Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:58, 1 October 2014

'Misplaced Pages does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Misplaced Pages is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil. If you want to accuse me of a Christian bias:

Please read this.

At Misplaced Pages we must all try to edit from a NPOV. On occasion my Faith has been called into question. Indeed some have honestly wondered how I can write what I have about the Historical Jesus and still be a Christian. The answer is simple, my relationship with God never had anything to do with history or archeology. Let me explain... Christianity not relevant in our modern world As a young litigation lawyer, I believed in God, but felt that Christianity was no longer relevant in our modern world. Jesus' teachings such as "Thou shalt not kill" "Love your enemy" "You can not serve both God and Money" were just not relevant in these modern times. I believed in the death penalty, war, material wealth. I did unto others before they did unto me. I did not get angry, I got even...and a bit! Spiritual awakening Then, a series of events made me reconsider my beliefs and come to the conclusion that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was still relevant today. I read a great deal about people who still believed in the Gospel, including Mahatma Gandhi, Dr Martin Luther King Jr., etc., etc. This led to a Spiritual awaking that forever changed my life. South Africa It was here, working for Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela that my faith was put to the test. Could love and non violence really bring down the Apartheid government? We were out-gunned, out-matched in every way. What the Archbishop was preaching made no earthly sense. Yet before my eyes I witnessed this racist government fall. As I stepped out in faith on a daily basis, I experienced God in a real way. In my heart I came to believe that the Gospel of Christ was the most powerful force in the Universe. The Roman Empire never stood a chance. Nor did the British Empire in India, or, for that matter, Segregation in the South. Twelve Step Program Several years later I was approached by a group who wanted to use my Church. They explained to me that their program was basic Christianity without many of the offensive "buzz words" that had been added over the years. Confessing that we were miserable sinners became "We admitted we were powerless over alcohol or drugs etc -- that our lives had become unmanageable." Faith was changed to "Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity." Accepting Jesus Christ as our Personal Saviour became "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him." Accepting that we had all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God was changed to "Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves." Making our confession was reworded to "Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs." Repentance became "Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character." Bin saved became "Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings." "Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all." "Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others." Continued confession became "Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it." "Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out." Born Again & Witnessing became "Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to others, and to practice these principles in all our affairs." This simplified "Gospel" has transformed the lives of millions. It is truly powerful regardless of the packaging. My faith finds form in Anglicanism because of the freedom from "strict dogma", but I have seen the power of Christ in all denominations. Walking with Christ for these many, many years has given me a faith that allows me to edit Misplaced Pages from a NPOV. The reason is that my faith is not based on the "historical evidence" that has survived to 2014 but rather it is based upon my experience over a very very long time...and now to have a Pope whose focus is love, forgiveness and caring for those in need rather than dogma is a true blessing!

.

Mediation:To what extent, should Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew as described by Papias be represented in the Gospel of Matthew?

As to content, I believe the mediation has been helpful...particularly regarding FRINGE and RELIABLE SOURCES. However during the Mediation discussion, I was warned: Frankly, "if this continues even another few days, I am going to find the time to file an Arbcom request and solicit permanent sanction, being either a full site ban, or at least a topic ban. Ret.Prof. you need to withdraw again or we are going to arbcom this time." Although I complied, I felt it was very, very wrong. I was further advised that I was not allowed to respond such threats and other behavioral issues at Mediation.

I now agree that the time had come to finally resolve this issue and "pull this problem out by the roots." Therefore in accordance with Misplaced Pages Policy I am requesting Arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

After the ANI and the Mediation regarding Papias, I decided to stop editing the Gospel of Matthew or any Misplaced Pages articles. I chose to work on my userspace and shift my focus to different areas of interest putting the Gospel of Matthew behind me. My goal was a simply one. I would prepare some "draft edits" on several different topics. At the end of the summer I would present this work for review. Only if the proposed edits were found worthy by other editors would they be incorporated into Misplaced Pages articles. (I personally would no longer do any actual editing of WP Articles.) The result was even more conflict:

• I was accused of POV forking and internal copyright violations.
• I was further accused of pushing POV essays into the encyclopedia.
• There was an attempt to have my "proposed edits" deleted.

Because of the serious nature of these allegations I immediately stepped back from editing and sought advice from a a number of Bureaucrats and Admins. They indiated that attacks on me were are out of line - "userspace is granted broad discretion." diff Furthermore, it is not appropriate to "bully" them away and "blank their pages". diff Finally, NONE of the Admins or Bureaucrats believed that my userspace use was wrongful or in violation of any Misplaced Pages policy.

I am now convinced I am being "made an example of" and that I will be followed and harassed anywhere I go. My deficiencies as an editor have been expanded to include:

• Rudeness (Disruptive editing, Nonsensical to the point of incomprehensibility.)
• arrogance
• being woefully illogical
• Ret.Prof. is the kind of vexatious editor who drives away good editors
• long line of problematic edits
• "very dubious conduct" and refrain from making unsupported allegations which might in themselves clearly violate WP:AGF
• Self-aggrandizement
• Incompetent editor who pushes fringe
• Disruptive or Tendentious editing
• bizarre

Because of the serious nature of these allegations I requested several Bureaucrats and Admins to review my edit history to see if I had done anything to warrant being banned from Misplaced Pages. None of them could find any edits to justify the allegations of rudeness, vexatious editing, etc brought against me. Admin.MichaelQSchmidt looked into the situation and his response was “Your only "sin" has been to be calm and reasonable in the face of negativity." And “your edits based upon existing policy and guidelines are sound. Your stepping back from areas of drama is to be applauded.”

I now believe the time has come to request arbitration:

1. To have any user account found guilty serious wrongful behavior be banned from editing 'Jewish or Hebrew' Christianity (30 CE to 90 CE) for a period of three months.
2. Because intimidation is a key factor, it is my hope that I will not be banned. My being banned would send the wrong message to those good faith editors who would like to edit but do not want to put themselves in jeopardy.

- Ret.Prof (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Mediation diffs

Can you please remove from your ArbCom statement the quotes and diffs taken from mediation. The relevant policy says Mediation proceedings are privileged and cannot be used as evidence in an arbitration case or community user-conduct proceedings.  Roger Davies 14:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, you will have to remove all the quotes and diffs from mediation before the case can proceed. The whole point of formal mediation is to be able to speak freely, including critically, about problems that are getting in the way of improving article content. Editors need to have confidence that their words aren't going to be used against them later in arbitration (i.e., what you have just done). Ignocrates (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This explains a lot! All the abuse I sustained at mediation was privileged. Is there any limits to this privilege?- Ret.Prof (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a limit; it's generally left to the discretion of the mediator, who can always choose to end mediation. The reason there is a lot of tolerance for criticism in mediation is that people frequently need to blow off steam before they can settle into a process of discussing improvements to article content. You should have no problem coming up with other diffs to use in arbitration. I could find 50 diffs over the last four years without even trying. Ignocrates (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Organizing your opening statement

Ret.Prof, please be clear about what Wiki-principles you think are being violated, per WP:5P. I assume you will want to provide a background for the case that ties back to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS. Also, Roger is right that you have to be clear about what you are asking ArbCom to do. Remember, ArbCom's mandate is to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia, not to right great wrongs. Please keep these things in mind as you develop your opening statement. Ignocrates (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: arbcom

I would not have advised you to go to ArbCom. While it's true that you have been singled out by other editors in an unproductive way, this is probably not itself a clear-cut violation of policy outside of its skirting of WP:AGF. Perhaps you are aware of more damning information - I have not exhaustively reviewed your contributions - but simply engaging in a long-term, somewhat over-dramatic content dispute isn't really a matter for ArbCom on the face of it. Moreover, while some of the characterizations are excessive, you do have an idiosyncratic style which apparently rubs some the wrong way, and occasionally have needed clarification on WP:OR and WP:V when incorporating minority POVs into an article. I think if you want to get back into editing and try to harmonize better with other editors, you need to focus on being concise, clear, and have a coherent goal in your comments. Text-walling your minority POV, and long digressions into Biblical arcana, can lead to some seeing you as a disruptive editor. I have written off these quirks, based on your name Ret.Prof, as signs of an older individual with some gaps in online etiquette, and perhaps on the long-winded side due to a strong interest in the subject matter and the lecture format. The thing with the userspace fork - I think people just misunderstood your idea of proposed edits and felt that you would want to merge them back in, which is definitely a copyright problem. Regardless of whether ArbCom wants to get involved, I think we can definitely solve some of these problems through frank discussion and maybe some informal mediation. Andrevan@ 04:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Andrevan: Thanks for your impute. You are correct about text-walling and I will stop immediately! And as far as rubbing some people the wrong way...talk about understatement! Yet I do feel that Ignocrates has a point when he says I have been driven from the encyclopedia by repeated incidents of bullying.

In the end it is not about me. When I was researching these bullies I came across User:Melissadolbeer (a new user who left Misplaced Pages in 2005) who said "This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Misplaced Pages." It is still on her user page. I believe editors at Misplaced Pages should never be made to feel this way.

More recently, I looked at the way User:Davidbena was treated during his first month at Misplaced Pages. Within five days of this newbie joining Misplaced Pages he was falsely accused accused of wrongful behavior and brought before ANI/Aug to be banned. Later, as we were about to start mediation he was again brought before the Feb/ANI again to be banned.(He withdrew from the mediation process). At Mediation I was intimidated by the following order to withdraw from the process: "Frankly, if this continues even another few days, I am going to find the time to file an Arbcom request and solicit permanent sanction, being either a full site ban, or at least a topic ban. Ret.Prof. you need to withdraw again or we are going to arbcom this time." Although I did comply, I felt it was very, very wrong. Finally...

diff1

diff2

diff3

diff4

diff5

diff6

diff7

diff8

diff9

• • diff10

diff11

Luckily you refused to be intimidated, but most of us do not have your skill (or tools). I feel something must be done. Misplaced Pages should be a safe place for us all. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that you're right if you believe that Misplaced Pages has a generalized bullying problem, which you have fallen prey to. This, like the problem with women editors/female topics, can be easily explained when you realize the majority of users, myself included not so long ago, are adolescent boys. I'm not sure how you could solve the bullying problem in general through your case. Usually ArbCom is pretty focused on the nitty gritty details of an individual case. For the diffs you linked, try to explain concisely who is violating what policy, why, and what should be done. Andrevan@ 17:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That admission begs the question "Is it better to punish adolescent boys if they are going to engage in bullying behaviour here, or extend them welcome?" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That isn't really what begging the question is. I don't have a good answer to it either. I think Misplaced Pages as a culture and a society is currently trying to mature such that adolescent behavior isn't so widespread or widely tolerated, but how it happens is unclear. Andrevan@ 17:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand

I said, in my statement on the RFAR page, that I didn't understand what the recent events were that had prompted you to request arbitration. I still don't understand. What you have done is to provide a link in which it appears that User:Ignocrates agrees that arbitration is the next step. (I know that Ignocrates is one of the editors who has been involved in content disputes over the early history of Christianity. Does he also think that he is being hounded and bullied by a cabal?) However, you haven't shown anything that indicates what has changed in the past month or few months. I saw a vague implication that you had been developing a draft in user space of some changes and that there was an abuse involving user space, but you don't mention that in your request for arbitration, or any recent issues. You now raise, on this talk page, complaints that you think that you were bullied in the mediation process six months ago. If you really were bullied in the mediation process (which I find to be an extreme claim requiring extreme proof), you should have raised the issue at the time, and in any case you should raise that issue now. I still don't understand whether anything has recently happened that has changed what appeared to be satisfactory resolution of the issue in mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You will have to do a much better job of stating your case than you have done if you actually expect the arbitrators to grant you any sort of relief (as opposed to declining the case, or as opposed to accepting the case and coming down on you for making wild allegations about a cabal and sock-puppets. You might at least describe what events there have been in August 2014 that have led you to request arbitration, when all of the previous discussions were months in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, when you referred to an unknown number of alternate accounts involved in the cabal, maybe you didn't realize what that meant. Maybe you only meant that you didn't know who many other editors belonged to the cabal, and didn't intend to be implying the use of what in Misplaced Pages are known as alternate accounts. An alternate account is another account used by the same person. There are a few legitimate reasons for the use of alternate accounts, but most uses of alternate accounts are illegitimate alternate accounts, which is sock-puppetry. If you really only meant that you hadn't identified all of the editors who belong to the cabal, rather than that they were using sock-puppets, then I suggest that you strike the words "alternate accounts" and add something more innocuous, such as "other editors". Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You really should have done a better job of organizing your arbitration request in order to explain why you are filing it now after months of inactivity, during which the issue appeared to have been resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Robert McClenon. I saw my name pop up here. The answer to your question is: No, I do not think I have been hounded and bullied by a cabal. All of my difficulties over the years were with a single editor. That problem has been solved (in theory) by implementing a mutual I-ban. With respect to the rest of your comments here, I agree. I'm as surprised by the timing of this filing as anyone. I think Ret.Prof has to demonstrate that the misconduct problems did not end with the results achieved in mediation, and he needs to show the arbs more evidence than a diff of me saying he has been repeatedly bullied. He also has to make a clear and concise statement about what he is asking the Committee to do. Saying in effect - "ban everybody who was mean to me" - simply will not do. It would be a lot simpler for the arbs to end this disruption by banning him. It was his decision to file, and now he has to see it through to the end. There will be no "stepping back" this time. Ignocrates (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, because aren't you, Ignocrates, one of the individuals named in the case, and weren't you the primary instigator of the "user page fork" concern? Andrevan@ 17:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my meaning then, and you apparently still do. I did not "instigate" anything. I was attempting to argue for a compromise by suggesting the pages be blanked (not deleted) by an admin, such that they could easily be restored with a simple revert. Since Ret.Prof was on an indeterminate break, that was one way of resolving the objections posed by others. Ignocrates (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but nobody was pushing for the pages to be deleted. You, without prompting, asked for "oversight from an arbitrator," then "stirred the pot" by asking for the pages to be "blanked as violations of WP:FORK" (your words lightly paraphrased), then asked me to apologize for calling this out of line. Either way, it is strange for Ret. Prof to use your comments, and my comments made to you, as support for the charge of bullying, totally cherry-picked out of context, so as an arbitrator I might ask him to explain that. Your interactions are colored by this comment you made to Ret. Prof in Feb: "I think you should honestly ask yourself why you continue to spend time here and whether your efforts are helping or hindering the improvement of this encyclopedia." Is that still how you feel about it? Why would he look to you for support on this? Andrevan@ 18:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If you still don't understand that I am generally supportive of Ret.Prof's efforts here, there's probably nothing more I can say to convince you. The quote you cherry-picked was probably a follow-up to this one, attempting to caution Ret.Prof about what he was in for should he choose to return to editing. What Ret.Prof needed to do from that day forward was conceptually simple: (1) use only high quality reliable sources, and (2) accurately summarize what they say. That's all he needed to do to defend his edits in front of any noticeboard. I'll leave it to you to decide if he took my advice to heart. Ignocrates (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I don't remember saying what you claim I said. Please back up that quotation with a diff. And why are you trolling through my edit logs? Just wondering. Ignocrates (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's on the top of Ret.Prof's most recent talk page archive. Andrevan@ 04:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now I see the context of my statement. Now, to answer your question. If Ret.Prof can consistently do what I advised him to do - (1) use only high quality reliable sources, and (2) accurately summarize what they say - then I support his efforts to expand and improve the content of the encyclopedia. If repeated incidents occur in the future that show he is unwilling or unable to follow policies and guidelines, my comments above apply. In addition, it would be helpful if he could learn to work with others to achieve a consensus. Good luck helping him. I'm staying away as much as possible. Ignocrates (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Thanks for your sound advice! Gone is the Text-walling and I will be careful to (1) use only high quality reliable sources, and (2) accurately summarize what they say. See Gospel of Matthew. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined as withdrawn

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Misconduct in the Christianity topic case request has been declined as withdrawn. You can review the original case request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for allowing me to withdraw, as I probably would have ended up as chum in the shark tank! (It would be fair to say I owe the mediator Andrevan a great deal). I do have three questions:

1. Am I precluded from making a further request sometime in the future?
2. Carcharoth mentioned my presentation was poor. Could you offer some practical suggestions on how to improve?
3. Could you link me to some well presented requests for arbitration. Many of the other named editors have a great deal of experience in this area while I have little idea of what I am doing.

In any event, it is my sincere hope with the help of our mediator that we will be able to work things out at Christianity and arbitration can be avoided. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

I just wanted you to know, RetProf, that my comment regarding your entry on the talk page was not intended as a slight or a criticism. I thought perhaps that Fearofreprisal's later comment, being taken that way, might have been reason for you to wonder. In fact, I have noted your return to Gospel of Matthew, and know of the history that there has been there. I have also noted your efforts to deal with opposition, and have seen others' reaction to you. I don't really have much of an opinion about the content you have been trying to advocate for, and don't take any exception with you on that basis. And I grant your level of calm to be rather remarkable, and rather greater than mine. I think I am rather inclined to remember that as I edit in the future.

For now, I have also read somewhere in a mix of pages about some sort of ANI going on recently, how you have noted a negative reaction from other editors to your editing in the past, and thought I saw some comment of yours that you didn't always see why. But I had occasional negative reactions of my own when the mediation was going on. I didn't say much about that then, partly because I didn't think it would help the whole process, but also because I couldn't see how it would be of benefit to you. You just looked stressed out then, and that was the last thing anyone needed.

So, Historicity of Jesus is now having a similarly stressful time, from which I had stepped away last night for I didn't know how long - I'd wait and see. But your edit appeared, and it seemed separate from the other conflict, so I thought I'd reply to you. I had first considered doing so here on your talk page, opted otherwise, and in retrospect think that it may not have been best to be more public, for which I apologize. But what I was thinking was, there was the edit I want to talk about, and with it a rather hostile reply related to what I wanted to say to you. It seemed a reasonable choice at the time.

In any case, with my edit, I wanted to point out a few elements that I thought might help you to understand why the negative reactions occur, feeling that I understood some of that myself. Perhaps that was presumptuous of me, but I thought it might be helpful and appreciated. In the aftermath here, let me say that I rather detest bullying or other aggressive unconstructive types of editing, and have sometimes taken a pretty aggressive stance against the same because of it. But I find myself moderating recently. In addition, I think it's important to provide some sort of encouragement (or at least solace) for those who have been beat up in the past. Maybe I've felt beaten upon myself too many times. But I find my musings on all these things quite perked me up, and that's why I'm here on your talk page.

I am hopeful that your own reflections may restore some of your own sense of health here and enable you to find ways to contribute. I truly hate to see anyone knowledgeable driven away from what can be a rewarding activity. I don't really have much idea yet on whether or how much I might agree or disagree with your views. But I want you to know that I value your presence, for your own sake, for Misplaced Pages's, and for my own. I for one have been happiest here while really digging into something where I am learning at the same time, often from other editors. One can't always get enough of that from people with one's own frame of mind. It's a brutal and ugly world out there sometimes, not much to my liking. But for now, I'm staying, and I hope you will too. My best wishes to you for finding a path through whatever obstacles lie ahead, and may you arrive at a happier happy place in which to contribute. Evensteven (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC) correction above Evensteven (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for for the words of encouragement. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Matthew wrote in Hebrew?

I'm not very conversant with early Christianity or the Bible, but just from a linguistics perspective, isn't the language that Matthew may have written in Aramaic? See: Language of Jesus I don't think Hebrew was a spoken language in the 1st century? Andrevan@ 04:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We all agree that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Koine Greek by some unknown author(s). However Papias speaks of an earlier primitive work, that Matthew composed in a Hebrew dialect (en Hebraidi dialecto). Some scholars believe this means the Hebrew language. Others argue in favor of Aramaic. St Jerome, writing at the time of the Early Church stated Matthew composed this Gospel in Aramaic but used Hebrew script. Maybe our Hebrew expert from Israel ie Davidbena can add to this. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic. It seems like Aramaic was more widely understood by the populace than Hebrew by that time, but I guess the obvious question researchers probably look at is, what kind of things were written in Aramaic at that time, and what kind of things were still being written in Hebrew? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely right. And this is what Casey 2014 does. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Although this is a very broad topic, it can be effectively summarized in the following manner: Jews were writing, both, in Aramaic (with Hebrew script, or what is literally called "ashurit") and in Hebrew (with Hebrew script, or what is literally called "ashurit"), during the 1st and 2nd centuries. Aramaic was widely spoken in Judea and in Galilee. As for Matthew's original Gospel, the subject is widely disputed by scholars. Depending on which scholars you rely upon, some say the original text penned by Matthew was Aramaic (in the Hebrew script), excepting whenever he quoted directly from the Hebrew Bible in the Gospel, in which case he used the original Hebrew. Others say the original text penned by Matthew was Greek. I tend to follow the first opinion, as I have seen ample evidence to support that view, besides knowing the general practice of Jews during the 1st and 2nd centuries of our Common Era, which was mostly to write in Aramaic and Hebrew in the Land of Israel, rather than in Greek. Many of our ancient Aramaic/Hebrew writings are still extant and read by us today.Davidbena (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable - but is there also a perspective that he wrote in Hebrew directly? Ret.Prof is saying that Casey claims this. I haven't read it but maybe I will need to. Andrevan@ 19:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The early Greek and Latin sources from the Church Fathers (e.g. Jerome, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Origen, etc.) would all dispute that claim, since they bring down excerpts of what they term "the original Gospel of Matthew," and they purport seeing it written in the Chaldaic (Aramaic) language, but in Hebrew characters, with the one exception of the quotations from the Hebrew Bible which were not written in Aramaic but in Hebrew. This was the common practice of Jews in the Land of Israel at that time and age.Davidbena (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This view is also consistent with Papias (as I understand it), although he was sufficiently vague as to leave other possibilities open. Therein lies an opportunity for modern scholars to form differing opinions. Evensteven (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Davidbena! I carefully re read Casey 2014. On page 91 he uses the term "Aramaic" and on p 92 "a Hebrew language". I do not think he is contradicting David. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It is my solemn view that if all the testimonies were taken together and diacritically analyzed, there would be no excuse for vagueness in Papias' words. For example, if we were to take the statement made by Jerome in De Viris inlustribus (III, ed. C. A. Bernoulli): "…It is to be noted that where the evangelist (Matthew) whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord and saviour quotes the testimonies of the old Scriptures, he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two exist: 'Out of Egypt have I called my son' and 'For he shall be called a Nazarene'," and then simply make comparisons by looking at the Proof-Texts in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint, and then compare the same with the current Greek text of Matthew's Gospel, the conclusion to be drawn from it all is that the present Greek copy of Matthew's Gospel has gone through several recensions and/or interpolations.

According to Jerome, the substance of the Hebrew Bible quoted by Matthew (in his Aramaic Gospel) was different from the Septuagint.

• A) Let us look, for example, at the proof-text of Isaiah 7:14 quoted in Matthew 1:23, and compare the same with Jerome's statement.

1) In Isaiah 7:14, the Septuagint writes: parthenos (virgin) for the woman described in that verse. The Masoretic Text, on the other hand, uses the Hebrew word העלמה, which word has the unequivocal meaning of "young woman." (Yonathan b. Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel the elder and one who made an Aramaic translation of the prophets before Christianity, also gives the Aramaic equivalent of עולמתא , or "young woman," for the same Hebrew word used in that verse).

2) Isaiah 7:14 is a verse quoted by Matthew (ibid.). Jerome, looking for harmony with the Septuagint (Isaiah) found not the word "virgin" in Matthew's original Gospel, but the word "young woman," just as it was written in the Hebrew scriptures. However, when Matthew's Aramaic Gospel was later translated into the Greek language, the Greek translator of Matthew's Gospel restored the word parthenos (virgin) that had been used in the Septuagint.

• B) Now let us look at the proof-text of Hosea 11:1 quoted in Matthew 2:15 and compare the same with Jerome's statement.

1) In Hosea 11:1, the Septuagint writes: kai ex Aigyptou metekalesa ta tekna aytou ("…and from out of Egypt I called back his children"). The Masoretic Text, on the other hand, has written there instead: וממצרים קראתי לבני (And from Egypt I have called my son).

2) Hosea 11:1 is a verse quoted by Matthew (ibid.). Jerome, looking for harmony with the Septuagint (Hosea) found not the word "children" in Matthew's original Gospel, but the word "son," just as it was written in the Hebrew scriptures. For the Hebrew words used by Matthew were: וממצרים קראתי לבני. However, when Matthew's original Aramaic Gospel was later translated into the Greek language, the Greek translator of Matthew's Gospel gave an accurate rendering of the Hebrew verse according to the MT, writing huion mou for "my son." Notwithstanding, the Septuagint remained different from Matthew's original Hebrew text, a thing noted by Jerome.

• C) Now let us look at the proof-text of Jeremiah 31:6 quoted in Matthew 2:23 and compare the same with Jerome's statement.

1) In Jeremiah 31:6, the Septuagint writes: "For it is the day of calling of ones pleading" – Gr. …kleseos apologoymenon. The Masoretic Text, on the other hand, has written there instead: כי יש יום קראו נצרים בהר אפרים. ("For there shall be a day that the watchmen – notzrim – shall call upon the mount Ephraim"). The Hebrew in the MT has written here the word notzrim, which can be explained as "watchmen" or which can also be applied to "those surviving." However, by way of an exegesis on the word (a thing common in Jewish writings), it can also be used in the sense of "the inhabitants of Nazareth." Meaning, there would come a day in mount Ephraim that men would be called notzrim, the word now applied to Christians, being as it were a derivative taken from Jesus of Nazareth.

2) Jeremiah 31:6 is a verse quoted by Matthew (ibid.). Jerome, looking for harmony with the Septuagint (Jeremiah) found not the word "of ones pleading" in Matthew's original Gospel, but the words "He shall be called a Nazarene," just as the verse was expounded from the Hebrew verse according to the MT. When Matthew's Aramaic Gospel was later translated into the Greek language, the Greek translator of Matthew's Gospel remained faithful to the exegesis, copying the verse as he had seen it explained in Matthew's Aramaic Gospel, writing "Nazoraios" (Nazarene) for what he saw there as notzrim. Even so, it is only an exegesis on the Hebrew verse, or at best a loose translation. (It should be noted here that Targum Yonathan b. Uzziel proves that the verse in the MT had not changed, translating: "For there are length of days and abundance of good that shall come upon the righteous who keep – notzrim – the Law of old.")

• D) Now let us look at the proof-text of Isaiah 42:4 quoted in Matthew 12:21 and compare the same with Jerome's statement.

1) In Isaiah 42:4, the Septuagint writes: kai epi to onomati ethne elpiousin (And upon his name nations shall hope). The Masoretic Text, on the other hand, has written there instead: ולתורתו איים ייחלו ("… and the isles shall hope for his Law”). While the Septuagint writes "hope in his NAME," the Hebrew version of the MT has written there "hope in his LAW."

2) Isaiah 42:4 is a verse quoted by Matthew (ibid.). Jerome, looking for harmony with the Septuagint (Isaiah) found not the word "name" (Gr. onomati) in Matthew's original Gospel, but rather the word "Law" (Heb. תורה). When Matthew's Aramaic Gospel was later translated into the Greek language, the Greek translator of Matthew's Gospel restored the word onomati (name) that had been used in the Septuagint. Jerome's testimony, however, still stands, viz., that Matthew used a Hebrew text which differed from the Septuagint.

Jerome's testimony proves without question that the Masoretic Text (MT) has remained unchanged throughout the years, and was the same version used by Matthew and Jesus' following.Davidbena (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Extremely helpful! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Davidbena:Rabban Gamaliel, Let us turn to the end of the Gospel, where it is written "I came not to take away from the Law of Moses, nor to add to the Law of Moses." What do you make of it? - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof:, since the judge addressing Rabban Gamaliel was a non-Jewish, Christian philosopher, it can be assumed that he was quoting from the Greek translation of Matthew's Gospel, or else paraphrasing the gist of the matter, with which the judge would have been familiar. Since, however, those who redacted the Babylonian Talmud wrote mostly in Aramaic, the entire episode is being transposed in Aramaic for our Jewish readers of the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 116a-b), and which was written several centuries later after Rabban Gamaliel. Perhaps the redactors of the Talmud copied the account from an earlier Aramaic text. Whatever the case, this does not negate the fact that the original text of Matthew was composed in Aramaic which may or may not have been worded slightly differently. In any rate, when Jesus spoke those words, he had also spoken them in Aramaic. The Talmudic rendition is translated to us as follows: "I have not come to take away from the Law , neither have I come to add to the Law ." The Greek Text of the same quotation in Matthew 5:17 has: "Think not that I have come to depose (Gr. καταλὺσαι) the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to depose, but to fulfill (Gr. πληρώσαι)." = לא תהון סבורין דאנא אתיתי למיפחת מן אורייתא. (I have written what the Aramaic would have looked like, based on the first clause of the Greek Text of Matthew's Gospel, "Think not that I have come to depose the Law ").Davidbena (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof, I have edited my previous post, and now it reads more correctly.Davidbena (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

DRN; Gospel of Matthew

A request for assistance has been filed at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard on the dispute at Talk:Gospel of_Matthew in which you are mentioned. This notification is to invite your participation. PiCo (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Link: Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Gospel_of_Matthew

The above good-faith DRN notice has a bad link and is missing important instructions. Please see DRN notice below. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Gospel of Matthew. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Davidbena: What date would you support for the writing of the Gospel of Matthew? - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea, other than perhaps late 1st century CE. That is, the Aramaic version. As for the Greek Gospel, it would have been shortly afterwards.Davidbena (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Tags

@Ignocrates: Don't you think that posting tags that say you are on a break when you are not, is dishonest, disruptive and just a little bit creepy? - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC) PS Talk pages are important!

Have your fun while you still can. When the content part of this dispute is over, you are going to arbitration. There won't be any running away from this one. Ignocrates (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong! Your tags really are confusing. Sorry I upset you. However your remarks about arbitration are really, really out of line! - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ignocrates: Thanks for striking the remark. Let's work in good faith to resolve our differences. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ignocrates: Thanks also for striking the tag and the explanation on your talk page. I can now relate to what you say! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

DRN: Date of the Gospel of Matthew

@Ignocrates: This diff is really, really NOT appropriate. Yes I know I "wimped out" at Mediation when threatened with arbitration BUT not this time. Trying to get the upper hand at DRN with these tactics is wrong! I believe the 50ce date should be included and will argue for it in good faith. Please do likewise! In other word please lay off the threats and personal attacks! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You filed an arbitration case against me and other editors. Was that "appropriate"? Was that a demonstration of your "good faith"? Just wondering. Ignocrates (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you suggest that I do just that??? Didn't you support the request???? When you changed your mind and felt request was not a good idea did I not comply and withdraw the request??? Let us work to sort out the 50 CE date issue in good faith. Then if issues remain I will support your request for arb. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry to file a case. It's time consuming and a lot of work. Your allegation of "trying to get the upper hand at DRN with these tactics" is misplaced. There is a long-term behavioral issue here that needs to be fixed. I believe I have the ability to fix it. That's all. Ignocrates (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Threats and personal attacks have no place at DNR. Now let's focus on content in good faith. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Real life stuff

Now I have some real life stuff to attend to . . . but will be back shortly! Please let us work together in good faith. Cheers. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration

Ignocrates has notified me that he will be taking me to Arbitration to be banned from Misplaced Pages this coming Monday. Therefore I will be preparing my "defense" over the next week. During that time I can be best reached by email. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please review the above exchange. Nothing is happening on Monday, nor are you being banned from Misplaced Pages. Ignocrates (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. In the past your threats regarding Arbitration have been meant to be disruptive. Still preparation for arbitration is a lot of work and I need to be ready! See you in a week! - Ret.Prof (talk)

Look at it this way. You filed for arbitration against me first. You had the opportunity to make your case and you muffed it. I'm giving you a second chance to do a better job of it. Ignocrates (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Could we please set the talk of arbitration aside until the DRN case is closed? We are all human and have human emotions, and I am concerned that this might -- consciously or unconsciously -- cause someone to dig in their heels instead of compromising on the content dispute. When dealing with arbcom, it is a real advantage to be able to say that you reached an agreement on the article content before coming to them. Just as DRN never addresses behavior issues, Arbcom never addresses content issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely right. We should keep going. Ignocrates (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Prof, please come back and see if we can finish this mediation. It seems to be going quite well. Nothing will happen with this arbitration matter till the DRN is done. PiCo (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I will support whatever you decide. I was pleased with the way the content discussion was going. Now I really have to prepare for what is coming at me. If you don't think that is necessary then review my last pathetic effort before the arbitration committee. LOL Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Content

I am pleased at the a agreements that we have been able to reach over the past year. It has been very productive. Indeed as I review my edit history it appears that all outstanding issues have been dealt with fairly. A special thanks the Mediator and Moderator. As far as I am concerned all content issues have been resolved!

Behavior issues

This is a very different situation. A small group of editors have been harassing me wherever I go. It has brought my editing to a stand still. I found these...diff diff diff etc.. while trying to work out a dispute in good faith to be out of line. Still, I have to take them seriously.

Taking a break

Please do not make comments on my talk page until notice of Arb is posted. Until then I can be reached by email. Thanks to all those who have been quietly advising me. I would not still be here without your help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)