will be seen from this edit, it was in fact Ignocrates who saw fit to add the RfC template to my preliminary comment, which I myself was intending to add to with additional sources prior to filing an RfC. Those sources were at another location, however, and I saw no reason to delay starting the discussion until I got to the other location to consult them. By adding the template and starting the RfC as he did, and, I should note, in no way did he seem to indicate exactly what the nature of the RfC he requested was until later, he basically, well, hijacked the discussion I was trying to start. Because it would be inappropriate for me to start a second RfC after the preemptive starting of one by Ignocrates, I believe that one of the few remaining recourses I have is to the template, and on that reason I have added it. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User:John Carter, please stop WP:EDIT-WARRING against WP:CONSENSUS and disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a WP:POINT. Ignocrates (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Ignocrates, please at least try to make a comment which deals with reality, which the above comment transparently refuses to do. As per WP:CCC, which I strongly suggest you at some point read, consensus can change. Also please read WP:AGF, and, it appears I must once again, for the second time in this thread, urge you to also read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have made several points, repeatedly, which, so far as I can tell, you have completely ignored and refused to respond to. Please make some sort of visible effort to have your own before conform to policies and guidelines. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
User:John Carter, you can't unilaterally undo a talk-page consensus by filibustering. Please stop WP:GAMING Misplaced Pages and abide by WP:TPG. Ignocrates (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Ignocrates, please try to make some degree of sense in your comments. The RfC which you started about a week ago is an RfC, which are in general open for more than a week before there is any declaration that consensus has been arrived at. Also, even beyond the fact that it is too early for you to declare consensus, there also has to be some sort of evidence that material presented has actually been responded to. The only one I've seen who has said anything since I presented the two more recent reference books is you, and honestly, so far as I can tell, you have completely and utterly ignored everything said therein. Therefore, honestly, it is both too early to determine that there exists a consensus regarding the new material presented, and, honestly, there isn't even any real evidence that the material presented has even been considered, which itself might be considered a violation of WP:STONEWALL and other behavior guidelines. Please make an attempt to familiarize yourself with all relevant guidelines, and perhaps make some sort of overt display of your familiarity with them. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
User:John Carter, while the RfC is indeed still open, the only respondent who has opposed PiCo's proposal to maintain the present scope is you alone. If you believe it is too early in the RfC discussion to determine a consensus, then your unilateral tagging of the article while a discussion is still in progress is WP:TENDENTIOUS. You can't have it both ways. Ignocrates (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Categories: