| Revision as of 02:40, 17 March 2011 editRet.Prof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,357 edits Happy St Patrick's Day← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:59, 16 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,260 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 12) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skiptotoctalk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header |search=yes }} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top|jesus-work-group=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religious texts|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Books}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|counter = 12 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(31d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }} |
|
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religious texts|class=B}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Bible|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
== Good Work == |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11#Matthew, Gospel According to}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 07:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
This article has really improved over the past few months. The fact that Greek Matthew is first quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas, and was known to Papias in its Greek form is very interesting. I always suspected that this was the case. I am having trouble verifying and it would be helpful if someone could walk me though the references. Google links would be helpful. As to the rest , great work - ] (]) 11:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
:Couldn't find anything about this in my sources so I removed it. I also fixed the balance issue about whether Papias's report is credited by most scholars (it isn't, per my commonly accepted reference text). ] (]) 17:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11#Original Matthew}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 07:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Capitolization == |
|
|
|
|
|
Rather than having a capitolization revert war, someone needs to go through here and clean it up. Looking at the last revert, half of the instances should be capitolized - such as "... blah blah blah ''the Gospels'' blah blah blah..." is obviously a proper noun in this case. However in other places I don't believe it should be (like in section headings unless it is the first word and in a few other places it should be "small g" gospel). So both of the previous reverters are wrong - and the most recent editor, although he has quoted the correct Misplaced Pages manual, has incorrectly read/applied it (IMHO). So who's going to take it on?] (]) 22:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke |
|
|
:I can go through this more thoroughly later and complete the edit I made to start this little dispute. I based my decision on the dictionary definition -- my New Oxford American Dictionary and Dictionary.com both agree that Gospel is capitalized when referring to the four Gospels of the New Testament, but is not capitalized when referring to the general teachings of Christ. |
|
|
:I don't know if there's a MOS entry specific enough for this particular case. I'd rather take the dictionary's word for it rather than interpreting vague parts of the MOS. If we can agree on that style, I can just sort through the different uses of the term in the article and fix them properly. ] (]) 22:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Gospel isn't a proper noun by itself. The MoS says that we should not capitalize words outside of titles, even if they appear in titles. The example they give is for institutions such as universities and hospitals. For example "The University of Toronto offers..." vs. "the university offers..." In some style guides, they say to capitalize the latter, because of the implied antecedent. This is what I believe Ckruschke is referring to. But that is not how we do things on Misplaced Pages. My take on the MoS is they normally favor lowercase letters, unless it is a clear case of a title or proper noun. Furthermore, they specifically say we should not capitalize normal, religious words that are often given honorific status and capitalized by some religious institutions, which I think this also falls under. I could be wrong. And it's not that big of a deal to me. But I don't understand Ckruschke's revert of me. The article should go back to how it was before either me or the Cap'n edited it (but whatever). -] </sup>]] 22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Gospel ''is'' a proper noun when used to refer to the four Gospels; check any dictionary, as I said, and you'll see that it is to be capitalized in that case. ] also says "The names of major revered works of scripture like the Bible, the Qur'an, the Talmud, and the Vedas should be capitalized". |
|
|
:::There are also cases I fixed when "Gospel" was used as shorthand for "Gospel of Matthew"; for example, it might say "...and believe Matthew did write the gospel." That should be capitalized, because Gospel clearly refers to the Gospel of Matthew, a specific work, and is a proper noun. |
|
|
:::So, short version: "Gospel" is capitalized when referring to the four Gospels as a whole or any specific Gospel. It is not capitalized in any other case. Can we agree on this usage? ] (]) 22:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Not yet. As I gave in my example with institutions from the MoS, we don't capitalize what you call short hand. You have not convinced me on that point. As for whether it is a proper noun in reference to the four gospels, I'm doing some research on that now. Merriam-Webster online says it is, and the Oxford Dictionary of English says so, and gives this odd example ''The four Gospels ascribed to St Matthew, St Mark, St Luke, and St John all give an account of the ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ, though the Gospel of John differs greatly from the other three. There are also several apocryphal gospels of later date.'' But the actual OED does not, and gives historical examples that both do and do not capitalize the word when used in this specific meaning. I find the example from the ODE odd because it lowercases apocryphal gospels, which I think is a non-neutral treatment, or religious favoritism, which the MoS specifically prohibits. I'd also argue that the gospels are NOT a "major revered works of scripture like the Bible, the Qur'an, the Talmud, and the Vedas" as this doesn't seem to be an issue at ] or ]. When both Merriam Webster and ODE say epistle should be capitalized (but maybe I shouldn't bring that up as I'm sure you'd argue to change that as well), but I don't think a couple dictionaries should be the sole guiding principal here, as any quick search of a leading scholarly journal on the topic (i.e. ''Novum Testamentum'' vol. 47 no 4) will show both upper case and lower case usages based on author's preference. Since this effects many articles, I think this is something that should be discussed in a broader venue. Perhaps we should raise this on the MoS page? -] </sup>]] 23:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::How about capitalizing Gospel when it's a short form of the title of a specific Gospel in the New Testament or apocryphal works, but not otherwise? i.e. if it's a reference to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, make it capitalized, since the full title "Gospel of Matthew" is capitalized. Other uses are ambiguous and should lean towards not being capitalized. |
|
|
:::::It's roughly like saying ''Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'', and also italicizing ''Hitchhiker's Guide'' when it's used as shorthand. The MOS entry you cite doesn't support your case, in my opinion; using "gospel" as shorthand for "Gospel of Matthew" is not naming a ''type'' of something but a specific instance. ] (]) 23:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hebrew Gospel == |
|
|
This link, ], in the second paragraph of the ] intro has been removed several times by editor ] without explanation. The inline citation clearly mentions the Hebrew Gospel, so this link should stay in the paragraph per ]. The link will be once again returned to the article, and I ask that '''''before''''' it is removed again that we discuss it here. — <font color="darkblue" face="Ariel">]</font> ( <font color="blue" face="Ariel">]</font> ) 12:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Dear Paine Ellesworth, the explanation was given in the comments on the edit, the original link was a misnoma in that in linked to a Greek text. If you follow the initial link you will hopefully see why. Further this is duplication: "rather than being a translation from an rather than being a translation from an ] or the ].<ref name="Erhman43"/> ] = the ]. Why mention the same thing twice? Does ] page 43 distinguish ] ≠ the ]? ]. If he does not please restore the edit and remove the duplication. (]) 01:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::In ictu oculi, the references do not support the changes you are making to the article. Please work toward consensus. POV pushing and original research are not acceptable. The references explain that during the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenges these two facts. The references further explain that Matthew's ] was often called the ''Gospel of the Hebrews''. Matthew alone expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. Cheers - ] (]) 16:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hello Ret Prof. You've been all over Misplaced Pages sowing material pushing the "controversial" (his own interview on his own college's website) theory of ] that there is a unified "Hebrew Gospel" or Ur-Matthew surviving in Jewish-Christian groups' fragments, which in the view of most modern scholarship is a fringe view, so you're not really in a position to talk about POV. Sorry. |
|
|
:::Paine Ellesworth, Does ] page 43 distinguish ] ≠ the ]? What is the actual sentence in the text relating to the duplication? Cheers ] (]) 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I tried to verify your references and they did not check out. Therefore I had to temporarily had to revert your edits. Some of your original research was interesting but at Misplaced Pages it needs referencing. Also, please, no edit warring. Let us work together to improve this article. Cheers - ] (]) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Ret Prof. Sorry, but I've heard you say "Let us work together to improve this article" "consensus" and so on before, but the fact is you're pushing a fringe view, as also preserving that fringe view in new articles ] and ] and when your fringe view is not given weight/priority ahead of mainstream scholarship then you get upset. |
|
|
::::And I see you have already started edit warring . The edits you have reversed are simply rewording, what exactly are you objecting to in the edit? |
|
|
:::Paine Ellsworth, sorry I expect you're not online: Does ] page 43 distinguish ] ≠ the ]? Yes or no? If no, then why duplicate?] (]) 02:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
For you, editor In ictu oculi, no, Ehrman does not even broach the subject of the Aramaic original. He just explicitly states that some believed that Matthew wrote at least one rendition of his gospel in the Hebrew language. When you study it a bit more, you'll find that the Aramaic original was believed by some to be written in the ], and while the Hebrew language derives from the same origins as the Syriac language, they are not one and the same language, only "similar". So it is not a duplication to include the link to the ] '''and''' to the Aramaic primacy article in the same paragraph. |
|
|
|
|
|
For you, editor Ret.Prof, please be more careful, because in your effort to revert some of In ictu oculi's edits, you also reverted a link to a reference citation that I upgraded, specifically ref. note 23. |
|
|
|
|
|
For you both, it might be a better idea to discuss any major changes to this article here on the Talk page '''''before''''' making your edits, thus to perhaps allow other editors to weigh in on your proposals. It would also be a good gentle reminder that here in Misplaced Pages, ]. So please respond to ] and be very careful about removing cited referenced text. And when you add new textual claims, you are expected to be able to produce scholarly reference sources for your additions. — <font color="darkblue" face="Ariel">]</font> ( <font color="blue" face="Ariel">]</font> ) 03:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''PS.''' It's also important to remember that we must keep the '''general readers''' in mind when we edit. Putting more than three or four citations after a claim is not only unnecessary "over citing", it also makes it very difficult to read. So please remove most of those new citations where there are more than four references. |
|
|
:Point taken. I have read through your comment twice and agree. We need to focus on the references. Not an easy job as there is scholarly disagreement. This article does need work. I am looking forward to working with both of you. My goal is to fairly reflect what the sources say from a NPOV, have some fun, and enjoy our scholarly debate (and maybe learn something). Cheers - ] (]) 04:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''PS.''' I agree putting more than three or four citations after a claim is too much. That will be the first thing I will do if it is OK with both of you. |
|
|
::Yes, please. More than three or four citations makes the text very hard to read for the general reader. As for the scholarly debate, when handled as you say ] it can only make the article more interesting for readers. — <font color="darkblue" face="Ariel">]</font> ( <font color="blue" face="Ariel">]</font> ) 05:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, this is an interesting topic and is far from being resolved by Biblical scholars. It is not our place to resolve this the debate but to fairly reflect it. A challenge, yes but doable. Cheers - ] (]) 06:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Redirect redirected back to here == |
|
|
I note that Ret Prof redirected to ], I have redirected it back to Gospel of Matthew.] (]) 01:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have no problem with that. - ] (]) 01:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The three-revert rule == |
|
|
The 3RR rule states an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. Please let us work things out on the talk page. Lets not push one view but make sure the different scholarly positions are represented fairly. Also it is important to assume good faith. Cheers- ] (]) 06:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
* "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."] (]) 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Removing a simple duplication== |
|
|
Hello Paine Ellesworth, thank you for this >''When you study it a bit more, you'll find that the Aramaic original was believed by some to be written in the ], and while the Hebrew language derives from the same origins as the Syriac language, they are not one and the same language, only "similar". So it is not a duplication to include the link to the ] '''and''' to the Aramaic primacy article in the same paragraph.''< May I ask, firstly do you have a reference for that statement, and secondly how does one distinguish Aramaic/Hebrew in Ματθαιος μεν ουν Εβραιδι διαλεκτω τα λογια συνεταξατο, ηρμηνευσεν δ αυτα ως ην δυνατος εκαστος. or ''Porro ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Caesariensi bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus martyr studiosissime confecit.''? ] (]) 13:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I tend to disagree, but if you can win Paine over, you will have my support as a token of good faith. Cheers - ] (]) 16:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ec}} My goodness, In ictu oculi, you are most certainly more of an expert than I am! That is why it is so perplexing that you cannot discern the differences between ] and ]. It is well known that Hebrew and Syriac are both grounded in Aramaic. However... it is also well known that Hebrew is a tongue of the Jewish people. Syriac, on the other hand was more a language of Christians. Aside from the fact that both Syriac and Hebrew enjoy enough notability and '''''differences''''' that they each have their own Misplaced Pages article, all the references you may need can be found in those articles. Look at the alphabets{{mdash}} similar... but also different. Hebrew is NOT Syriac, and the Aramaic primacy spoken about in this article, the Gospel of Matthew, clearly refers to Syriac as the Aramaic primacy language. If you will reread the first sentence of ] of the link you so graciously provided, you will find that it was a translation from Syriac to English that started all the controversy regarding the "Aramaic original", as it is called. You will find the reference source for that ]. So it appears to me that it is not a duplication to include both links in this article and in that particular paragraph, isn't that so? — <font color="darkblue" face="Ariel">]</font> ( <font color="blue" face="Ariel">]</font> ) 17:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''PS.''' It occurs to me that this is much like the case between the ] and ] languages. One would not exclude one of these in favor of the other and call them duplications just because there are so many commonly spelled words with the exact same meanings in these two languages, would one? (Of course, while those words look alike and have the same meanings, they are almost always ''pronounced'' very differently between those two tongues. This is one way that the Italian people show how different they are from French people, and vice versa. ]!) |
|
|
|
|
|
=='''References - Summary of My position'''== |
|
|
The issue of Matthaei Authenticum (or the Authentic Gospel of Matthew) has been around since the time of Jerome. It is an emotional issue for Catholics, conservative Christians and others who strongly believe that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible is the only one that is truly authentic. The issue is far from being resolved. It is an important issue, as it affects everything from the authority of Scripture to the historical Jesus. |
|
|
|
|
|
The only way to avoid an edit war is to put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about the particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, we must fairly reflect the positions |
|
|
on a particular topic. We must end all personal attacks and focus on the references. |
|
|
|
|
|
===The approach to a difficult topic=== |
|
|
The way we should approach this difficult topic and write a NPOV article is: |
|
|
|
|
|
# Fully and fairly present the scholarship of "the Church and conservative scholars" but fully referenced. |
|
|
# Present why "critical scholars" believes this position is not supported by the evidence. |
|
|
# Any other referenced scholarship should be added. |
|
|
# Try to find sources that fairly present all views. Take a broader, fuller view. |
|
|
'''NB''' It is not our job to decide which gospel is authentic. |
|
|
|
|
|
As this topic is so very difficult, I think it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source and a ''Google Link'' for easy verification. Also, references should be varied, i.e. old, new, conservative, liberal, etc. in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also, keeping good humor and not deleting material until after a discussion would be helpful. |
|
|
|
|
|
Taking the time to do more reading on this difficult topic is warranted. It is confusing, to say the least. Trying to get it right will not be easy. |
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, we may have to ask for mediation. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Primary, secondary and tertiary sources=== |
|
|
see ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary source material by Misplaced Pages editors. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Primary sources=== |
|
|
Primary sources include original philosophical works, archeological artifacts, ancient works, religious scripture, etc. In our case the primary source is Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. The difficulty of course is that we no longer have a copy of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Secondary sources=== |
|
|
Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed. They rely on the primary source for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about it. Our policy is that Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source. |
|
|
|
|
|
As Matthew's ''Hebrew Gospel'' was in wide circulation up to the time of Jerome, much has been written about it. Also, the primary text has been quoted and thereby preserved. |
|
|
|
|
|
====List of Secondary Sources==== |
|
|
# ^ Justin, Dialogue, |
|
|
# ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies |
|
|
# ^ Tertullian, On Prayer 26 |
|
|
# ^ Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis |
|
|
# ^ Origen, |
|
|
# ^ Eusebius, Theophany on Matthew |
|
|
# ^ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History |
|
|
# ^ Didymus, Commentary on Psalm |
|
|
# ^ Epiphanius, Panarion |
|
|
# ^ Jerome, On Psalm 135 |
|
|
# ^ Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah |
|
|
# ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel |
|
|
# ^ Jerome, Commentary on Micah |
|
|
# ^ Jerome, Commentary on Matthew |
|
|
# ^ Jerome’s Letter to Damascus 20 on Matthew 21.9 |
|
|
# ^ Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia |
|
|
# ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians |
|
|
# ^ Jerome, Against Pelagius |
|
|
# ^ Jerome, On Illustrious Men, |
|
|
|
|
|
There is remarkable agreement among the secondary sources. The references explain that during the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non-Christian challenges these two facts. Jerome and Epiphanius note Matthew's ] was sometimes called the ''Gospel of the Hebrews''. However, they clarify that in their time there was only one Hebrew Gospel in circulation. |
|
|
{{quotation|'''Gospel of the Hebrews clarification by Epiphanius:''' |
|
|
:They too accept Matthew's gospel, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the ''Gospel of the Hebrews'', for in truth Matthew alone expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. - Epiphanius, ''Panarion'' 30.3.7}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quotation|'''Gospel of the Hebrews clarification by Jerome:''' |
|
|
:"In the ''Gospel of the Hebrews'', written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the ''Gospel of the Apostles'', or, as it is generally maintained, Matthew's Gospel, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find . . ." - Jerome, ''Against Pelagius'' 3.2}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Among the secondary sources to the time of Jerome, by both Christians and Non-Christians, no writer ever asserts either directly or indirectly that the ''Hebrew Gospel'' (aka the ''Gospel of the Hebrews'') was ever composed in Greek. Jerome clarifies this on several different occasions. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quotation|'''Language clarification by Jerome:''' |
|
|
:Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. - Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quotation|'''Language clarification by Jerome:''' |
|
|
:In this last he bore witness to the Gospel which I have recently translated . - Jerome, On Illustrious Men}} |
|
|
{{quotation|'''Language clarification by Jerome:''' |
|
|
:The ''Gospel called of the Hebrews'', recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen often uses, states ... - Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 2}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quotation|'''Language clarification by Jerome:''' |
|
|
:In the gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call the ''Authentic Gospel of Matthew'' (or " Matthaei Authenticum " ) the . . . - Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quotation|'''Language clarification by Jerome:''' |
|
|
:And whoever accepts the Gospel circulating under the title "Gospel of the Hebrews", which we most recently translated, in which it is said by the Saviour, “Even now my mother, the Holy Spirit, carried me away by one of my hairs,” will not hesitate to say that the Word of God proceeds from the Spirit, and that the soul, which is the bride of the Word, has the Holy Spirit (which in " Hebrew " is feminine in gender, RUA). - Jerome, Commentary on Micah 7.6}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, it must be stated that among the sources to the time of Jerome there is no mention of a ''Gospel of the Ebionites'' or a ''Gospel of the Nazarenes'' nor is there any mention of either the Ebionites or the Nazarenes ever composing their own Gospel. The sources are in agreement that these Jewish groups used Matthew's ''Hebrew Gospel''. |
|
|
|
|
|
===More recent secondary sources=== |
|
|
This is where we run into trouble. Modern scholars do not have the Hebrew text as it has been lost. There are also substantial differences of opinion. Also an enormous quantity has been written on the topic over the years. |
|
|
|
|
|
====List of more modern sources==== |
|
|
# ^ Pick Bernhard, Paralipomena: Remains of Gospels and Sayings of Christ BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009 |
|
|
# ^ Sabine Baring-gould, The Lost And Hostile Gospels, Nabu Press, 2010. |
|
|
# ^ Waite Burlingame, History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred, BiblioBazaarPub, 2009. p 278 |
|
|
# ^ Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005. |
|
|
# ^ "Artifact Record Details: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932: Letter, Thaius to Tigrius (Fragment)". Spurlock Museum at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2001. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/search/details.php?a=1914.21.0010. Retrieved 30 May 2007. "Artifact of the Month: Letter from Thaius to Tirius, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932". Spurlock Museum. 2002. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/collections/artifact/oxyrhynchus.html. Retrieved 30 May 2007. |
|
|
# ^ S. Kent Brown comments on the text of Oxyrhynchus 840 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, |
|
|
# ^ Grabe, Johann Ernst - Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Seculi Post Christum natum |
|
|
# ^ Kitto, John - A cyclopædia of Biblical literature. |
|
|
# ^ von Harnack, Adolf - Texte und untersuchungen zur geschichte der |
|
|
# ^ Weber, Christian Friedrich - Neue Untersuchung über das Alter und Ansehen des Evangeliums. |
|
|
# ^ Boyce, William Binnington - The higher criticism and the Bible. |
|
|
# ^ Archibald Hamilton Charteris, Johannes Kirchhofer - Canonicity: a collection of early testimonies :to the canonical books of the New Testament. |
|
|
# ^Handmann, Rudolf - Das Hebräer-Evangelium. |
|
|
# ^Pick, Bernhard. The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005 |
|
|
# ^Nicholson, Edward Byron - The Gospel According to the Hebrews. |
|
|
# ^Pierson Parker - A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews". |
|
|
# ^ Farmer, William - The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan. |
|
|
# ^Walter Richard Cassels - Supernatural Religion. |
|
|
# ^Wilhelm Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha. |
|
|
# ^Schoemaker, W. R. - The Gospel According to the Hebrews. The University of Chicago Press. |
|
|
# ^Edwards, J.R. - ''The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition''. 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
===='''22. ^The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings''', by Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, 2010==== |
|
|
*'''The Rev. Jeffrey Bütz''' M.Div., S.T.M., is an ordained Lutheran minister and adjunct professor of World Religions at Pennsylvania State University. Butz is the author of "The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity" (Inner Traditions International, 2005), which has received critical acclaim. His area of expertise is early Church History when James the Just lead the Jewish Christians and Christianity had yet to evolve away from its Jewish roots. |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Dr. James Tabor''' is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina. His first book was a study of the mysticism of the apostle Paul titled ''Things Unutterable'' (1986). The Journal of Religion named it one of the ten best scholarly studies on Paul of the 1980s. In 2006 Tabor published ''The Jesus Dynasty'' that focuses on the Jewishness of Jesus and his extended family in the days before the destruction of Jerusalem in year 70. Also in 2006 Tabor completed an edited volume with Prof. Eugene Gallagher, ''Crossing the Bounds: Humanity and Divinity in Late Antiquity'' (E.J. Brill, 2006). Last year he published ''The Secret Legacy of Jesus'' and in 2012 will release ''Two Communities: How Paul transformed the Gospel of Jesus''. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Tabor serves as main editor of the ''Original Bible Project'', an ongoing effort to produce a new translation of the Bible. Tabor is a popular public lecturer and writer and is often consulted by the national media (Time, Newsweek, USNews&World Report, NYTimes, LATimes, WashPost, Wall St. Journal, Harpers, AP, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX). His work has been featured in several TV documentaries (PBS Frontline, Discovery, Learning Channel, History Channel, BBC, Channel 4 UK). |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''The Secret Legacy of Jesus:''' "''The Secret Legacy of Jesus'' is masterful, nothing less than the new definitive work on Jewish Christianity..." -- Dr. Barrie Wilson. "It is eminently readable and accessible to non-scholars while being thorough in research raises the specter of a revisioned Christianity and challenges readers to rethink the nature of both orthodoxy and heresy.” -- Publishers Weekly. It is the most extensive and up to date work ever published on the Hebrew family and followers of Jesus from the time of the Crucifixion to the destruction of the Temple. |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Hebrew Gospel:''' ''The Secret Legacy of Jesus'' is important to our topic because it provides an objective, up to date summary of the scholarship pertaining to the ''Gospel of the Hebrews'' in a manor that the lay person can easily understand. (See - ) |
|
|
{{quotation|'''The ''Gospel of the Hebrews'' is the original version of Matthew.''' |
|
|
:Since native Palestinian Jews were quite opposed to translating their scriptures into any language other than Hebrew,* this supports the likelihood that the Nazarene gospel—most commonly known as the ''Gospel of the Hebrews''—is the original version of Matthew. p 174}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quotation|'''There was only one Jewish Christian gospel.''' |
|
|
:The reason these writings have come to be known under variant names such as the ''Gospel of the Ebionites'' and the ''Gospel of the Nazarenes'' is that the Church Fathers discussed them according to which groups used them, and this has given the false impression that there was more than one Jewish Christian gospel. It would seem most logical that there was just one ''Hebrew Gospel'' (written in the Aramaic dialect) and that this was the original version of Matthew . . .which most people consider the authentic version of Matthew . . . The title ''Gospel of the Hebrews'' is as descriptive a title as any by which to recognize this Jewish Christian Gospel, and the one we will adopt here. p 176}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quotation|'''The ''Gospel of the Hebrews'' is the only gospel written by an eyewitness.''' |
|
|
:The ''Gospel of the Hebrews'' was uniquely written in the first person, and claims to be written by Matthew himself, which would make it the only gospel directly written by one of the twelve. p 179}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===Print on Demand=== |
|
|
] ] ] |
|
|
If you have access to a major Biblical library, at a seminary or theological college then by all means use the material there. However, if you do not, then POD presses provide affordable access to the notable works on the topic. I am a great believer in POD but it is not quite the same as reading the works of brilliant scholars in the original edition. Ret Prof. |
|
|
::Misplaced Pages, particularly articles related to finge/pop Bible/religion is full of old reprints by ] ] ] misrepresenting old sources, and often 19th Century pulp/sensationalist sources such as ] and ], two of yours, as "modern scholars" with misleading 2010 print dates. Scholarship has marched on in 120 years and these sources generally weren't mainstream when they were first printed. Anyone editing an encyclopedia article on a subject should have access to a library, or at least be able to discriminate between 19th Century and modern, fringe/mainstream. If not don't edit.] (]) 01:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== “It tells how Israel’s messiah” == |
|
===Where to begin=== |
|
|
I would suggest that we begin at the beginning. The secondary sources to the time of Jerome had the text of the primary source in front of them. They had no bizzar theories of "Jesus as alien being" or "Jesus as a mythical God". Their understanding was simple; Jesus was a Jewish rabbi and one of his followers, Matthew wrote some stuff about him in the local dialect and this work was widely circulated. This approach is supported "Occam's razor" not to mention Jerome who suggests we "go back to the fountainhead" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this line should be removed, it isn’t objective (Israel doesn’t view him as Messiah) ] (]) 20:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
I will wait a few days before suggesting what secondary sources up to the time of Jerome are important and together we will edit them into a NPOV article. That is the easy part! Then we deal with the scholars of today and try to fairly integrate the works into the article. Looking froward to hearing from you - ] (]) 16:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:We're not saying that Matthew's claim would be true. It is just what he claims to be true. ] (]) 21:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Explain Q == |
|
:That is certainly a worthy position summary and an impressive array of reference sources. While this article is one of many that I like to keep an eye on, I have not made enough edits to really consider myself an ]. I do like it, tho, when involved editors come to an arrangement where they improve this article in harmony with each other. I look forward to read the opinions of other "Gospel of Matthew" involved editors, to include editor ]. — <font color="darkblue" face="Ariel">]</font> ( <font color="blue" face="Ariel">]</font> ) 19:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Paine, this is part of the problem: ] (1666-1711) is modern? ] and ] ] are "scholarship"? This list barely contains four standard modern critical sources. Look out also for ] ] ] publication "titles" and "dates". ] (]) 23:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@] I am confused why you keep reverting my edits. I explained what the Gospel Q is as simple as possible. How should it be explained? The wiki page for the Q source calls it “part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospels of Mark”. I called it “hypothetical sayings Gospel Q (which consists of the material Matthew shares in common with Luke)”, which is pretty similar. This is very understandable, and if you have a problem you should WP: FIXFIRST by making it understandable. ] (]) 07:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)2607:B400:A00:12:F5D9:701E:F6A4:8031 |
|
Thankyou Paine. My view would be that: |
|
|
|
:I've reverted Remsense's edit - the material on Q is reliably sourced and essential to an account of current understanding of Matthew. Please note, thought, the Q is not a gospel.] (]) 10:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
(1) majority/mainstream scholarship should be represented first. |
|
|
|
::How can a statement that is literally wrong and deeply misleading be reliably sourced? Good grief. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 10:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
(2) then if necessary "controversial" theories such as that of ] and ] which did not gain academic acceptance. |
|
|
|
:::If I understand our article correctly, it's saying that Matthew uses Mark and Q as it's sources (plus M of course). If you think this is wrong, what's your reason?] (]) 10:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
(3) Everything Ret Prof says above is OR. |
|
|
|
::::As you yourself said, calling it a gospel is wrong, ergo not what the source says, ergo not verified. To make my position clear, a version of this addition that correctly explains Q and its hypothetical relationship to Matthew would be welcomed by me.<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 10:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
(4) However Ret Prof cannot be reasoned with and makes further contribution here pointless. He talks the talk, but his page edits don't allow anything that doesn't conform to the fringe lost Hebrew/Aramaic original theory. |
|
|
|
::::: The further I go in the is article, the more repetition I find (of points rather than wording, mostly). It needs some heavy and careful editing. ] (]) 10:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
(5) The reason for removing the duplication "] or ]" is that they are the same thing. As the quotations I gave show ''ebraidi'' in Greek or ''hebraicum'' in Latin stand for both Aramaic/Hebrew in the source texts; it's a modern distinction. Yes you are correct that parts of the Syrian Christian community consider their translation is the original, but again (a) it isn't in the sentence, (b) it would still be ''ebraidi'' / ''hebraicum'' at this period. Therefore "] or ]" is a duplication, and I suggest you remove it. |
|
|
(6) Find a new editor who knows about the subject and accepts majority/mainstream scholarship. |
|
|
Cheers. ] (]) 23:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I balanced the ] 2010 ref. (which is bestseller pulp, but whatever) with the standard academic reference work on GH. Let us see.] (]) 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Please stop the personal attacks and let us discuss before we edit. Explain what is pulp? What about references to support the position that it is pulp? - ] (]) 01:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
Ret Prof. Pulp is sensationalist bestseller type material without academic footnotes. So please discuss: |
|
|
* '''Your text: This ] was translated into Greek, but the Greek translation was lost. |
|
|
''' |
|
|
* ref "Since native Palestinian Jews were quite opposed to translating their scriptures into any language other than Hebrew, this supports the likelihood that the Nazarene gospel—most commonly known as the ''Gospel of the Hebrews''—is the original version of Matthew before it was amended and translated into the Greek Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible." - Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, ''The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings That Passed from James the Just'', Inner Traditions / Bear & Company, 2010. p 174 ref |
|
|
* '''My Edit (reverted by yourself) ] in ''The Secret Legacy of Jesus'' (2010) argues that the '']'' is the original version of Matthew before it was amended and translated into the Greek Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible. Though critical scholarship generally holds that the seven surviving fragments to which the name is given were themselves originally written in Greek.''' |
|
|
* i.e. : "Since native Palestinian Jews were quite opposed to translating their scriptures into any language other than Hebrew, this supports the likelihood that the Nazarene gospel—most commonly known as the ''Gospel of the Hebrews''—is the original version of Matthew before it was amended and translated into the Greek Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible." - Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, ''The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings That Passed from James the Just'', Inner Traditions / Bear & Company, 2010. p 174 close ref) |
|
|
* new ref Vielhauer, P. in ] '']'' ref |
|
|
* As the article stands, with your wording, it reads '''"This Hebrew Gospel was translated into Greek, but the Greek translation was lost."''', as if this is a fact .... but apart from yourself, who exactly believes this? This is why you demanding "consensus" that Misplaced Pages represent as first or only view your view is so meaningless.] (]) 00:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Actually what I believe is not important. Nor is it my wording. What is important is the following sources. |
|
|
::'''Proposed new wording:''' |
|
|
::''This Hebrew Gospel was translated into Greek. The Hebrew original was kept at the Library of Caesarea. The Nazarene Community transcribed a copy for Jerome which he used in his work.'' |
|
|
::In any event Happy St Patrick's Day - ] (]) 02:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC) PS I do not think we are far from consensus. |
|
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
The redirect Matthew, Gospel According to has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11 § Matthew, Gospel According to until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)