Talk:Jewish–Christian gospels

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Fayyum Fragment[edit]

I don't know why the so-called Fayyum fragment should even be discussed on this page. It is not the oldest fragment of a non-canonical gospel found to this date, nor is it even certain that it is from a gospel at all, let alone a non-canonical one. Torkmusik (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked, if Jesus spoke Aramaic, then his Logia would be in Aramaic, and if they were ever written down in Aramaic, as opposed to being translated, that would be a Jewish-Christian Gospel. The Fayyum Fragment is generally considered a witness to the Logia. 75.0.15.91 (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging[edit]

With the recent merging templates, I believe it would be best to merge all the Jewish-Christian Gospels together into this article (including authentic Matthew). There is a lot of repeated content, often very POV and fringe. Putting the articles together will help achieve a neutral and helpful article. --Ari (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONE - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably by "all" Ari would be refering to:

These articles are still out there with a mass of duplication. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the comment that "The resulting merged article would be too long and too confused to be viable.", true, but it depends what the intention is. As I understand it
I was able to merge the Authentic Gospel of Matthew. I have been reading through the material on the Gospel of the Hebrews as well as the Jewish Gospels. The resulting merged article would be too long and too confused to be viable. However you are right about the overlap. I think the best way to deal with the problem is to remove some of the overlap (without provoking an edit war). Probably easier said than done. Thanks for taking the time. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stale
 – No users have entered comments for 3 months. The tags have been removed from the articles. --J04n(talk page) 11:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just that a lot of work is involved. Still needs doing... by someone 13:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew paralipomena[edit]

I generally like your changes. Showing the dates of the original printing is a good thing as long as the reader knows that the the book is still in print. It is important to show the reader that this debate has been going on for a long time. I also like the background you provide for the authors.

Regarding the term "paralipomena" at first I was going to let the deletion stand. But after doing some reading, I realized that there were several problems with your edit.

  1. Your statement "the term paralipomena, (Greek "omitted things"), is not generally used by academics because it requires an assumption that material was actuall "ommitted", was not sourced. Also please try to take greater care with spelling.
  2. The term "paralipomena" is broad enough to include Patristic citations, gospel fragments, notations from the Dark ages etc. I am aware of no other term that is both "referenced" and "broadly inclusive".

Please note I am not being picky or disruptive, and remain open to other suggestions. Keep up the good work. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks, but the term "omitted things" de facto is a statement that the writer believes that A has been omitted from B. Which is an assumption. Such a point would be obvious in English and is the usual use of paralipomena in the 3 normal contexts. The only source for its use re. Jewish Gospels is Rev Bernhard Pick; what's more the term clearly was not used in Pick's day - even Pick himself titled his earlier book The Life of Christ according to Extra-Canonical Sources (1887). More importantly the term is not in scholarship. So no reason for it to be a section heading in Wikipedia. CheersIn ictu oculi (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Google Link and provide references to support your position. Sorry I almost forgot to sign. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Books link shows exactly what I'm saying. paralipomena appears nowhere in this context. Schopenhauer is talking about Hinduism. Bernhard Pick (check your paper copy please) does not use the term even though it is in his title. Please restore In ictu oculi (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reply? Just deletions? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A NPOV article[edit]

The way we should approach this difficult topic and write a NPOV article is:

  1. Fully and fairly present the scholarship of "the Church and conservative scholars" but fully referenced.
  2. Then present why "critical scholars" believes this position is is not supported by the evidence.
  3. Any other referenced scholarship should be added.
  4. Try to find sources that fairly present all views. Take a broader, fuller view.

I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions. The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic.

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. Also references should be varied ie old, new, conservative, liberal, etc in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also keeping good humour and not deleting material until after a discussion would be helpful. Ret.Prof (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the one deleting modern scholars is yourself. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paralipomena[edit]

Ret.Prof well, then let's have a discussion, as above I say that paralipomena is not used in any scholarly text, I correct to more usual terminology, and you delete without discussion. I don't know if you yourself were the person who added the word into the articles (?), nor does it matter, but the fact remains it this term not used in scholarly texts. So why are you deleting the normal scholarly terminology such as "extra-canonical sayings"? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've got beyond this now, will revist next week. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paralipomena was there when I merged the articles. I have seen this term in scholarly texts. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a ref? I have not seen the term used in scholarly texts relating to NT Apocrypha; none of the first six pages of Google books in your link above shows the term being used of extra-canonical sayings. Pick himself does not use it outside his 1908 surtitle. The nearest is H. Windisch "The Fourth Gospel is no collection of paralipomena" It is not used. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You gave no ref. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GHeb-1 etc. ?[edit]

Can I ask where do these GHeb-1 GHeb-2 numbers come from? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. The numbering was there when I merged the article. I know GHeb is the standard short form when talking about the Hebrew Gospel(s). I suspect the numbering was done for convenience. I have seen it several times before ie GHeb-2 or GHeb-5 Gheb-6. However I do find it helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean where do these GHeb-1 to GHeb-113 numbers (i.e. in the article) come from? The links occuring in the Google Books search you linked are to the normal GHeb-1 to GHeb-7, seven quotes, in Schneemelcher's standard edition. Despite the fact that I'm supposed to be working today I'll add in a line. I don't think you'll object. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bogus GHeb numbers came from an anonymous user in an Internet Cafe in Bangkok aka Melissa .... the thing is the genuine Schneemelcher etc quotations are jumbled up among that list, so where did the list come from? It cites Streeter 1924, but I would have thought that's unlikely In ictu oculi (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really interesting. Not the numbering, but the history. This edit warring goes back along way. Melissa, Ril, etc. did a lot of damage . . . the drama, the sock puppets, the insults, the silly game playing etc. It is not what Wikipedia is about. Both relied more on deceit than on references. That is why reaching consensus on the talk page is important. I must admit I do have concerns about dramatic statements such as "bogus" "genuine Schneemelcher", "laughably bad references". It is why have temporarily stopped editing these articles. Please, let us not repeat the mistakes of the past!

  • Step one, consenus
  • Step two, edit.

I do wish you the best and look forward to working with you. Thanks and happy editing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Proposal[edit]

I suggest the way we should approach this difficult topic and write a NPOV article is:

  1. Fully and fairly present the scholarship of "the Church and conservative scholars" but fully referenced.
  2. Then present why "critical scholars" believes this position is not supported by the evidence.
  3. Any other referenced scholarship should be added.
  4. Try to find sources that fairly present all views. Take a broader, fuller view.

I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions.

The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic. 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. Also references should be varied ie old, new, conservative, liberal, etc in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also keeping good humour and not editing material until after consensus is reached is important.

  • When consensus is reached, we publish our edit and move on to the next topic.
  • We find an unbiased Admin. to help us though the rough patches.
  • I would suggest AndrewC. He has sorted me out several times but always in polite and professional manner. He has a knowledge of the topic and is one of the best Admins at Wikipedia. This would also discourage a return of the "sock puppets".
  • Proposed agenda
1) Problems with references ie "laughable bad ref",
2) Language of composition,
3) Paralipomena,
4) Gheb numbering.

I hope this proposal addresses your concerns. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But any contributions made will immediately be deleted by yourself. I'm tempted to cite "Who appointed you over us"? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replace odd numbering system with standard Schneemelcher numbers[edit]

Any objections? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem Schneemelcher numbers is that they are outdated and incomplete. He only cites the "fragments" as opposed to the more extensive Hebrew "paralipomena". Also, the most recent scholarship shows that the Gospel of the Ebionites is a scholarly neologism. Changing the numbering will cause confusion. I find the present numbering helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC) PS It should also be remembered that his book is not on topic and only devotes a few pages to the Hebrew paralipomena or the Jewish Gospels (unlike Pick, Edwards or Nicholson whose books are on topic). There are other problems when you look at the 1959 German edition and compare it to Wilson's translation. Therefore I strongly oppose such a change.[reply]
Hi Ret Prof.
We've had this discussion before, these numbers are OR from a user above. If Bernhard Pick (1908) has interesting things to say, fine. But is this numbering system his? It is evidently not Edwards (2009) or Nicholson (1879).
We cannot have a serious NPOV article giving a non-existent numbering system that randomly assigns GHeb numbers to marginal notes sourced from Burton H. Throckmorton Jr.'s Gospel Synopsis, for example. Those non-Throckmorton numbers already removed. Please do not restore without an academic source. Other numbers should be replaced with credible academic numbering. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
btw - Who says Schneemelcher's numbering is outdated and incomplete? Source please In ictu oculi (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate the point, I've made a token start on one citation by duplicating Melissa from Bangkok's GHeb-40 in where it is academically known, GHeb-3 under Gospel of the Hebrews. Now, which gets deleted? Melissa from Bangkok's number or the standard academic number? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR tag[edit]

I've tagged the article as OR. Not just the GHeb numbering system, but the whole tenor of the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have noticed your tag spam on this and other related articles. Very inappropriate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is inappropriate? These pages are loaded with NPOV and OR. I do not understand why you will not let majority mainstream scholarship be cited. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ret Prof's deletions[edit]

Can someone familiar with mainstream academic scholarship please review this deletion by Ret Prof and salvage some or all of it. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ret Prof, why did you restore Melissa from Bangkok's GHeb numbers?[edit]

Here:

Extra-canonical sayings from Cyril of Jerusalem through the Dark Ages

This category of extra-canonical sayings is later and therefore less credible. They are from the Gospel Parallels [119] 

   * GHeb- 101 “The doctrine of Judaism cannot be joined to the doctrine of Christ. What connection can there be between the agreement of the Gospel of the Hebrews and the agreement of the Holy Gospels?” [120]
   * GHeb- 102 The Hebrew Gospel has not “to the Holy City,” rather “to Jerusalem”.
   * GHeb- 103 The words, “without cause” are omitted in the Hebrew Gospel and other manuscripts.
   * GHeb- 104 The Hebrew Gospel reads here: “If you be in My heart and do not the will of My Father who is in Heaven, I will cast you away from My heart.”
   * GHeb- 105 The Hebrew Gospel has “more wise than snakes”.
   * GHeb- 106 The Hebrew Gospel has “the Kingdom of Heaven is plundered”.
   * GHeb- 107 The Hebrew Gospel states, “I am grateful to you”.
   * GHeb- 108 The Hebrew Gospel does not have, “three days and three nights”.
   * GHeb- 109 The Hebrew Gospel has, “Corban is what you should gain from us”.
   * GHeb- 110 The Hebrew Gospel states “son of John” for “Bar-Jona”.
   * GHeb- 111 The Hebrew Gospel states immediately after the seventy times seven: “For in the prophets, after they were anointed with the Holy Spirit,there was found in them sin speech.”
   * GHeb- 112 The Hebrew Gospel has, “And he denied and swore and cursed”.
   * GHeb- 113 The Hebrew Gospel has, “And he delivered to them armed men, that they might sit over against the cave and guard it day and night”.

In ictu oculi (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ret Prof, why did you delete Schneemelcher[edit]

The common academic distinction of three Jewish-Christian Gospels reflects the standard collection of the Jewish-Christian Gospels found in Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha Vol.1 [1] Scheemelcher, Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker, following Johannes Waitz etc., group extant sayings into three lost Gospels:

In ictu oculi (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker, Judenchristliche Evangelien translated "Jewish-Christian Gospels" in New Testament Apocrypha. Volume One: Gospels and Related Writings, rev. edn., ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher (Louisville: 1991) 134-159.

NPOV[edit]

Some non-enthusiast mainstream editors are needed here to allow that e.g. the mainstream Schneemelcher numbering system and majority point of view needs to take precedence over Melissa from the Bangkok internet cafe and other enthusiastic OR NPOV contributions:

In ictu oculi (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very agitated. Your tag spam, comments and edits are inappropriate. In fact you are scaring me a little. Please calm down. This is a difficult topic and we should work together to build consensus. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Please first propose your edits on the talk page as all of us are now doing. Generally you do good work but today has not been one of your better days. Trying to "out" the identity of a an editor because you do not like her numbering was truly a low. It is not my intention to upset you. Maybe we should take a break and cool down a little. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just Nicholson and Edwards but all of the following that go against your POV.

  • First Clement,
  • Didache,
  • Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans
  • Polycarp to the Philippians
  • Barnabas,
  • 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,
  • 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,
  • Discourse on Maria Theotokos by Cyril 12A
  • 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.
  • Schoemaker, W. R. - The Gospel According to the Hebrews. The University of Chicago Press.
  • Walter Richard Cassels - Supernatural Religion.
  • Edwards, J.R. - The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition, 2009.
  • Casey, Maurice - Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, 2010

The work of these scholars over the years can be summed up as follows:

1. Occam's razor[edit]

In a topic where there are many strange ideas ranging from "Jesus as alien being" to "Jesus as a mythical God", Occam's razor states the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one. In other words, Jesus was probably a 'Jewish' rabbi and one of his followers wrote some 'stuff' about him in the 'local dialect'.

2. Hebrew Gospel Tradition 75/12[edit]

The simplest explanation is also supported by the historical evidence. During the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link

3. Gospel of the Ebionites 0/0[edit]

During the formative years of Early Christianity 0 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Gospel of the Ebionites in circulation. Also it is listed in 0 ancient catalogs. Indeed there is no historical evidence from either Christian or non Christian sources that the Ebionites ever composed a gospel. The Church Fathers all state that the Ebionites only used one gospel which was composed by Matthew in Hebrew and was referred to by "most people" as the Authentic Gospel of Matthew or less frequently the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Therefore Schneemelcher's "imaginary" Gospel of the Ebionites is a non existent gospel or as Edwards politely puts it a scholarly neologism

Schneemelcher's "numbering" has also been weighed, measured and found wanting for the following reasons.

  1. It is based on scholarly neologisms
  2. Schneemelcher numbers are incomplete as he only cites the "fragments" as opposed to the more extensive Hebrew "paralipomena".

Finally, I may have been a little hard Schneemelcher, as

  • Wilson who translated the 1959 work into English did a poor job.
  • His book was not meant to be a study of this topic but a broad survey of the non canonical gospels, of which his entry on this topic only consisted of a few pages.
  • Schneemelcher himself admits the weakness of his position when he says, "Thus the number of Jewish Gospels -- whether there be one, two or three such gospels -- is uncertain, the identification of the several fragments is also uncertain and, finally the character and the relationship to one another of the several Jewish gospels is uncertain." Google Link

Therefore I strongly oppose any change to the present numbering. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise[edit]

I do agree that it would be a mistake to renew the old edit war between User:-Ril- and User:Melissadolbeer of six years ago (or for that matter six months ago). Therefore I am going to delete the numbering that you object to. From now on let us work for consensus in good faith! I would suggest reading Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth to gain an interesting perspective of the challenges that confront us. Truly wishing you all the best in your editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RetProf. The removal of the GHeb (sic) numbering system invented by the anonymous contributor will happen anyway. There are far deeper OR/NPOV problems with these 4 articles. Even with the edits I made, adding mainstream academic content, and which you deleted in toto, the articles would still retain a heavy bias to OR, fringe and NPOV content, with mainstream/majority modern academic viewpoints obscured. The edits I made were in good faith and supported by academic sources. I still do not see reasons presented here for their deletion and would ask reasons be given. Thank you for the book recommendation of Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth, but from what I know second-hand of Casey's ideas about Aramaic sources for GMark, I cannot see how they would change scholarly consensus on the Jewish Christian Gospels. Also I'm reluctant to expend further time on this subject if any sources/refs I introduce which you disagree with you simply delete.

Rather than "compromise" simply please identify a space in the articles where mainstream scholarship can be stated without facing deletion. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page would be good. Then after good natured and hopefully scholarly debate, we reach consensus and post edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RetProf, yes. I am using the talk page. Do you see me edit-warring or reversing the deletions of contributions to the article? I am glad to see the invented GHeb numbers removed here. Though I do not think the NPOV tag should have been removed yet. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag deletion undone[edit]

However I do feel bound to restore the deletion of the tag, it says on it "please do not remove" and it's important that the page be marked with its present problems.In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am truly sorry that our compromise failed. Restoring 'numbering material' material. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's your Wikipedia after all. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conventional majority view and standard sources needed[edit]

The article continues to be overweight with OR and single source theories. Whether mainstream scholarship is right or wrong (how would any of us editing know? myself included) majority mainstream scholarship is what an encyclopedia article should be reflecting. Propose that the article be edited to

  • (i) the first subheading before the 3 gospels be a section on identification of 1,2,3, or more texts:
      • Standard view
      • Other individual theories by date of author***
  • (ii) removal of Melissa from Bangkok's GHeb numbering and replacement with the standard academic GHeb etc. numbering.
  • (iii) remove invented terminology / terms / names / labels there are not found in academic texts and replace with standard terminology with footnotes. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having waited for someone else to come along, I have removed the spurious GHeb numbers invented by a Wikipedian. The article still remains POV and overweight to the "controversial" (his own publisher's webpage) theory of J. R. Edwards (2009). So tags should remain. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE Standard View[edit]

Please note that in the article, I have added some references that show that Philip Vielhauer and Schneemelcher once were considered the "standard" but this is no longer the case. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theory pushing reverted Other editors please keep an eye on this.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is making edits similar to Professor Peter of the Divine University from 2005. Not that I draw any conclusion from that. But in any case this is Edit warring. The fact that 3 or 4 writers question what is in mainstream encyclopedias, dictionaries etc is not a reason for deleting the mainstream view. The minority views (of which there are several) are already mentioned. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The material Ret.Prof added in support of the lost Hebrew Gospel theory I've restored under the relevant headingIn ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop your disruptive editing.[edit]

  • It is against Wikipedia Policy for an editor to perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. WP:3RR
  • It is against Wikipedia Policy for an editor to perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period with "alternative accounts". Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
  • It is against Wikipedia Policy to canvas other editors to revert on their behalf.Wikipedia:Canvassing
Ret.Prof (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ret.Prof
If you have some specific concern please say so.
Back to the issue at hand:
As regards this article, your content in support of the view of minority views is still there, it's just under that heading, not in the lede.
I continue to hope that mainstream generalist editors will take an interest in this little pool of articles Talk:Gospel_of_Matthew#Authentic_Gospel_of_Matthew and keep the content in line with content you'd find in a standard modern reference work.
Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ret.Prof you have deleted the below, again:

1) The Gospel of the Nazarenes ("GN") - GN 1 to GN 23 are mainly from Jerome; GN 24 to GN 36 are from medieval sources.
2) The Gospel of the Ebionites ("GE") - 7 quotations by Epiphanius.
3) The Gospel of the Hebrews ("GH") - 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, plus GH 2-7 quotations by Jerome.

This taken with your other edits this puts a minority view ahead of the mainstream majority scholarship of the last 80 years In ictu oculi (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Wrong[edit]

Ictu, it is not that you are wrong, it is that you are simply not right. In other words, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Let me give a brief summary of what is happening in the academic world:

Old Consensus[edit]

Most scholars in the last century have followed Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker (in Hennecke and Schneemelcher NTApoc), and more recently AFJ Klijn (1992), in extrapolating from the Church Fathers three distinct extra-canonical Jewish gospels: the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Gospel of the Ebionites, and the Gospel of the Hebrews (composed in Greek). It should be noted that their were always some dissenting voices such as W. R. Schoemaker, Cassels, Parker and Nicholson.

New Consensus[edit]

Then, in 1998 Peter Lebrecht Schmidt, called this near consensus into question. Critically assessing the discussion from Schmidtke to Klijn, Schmidt showed that originally there was only one Jewish gospel, called the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," which was subsequently translated into Greek and Latin. This work was powerful, well sourced and thought provoking. By the turn of the century it had become obvious "that the state of the scholarly question had been thrown into the air and there is simply no consensus" (Please read pages 245 - 246, Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries" by Oskar Skarsaune & Reidar Hvalvik Hendrickson Publishers, 2007)

Since then, Schmidt has been joined by such noted scholars as James Edwards, James Tabor and Jeffrey J. Bütz. Biblical scholars and most lay people are aware of these facts and your edit warring is turning this article into little more than a farce. I know this seems harsh, but your editing warring is seriously undermining Wikipedia credibility. Please take the time to read carefully and update yourself in this area.

Please take the time to study carefully the aforementioned. If I have made any mistakes, I will gladly correct them. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ret.Prof
Do you understand the difference between the word "no consensus" and "new consensus"? The quote "that the state of the scholarly question had been thrown into the air and there is simply no consensus." is from Skarsaune 2007, correct? So per 2007 no consensus = no consensus. Do you understand what that means?
1. It means that you do not have to evangelize and convert people to your belief. You do not have to keep posting your proofs as above.
2. It means that the standard edition since 1904 is not suddenly not-the-standard edition, or that all scholarship for the last 100 years on the language of the JGs is suddenly wrong. You were wrong to delete the below. This, right or wrong is how standard mainstream scholarship sets out the JGs, and Wikipedia users have a right to see standard mainstream scholarship, even if it is wrong.
1) The Gospel of the Nazarenes ("GN") - GN 1 to GN 23 are mainly from Jerome; GN 24 to GN 36 are from medieval sources.
2) The Gospel of the Ebionites ("GE") - 7 quotations by Epiphanius.
3) The Gospel of the Hebrews ("GH") - 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, plus GH 2-7 quotations by Jerome.

As I said, this deletion taken with your other edits this puts a minority view ahead of the mainstream majority scholarship of the last 80 years It doesn't matter whether the mainstream view is right or wrong, it gets to be heard first because of W:Weight. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC) NB I've removed the Not Wrong / New Consensus line divider. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't disrupt my comments on the talk page. You may think it is funny to change my wording but it is not honest. Please restore my comments. Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please have a grown up conversation?[edit]

Like this? Is that the kind of headline you want with each new breath on the talk page? Dear Ret Prof. Turning your dramatic NEW HEADLINES/DIVIDER lines into Bold for each new post as here isn't "changing your wording", I was actually doing you a favour in making you look less hysterical. Just as a minimal matter of etiquette you shouldn't be setting up inflammable shout lines as a new subject every time. Just question and reply like everyone else.
Back to the subject at hand:
Question - You have deleted what you yourself recognise is the mainstream academic view. Why?
This, right or wrong is how standard mainstream scholarship sets out the JGs, and Wikipedia users have a right to see standard mainstream scholarship, even if it is wrong.
1) The Gospel of the Nazarenes ("GN") - GN 1 to GN 23 are mainly from Jerome; GN 24 to GN 36 are from medieval sources.
2) The Gospel of the Ebionites ("GE") - 7 quotations by Epiphanius.
3) The Gospel of the Hebrews ("GH") - 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, plus GH 2-7 quotations by Jerome.
You just recognised that this is the mainstream academic view, so why did you delete it?
In ictu oculi (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome[edit]

At the first usage of the name 'Jerome' I have made it a link and added his approximate birth year and known death year. Wurmanx (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)wurmanx[reply]

Many thanks new user, in fact that was there already in the edits deleted along with the list:
1) The Gospel of the Nazarenes ("GN") - GN 1 to GN 23 are mainly from Jerome; GN 24 to GN 36 are from medieval sources.
2) The Gospel of the Ebionites ("GE") - 7 quotations by Epiphanius.
3) The Gospel of the Hebrews ("GH") - 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, plus GH 2-7 quotations by Jerome.

Your kind contribution, while well intentioned, actually made it difficult to revert the delete. But in any case the date is there, along with the strikethrough above. Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deception[edit]

Deception plays a major factor in Ictu's editing strategy. One of his favorite ploys is to "suggest" to a good faith editor that he would be "quite happy to walk far far away and let mainstream editors like PiCo and History2007 get on with a clean up" or Will you join me and just walk away and let other editors edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC) When the good faith editor agrees to step back from editing the article in question, Ictu sneeks back to the article and continues his POV pushing.

I am getting wiser in the ways of our wiki-warrior. At the Gospel of the Hebrews it took me several weeks to call him on his playing the con. At theGospel of Matthew I caught his deception right away. It again confirms what I have said on my talk page. Deceit, deception and dishonesty do hurt Wikipedia. My hope is that the Admins who looking into Ictu's violations of Wikipedia policy are taking the time to carefully analize Ictu's edits, for he is crafty and cunning and has often turned the tables on the good faith user. A wiser - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a cut and paste of something Ret.Prof pasted on Talk:Gospel of Matthew, anyone who thinks there's something in the above should go look there. Back to this article, RetProf is still blocking mainstream academic content difference by deleting anything which does fit his and User:Poorman's distinctive theory. It'll be very difficult to get mainstream academic content into this article as long as other passer-by Wikipedia editors find it too hard (and it is too hard).In ictu oculi (talk)

This article is one of the problem set pages affected by Authentic Gospel of Matthew:

In ictu oculi (talk)

As you have been warned before such allegations do not belong on the article talk page. (See Reflections on my talk page.) One of his favorite ploys is to "suggest" to a good faith editor that he would be

"quite happy to walk far far away and let mainstream editors like PiCo and History2007 get on with a clean up here without obtaining your "consensus". Sound good? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)" or Will you join me and just walk away and let other editors edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC) When the good faith editor agrees to step back from editing the article in question, Ictu sneeks back to the article and continues his POV pushing.

I am getting wiser in the ways of our wiki-warrior. At the Gospel of the Hebrews it took me several weeks to call him on his playing the con. At the Gospel of Matthew I caught his deception right away. It again confirms what I have said on my talk page. Deceit, deception and dishonesty do hurt Wikipedia. My hope is that the Admins who looking into Ictu's violations of Wikipedia policy are taking the time to carefully analize Ictu's edits, for he is crafty and cunning and has often turned the tables on the good faith user. A wiser Ret.Prof (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing[edit]

Ictu, it is not that you are wrong, it is that you are simply not right. The references you cite are legitimate . . .but only tell half the story. My problem is not with what you have written! Rather, it is that any reference that does not support your theology is cleansed from Wikipedia.

There was a time when Ictu's anti Hebrew Gospel beliefs prevailed. Indeed, most scholars in the last century followed Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker (in Hennecke and Schneemelcher NTApoc), and more recently AFJ Klijn (1992), as Ictu has pointed out. It should be noted that their were always some dissenting voices such as W. R. Schoemaker, Cassels, Parker and Nicholson.

New Consensus[edit]

By 1988, cracks cracks started to form. (See Ray A. Pritz.) Then, in 1998 Peter Lebrecht Schmidt, called this near consensus into question. Critically assessing the discussion from Schmidtke to Klijn, Schmidt showed that originally there was only one Jewish gospel, called the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," which was subsequently translated into Greek and Latin. Schmidt's work was powerful, well sourced and thought provoking. By the turn of the century it had become obvious "that the state of the scholarly question had been thrown into the air and there is simply no consensus" (Please read pages 245 - 246, Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries" by Oskar Skarsaune & Reidar Hvalvik Hendrickson Publishers, 2007)

Since then, Schmidt has been joined by such noted scholars as James Edwards, James Tabor and Jeffrey J. Bütz.

Here on Wikipedia, scholars such have as E.B. Nicholson, James Edwards, James Tabor, Peter Lebrecht Schmidt and Jeffrey J. Bütz have had their reputations called into question. These smears against noted scholars are unfounded. In real world they are considered "reliable sources" and are respected.

I am sorry that the above comment seems to completely ignore the fact that we have specific guidelines regarding what does and does not qualify as a reliable source, and that the comment above seems to completely ignore them, and, instead, take an irrationally agressive position against those who might be seeking to ensure that WP:RS be adhered to. The relevant question is, are any such sources sufficiently highly regarded in the academic community that there opinions have to be included in main articles on the topics, and, if yes, to what degree WP:WEIGHT applies. So far as I can see, there has been little if any evidence produced to address those matters. However, I do beleive that it would be not unreasonable for input from the fringe theories noticeboard and the relevant WikiProjects. There are in fact several academics and others who as individuals have some respect in the academic community for some reason, but that does not mean that each and every one of the theories which seem, based on the evidenc presented to date, to qualify as fringe as per WP:FRINGE needs to receive significant discussion in the comparatively short articles we have to deal with them. I would very much welcome seeing the specific policy and guideline-based concerns addressed, rather than seeing hyperbolic, somewhat irrelevant, commentary. I wish I did in fact see such directly relevant comments here.
There are a number of reference books regarding the Bible, and a huge number of academic journals regarding them. In all honesty, if any theories have received widespread enough support and attention from the academic community to deserve significant discussion in our main articles on topics, such as this one, it should be relatively easy to produce such evidence. Production of evidence regarding these theories would be the quickest, easiest, and least problematic way of helping decide these discussions. To date, I am far from sure I have seen that, and that itself can raise questions. I can and will check the various reference books available to me, and academic journals available to me, and see what they say. If I see that there is clear evidence that these theories have received some degree of support in the academic world, I will produce that, just as I will produce any other evidence. I suggest others, perhaps, do the same, and perhaps limit their commentaries to such matters, as per WP:TPG. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is "Did Matthew, follower of the Jewish Rabbi Jesus write a Hebrew Gospel?" As has been pointed out in the references above, the answer is probably yes, as there is a lot of historical data confirming this position. To exclude all these reliable sources is the worst kind of POV pushing. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of majority scholarly view[edit]

Mainstream view found in standard SBL type works removed again. I'm a little bit tired of restoring it.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This ongoing edit war is getting us nowhere. Therefore as a token of good will I am going to unilaterally step back from this article. Wishing you the best, Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

Suggest the article needs some structure.

Lede

  • 1 Several Gospels or one Hebrew Gospel?

SCHOLARSHIP o 1.1 Several Gospels view o 1.2 Unified Hebrew Gospel view

PATRISTIC EVIDENCE

  • 7 Jerome on the Nazarenes' and Ebionites' "original Matthew" -------- PATRISTIC EVIDENCE 1. JEROME
  • 8 Waitz' division into 3 Jewish Gospels, and Schneemelcher's numbering ----- move up to 1.1
  • 9 Other sayings of Christ --- relevance?

o 9.1 Patristic citations --- move to PATRISTIC EVIDENCE 1. JEROME WIKILINK o 9.2 The Fayum Fragment --- relevance? o 9.3 Sayings recording by Justin Martyr --- relevance? o 9.4 The Oxyrhynchus Gospels --- relevance? o 9.5 Extra-canonical sayings from Cyril of Jerusalem through the Dark Ages ---- PATRISTIC EVIDENCE.CYRIL

In ictu oculi (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the material on Gosp. Heb with the lead from the article itself, and deleted several sections that dealt with gospels not normally counted as Jewish-Christian (Matthew and Gospel of the Apostles). PiCo (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2GH[edit]

  • Gregory, Andrew (2008). Foster, Paul (ed.). The Non-Canonical Gospels. T&T Clark. ISBN 978-0-5670-3302-4.
  • Klauck, Hans-Josef (2003). The Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-5670-8390-6.
  • Lührmann, Dieter (2004). Die Apokryph Gewordenen Evangelien: Studien Zu Neuen Texten Und Zu Neuen Fragen (in German). Brill. ISBN 978-9-0041-2867-5.
  • Luomanen, Petri (2012). "Jewish Christian Gospels Recovered". Recovering Jewish Christian Sects and Gospels. Brill. ISBN 978-9-0042-0971-8.
  • Mimouni, Simon Claude (1998). Le Judéo-christianisme ancien: Essais historiques (in French). Les Éditions du Cerf. ISBN 978-2-2040-5937-4.
  • Schlarb, Egbert; Lührmann, Dieter (2000). Fragmente apokryph gewordener Evangelien in griechischer und lateinischer Sprache (in German). N.G. Elwert Verlag. ISBN 978-3-7708-1144-1.

Here is a list of 2GH advocates (although Klauck equivocates more than he advocates). Petri Luomanen (2012) offers a step-by-step critical review of the 3GH hypothesis of Vielhauer & Strecker that is devastating. He argues their entire conjecture is based on a logical fallacy because they started with a predetermined hypothesis of what they hoped to see and forced the data into it. This Bayesian approach only works if you are sure the prior information is true. It's the same logical fallacy that befell the Q project, which Mark Goodacre demolished with The Case Against Q, i.e. Given that Q existed --> lots of words --> we therefore conclude that Q existed. Ignocrates (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament Apocrypha 7th German Edition[edit]

I added the 7th edition of the New Testament Apocrypha (in German) to Further Reading. Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha (2nd ed.) is current up through the 6th German edition. This article depends upon Schneemelcher as the critical text (also the Gospel of the Ebionites article), so this is not a small deal. For example, the Judaikon readings from the marginal notes of manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew are included in brackets in the Gospel of the Nazoraeans. Ignocrates (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament Apocrypha 1st and 2nd German Editions[edit]

New Testament Apocrypha 2nd German Edition
  • Waitz, Hans (1924). "Judenchristliche Evangelien". In Hennecke, Edgar (ed.). Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (in German) (2 ed.). J.C.B. Mohr. pp. 10–55. OCLC 4581923.
New Testament Apocrypha 1st German Edition

No article on this topic would be complete without mentioning the contribution of Hans Waitz, who first published the 3GH in the New Testament Apocrypha 2nd German Edition (1924). The New Testament Apocrypha 1st German Edition (1904) mentions only two Jewish-Christian Gospels: the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Ebionites. Ignocrates (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Schmidtke made a seminal contribution to the field of Jewish-Christian Gospel studies by being one of the first scholars to describe a Greek Gospel of the Ebionites as a distinct text from an Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, which he interpreted to be a targumic translation of the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Ignocrates (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidtke was the first to combine the Judaikon sayings from the marginal notes of copies of the Gospel of Matthew with the Aramaic text used by the Nazoraeans known to Jerome. This construction was incorporated by Waitz in his 3GH hypothesis as the Gospel of the Nazoraeans. Waitz considered the Gospel of the Nazoraeans to be a translation of the canonical Gospel of Matthew similar to Schmidtke's conception of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Ignocrates (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Pick's book Paralipomena also had two only Jewish-Christian Gospels: a Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Ebionites. Pick's version of the Gospel of the Ebionites was based solely on the quotations preserved by Epiphanius, and it is the same as the modern consensus version. Ignocrates (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholson provides a good representative example of the traditional view of a single Jewish-Christian Gospel known as the Gospel of the Hebrews. Nicholson envisioned that the difficulties in assigning the fragments could be explained as multiple recensions of the same Gospel. Ignocrates (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the order of presentation[edit]

I changed the order of presentation to alphabetical order instead of using the V&S order. GE is a stand-alone topic, so it makes sense to cover this first. GH/GN should be covered sequentially since the relationship between them is uncertain, and GN may ultimately turn out to be a construct of modern scholars. Ignocrates (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The GN article needs a major upgrade to GA-level (details to be discussed there) before much more can be said in this overview article. In particular, what is missing is a historiography of scholarship on this topic and how the thinking about the J-C gospels has changed over the last 120 years. Details from the 7th German edition of the NT Apocrypha (2012) need to be incorporated here and in the GN article. Ignocrates (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish–Christian_gospels&oldid=1203095660"