Misplaced Pages

.

.

“You can't have grudges against people who criticize you in good-faith.” —User:Juliancolton

About me

A number of months ago while working though the sources re the 'Historical Jesus' I stepped into a problem area and have come under serious attack.

• Using self published sources: It was alleged that I was in breach of WP policy by using using self published sources. I recused myself from editing. In support of his allegation was the following "I mentioned Donald R. Nuss, The Anatomies of God in one of my edit summaries. Listed as published by 'Universe' but actually by iUniverse. No time to go through more." After waiting a reasonable time, I resumed editing.
• Licensing Breach, Copying, Undo Consensus: Allegations of Licensing Breach, Copying, Undo Consensus were raised against me. I stepped back from editing until Bureaucrat Nihonjoe intervened, pointing out that the edit history had been moved and I was not lying. I resumed editing.
• Rude and disruptive behavior: Allegations of rude and disruptive behavior have been made against me. Again I stopped editing. However, when my edit history was examined by others, no edits could be found to support the allegations against me. (See my talk page)

These consistent attacks against me have undermined my credibility and all but destroyed my reputation at Misplaced Pages. It should be noted that I am not the first person to be discredited in such a way. Rather than withdraw from Misplaced Pages I have chosen to:

1. Assume good faith - I have assumed good faith and stepped back from editing.
2. Research Topic I have done further research and revised my position.
3. Resume editing - I have resumed editing. WP:BRD I hope to find common ground and clearly define our areas of disagreement.
4. Mediation - In a few months I will request mediation in working through conflict areas.
5. Arbitration - Finally, if any areas of conflict remain, I will suggest Arbitration.

My revised understanding of the Conflict

Papias (b. 63 A.D.) Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus (logia) in a Hebrew dialect (en Hebraidi dialecto), and everyone translated (hermeneusen) them to the best of their ability.

The above quote seems to be the essence of the conflict. Several Biblical scholars now argue in favour of an early Hebrew Gospel composed by Matthew distinct from the Gospel of Matthew.

Taken from David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303

• Author and Setting The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together the sayings in Matthew the Hebrew dialect and each one translated them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302)

Taken from William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed)' The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602

• We encounter a striking and incontestable fact. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship and composition of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was the first written, that it was written in the Hebrew language...the widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. (quote from p 602)

Taken from Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101

• And this is what he says about Matthew: “And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted them to the best of his ability.
• This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101)

Taken from James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3

• This is corroborated in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.7 and 14, where Eusebius says that Papias confessed to having received the words of the apostles from their followers. Of course, if John the Elder was in fact John the Apostle — although this seems unlikely — then Papias's testimony comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead. It is in any case very early, within living memory of the apostolic age. Eusebius records Papias's relevant testimony: “Matthew organized the oracles (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he was able.”8 This testimony does not specifically identify the Hebrew work of Matthew as the Hebrew Gospel, but it is reasonable to equate the two.9 Papias's primary intent seems to have been to emphasize the Hebrew composition of the work. (quote from p 3)
• The Hebrew Gospel is therefore identified by name in at least two dozen patristic sources. Combined, there are some 75 different attestations to the Hebrew Gospel in ancient Christianity. p 259,
• Twelve fathers attribute the Hebrew Gospel to the apostle Matthew. p 102
• Ascription of the Hebrew Gospel to the apostle Matthew is very widespread in the fathers. No father attributes it to anyone other than Matthew p 117

Taken from Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88

• Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86)
• It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew.It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87)

It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew was an anonymous work; the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source.

It must also be noted that other scholars argue that Papias as preserved by Eusebius is NOT to be trustworthy. Now don't get me wrong. I do not want to remove the scholarship that argues against the 'Hebrew Gospel'. What I want is an article that includes BOTH positions, written from a NPOV.

Summary of the new scholarship re the Second Temple Period

In a general sense I think it would be fair to say that there is now a "consensus that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment." Voorst 2000. p 5 (As to the importance of Aramaic, please see Talk at Oral gospel traditions.) Over the past ten years the thinking of Biblical scholars has undergone a radical transformation. Many scholars now believe:

1. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi living in a Jewish society (Sitz im Leban).
2. Jesus and later his disciples were active participants in the Oral Tradition of the Second Temple Period.
3. Early Christians, up to the time of the creation of the first Gospels, sustained the Gospel message of Jesus, by sharing the stories of his life and his teachings orally. This Oral Tradition remained vibrant until the destruction of the Temple.
4. These 21st C. scholars generally agree that Mark was the first to write down the Oral Tradition in the form of a Gospel. They further agree that Matthew also wrote down the sayings in a Hebrew dialect. However, most modern scholarship agrees that the canonical Gospel of Matthew does not appear to be a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic but was composed in Greek. (ie Matthew's Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew are two distinct Gospels.)
5. Since the publication of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, and a variety of other Aramaic documents written in the ancient world, this "present generation of scholars have had the opportunity to make massive progress." Casey (2010) p 108. We now have a much clearer idea of the " the nature of authorship in Second Temple Judaism. Composite authorship was common, and so was the attribution of documents to the fountainheads of traditions." Casey (2010) p 88. As Jerome testifies the Apostle Matthew was the fountainhead of the Greek Gospel of Matthew which is of composite authorship in the same sense as many ancient Jewish works, such as the books of Isaiah and Jubilees. Casey (2010) p 89 (See also Fountainhead and Sources of Matthew)