Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

This needs other Wikipedia editors

Other editors, Please take an interest: Ret Prof proposes: "A third group of scholars lead by Nicholson, Edwards, Tabor and Butz support the position of Erhman in that they argue the Gospel of Matthew is not authentic. However, they then go on to say that the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, Ebionites and other Hebrew Christians is the Authentic Gospel of Matthew (Matthaei Authenticum). There are also numerous variations of the aforementioned scholarly positions" Firstly, as a Wikipedia:Fringe theories view this does not belong in the lede. Secondly. Inaccuracies.

  • Edward Nicholson (librarian) did not support the position of Bart Ehrman in arguing the Gospel of Matthew is not authentic (authentic what?), Nicholson believed the NT Matthew wrote two Gospels.
  • Do Edwards, Tabor and Butz go on to say that "the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, Ebionites and other Hebrew Christians was (not "is") "Authentic Gospel of Matthew (Matthaei Authenticum)."
  • This page Authentic Gospel of Matthew was merged with Gospel of the Hebrews by Ret Prof, and then restored, so represents duplication.
  • No scholar has ever called a Hebrew Ur-Matthew "Matthaei Authenticum" in an English or German text.

But the real issue is Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Rather than addressing the Messianic/HebrewPrimacy POV in the 2 sections it is now being pulled into the lede. Other editors, please take an interest. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

InIctu, it's a good idea to get more editors active, but it won't happen by putting a thread on Talk like this. I suggest approaching directly (on personal Talk pages) every editor who has posted on this Talk page and inviting them to express a view regarding the proposal you have in the thread immediately below this. That's a method that can't be accused of bias and is likely to find editors who might take an interest. You can do this yourself, or I'll do it, or we can ask CKruschke (sorry about the spelling) to do it. PiCo (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration is now needed to resolve the following issues

I am very disappointed, but it now appears that after weeks of trying, we have totally failed to resolve our differences. Outside help is needed to ascertain if:

  1. Banned user:CheeseDreams has been using alternate accounts to avoid his block;
  2. There has been a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing:
  3. WP policies on duplication, fringe etc. are being used as a cover for POV pushing.

Until these issues are resolved, I do not see any way forward. Still keeping an open mind. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ret.Prof, can you please be quiet for 1 minute and first let other users comment.
The other editors haven't even expressed their views yet, for all you know they may all oppose my proposal to restore PiCo's removal of your duplicate section cut and pasted from Gospel of the Hebrews here to Gospel of Matthew. And they may support your proposal to edit the section instead. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Prof - I'm inclined to agree with In ictu. It's only been a couple days and you two have presented ALOT of information to digest (and it seems like more keeps popping up). Can we give it a week with no new activity from either of you before we decide whether or not our legitimate Wikipedia:Canvassing has been successful in trying to break up the logjam? Ckruschke (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
This user is in awe of the classic and epic struggle between WP:Burden and WP:Preserve !
Ret.Prof, for what it's worth...
  • A main concern must be the removal of any harmful text that is not reliably sourced. If such POV text exists, then it can be removed/transferred to this Talk page for discussion.
  • If there is a violation of policy WP:SOCK, then there should be an investigation. Has an investigation into this serious charge begun?
  • There is good canvassing, and there is bad canvassing. This is also a fairly serious charge. Are you saying that an editor is trying to canvass/garner only supporters of their views? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
PS. Apologies to Ckruschke, as the note I left in the edit summary was meant for editor PiCo.

Last edits to Composition section - proposal

Ok folks, I'm not really sure where we are with this, since we seem to get diverted and bogged down with great regularity. Anyway, I've assumed (or presumed) that everyone accepts the proposal I put for a new paragraph on the traditional authorship. That's now at the head of the "Composition" section. What follows here is a proposal for the remainder of that section. It draws on 2 sources, both reliable - one is Blackwells, the other is Delbert Burkett's "Introduction to the New Testament etc". Blackwell's is a tertiary source, Burkett a secondary source - generally I prefer tertiary sources, but Burkett looks pretty good.

As before, this is separated into sentences, each this time having its source attached to it. Here it is:

The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The tradition that it was written by Matthew the tax-collector can be traced to Papias of Hierapolis (c.125-150 CE), who [in ictu oculi suggestion: in defence of the Greek Matthew ref Walter Bauer] wrote that "Matthew put together (or in some manuscripts, "wrote") the sayings (logia) in the Hebrew dialect and each one translated them as he was able." Papias does not identify this "Matthew" but it is likely that he meant the tax-collector named "Levi" in Mark and Luke, although Levi does not appear as a disciple of Jesus. Modern scholars interpret Papias to mean that Matthew made a collection of Jesus's sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic, which others then translated. By the end of the 2nd century the Matthew tradition had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts.pp. 301-2
Most scholars today doubt this tradition, as the author relies on a number of earlier sources ("it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry, such as Matthew, would need to rely on others for information about it") and the work does not appear to have been translated from Hebrew or Aramaic.p.174 From internal evidence, modern scholars believe that it was written between about 80-90 CE.(p.298) by a highly educated Jew (an "Israelite," in the language of the gospel itself), intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values.p.302 A number of scholars identify the community of the author as Jewish sectarians distinguished from other Jews, especially the Pharisees, by their belief that Jesus was messiah.p.297
The author drew on three distinct sources, each representing a distinct community: material shared with Luke ("Q", a collection, or several collections, of sayings); the Gospel of Mark; and material unique to Matthew (called "M").p.175 His audience was Jewish: like "Q" and "M", he stresses the continuing relevance of the Jewish law, and unlike Mark he never bothers to explain Jewish customs; and unlike Luke, who traces Jesus's ancestry back to Adam, father of the human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the Jews.p.181 The "M" community was stricter than the others in its attitude to keeping the Jewish law, holding that the "righteous" must exceed the scribes and the Pharisees, and of the three only "M" refers to a "church" (ecclesia), an organised group with rules for keeping order.pp.180
The disciple Matthew was probably honoured within the author's circle, as the name Matthew is more prominent in this gospel than any other,p.302 and it is possible that some of the "M" material may have originated with Matthew himself.p.177
Jerome (5th century) believed the gospel was written in Judea, but modern scholars are less certain, agreeing only that it originated in an urban area with a mixed ethnic and religious population - the candidates include Jerusalem, Caesaria Maritima, Alexandria in Egypt and Pella in Jordan.p.298

Please check: (a) that the source supports what I say it supports; (b) that everything that needs to be covered in terms of authorship and community, is covered. And in general, can we now finish the Composition/Authorship section and move on? There's lots more to cover. PiCo (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi PiCo
Just to be clear, you are proposing en toto replacing?
1 Composition
1.1 Matthew the Evangelist (the cut and paste section proposed for deletion)
1.2 Church Fathers
1.3 Synoptic Gospels
1.4 The Four Source Hypothesis
1.5 Date of Gospel
with the new draft text?
The above should probably start with mentioning that the Gospel is anonymous.
In ictu oculi (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
And as you can imagine, I strongly disagree with Ictu's "en toto replacing" Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I've reformatted to make my proposal easier to read - it's now indented and in italics. The blue links will take you to the front cover of the books used as references, but not to the exact pages. The books, by the way, are:
  • Duling, Dennis C., Gospel of Matthew, in Aune, David E., (ed) "The Blackwell companion to the New Testament" (Blackwell Publishing, 2010); and
  • Burkett, Delbert Royce, "An introduction to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity" (Cambridge, 2002)
I believe that this draft touches on, and explains succinctly, all the vital points that need to be made about "authorship and setting" (which I think would make a better section heading). It can, of course, be expanded. So the question is, do you want to accept this as a basis for the section?PiCo (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi PiCo
Given comments above about time needed to think.
Ictu propose (following earlier PiCo attempt to remove, supported by Ictu).
RetProf oppose
PiCo not voted
CKruschke correctly says others need time.
  • Second Proposal PiCo = remove 1.1-1.5 per PiCo draft
PiCo, looks good, for your advance information, I will support regardless of outcome of 1.1 looks good, very good. Yes, overall a considerable improvement. I'm assuming the above will include the MAIN wikilinks to relevant full articles for those that want more. Only general comment is that the beginning of each paragraph probably needs a bit of hedging with [Most scholars consider that] The author drew on three distinct sources.. etc. then some minority (but not fringe) views e.g. there are some things in the existing 1.3-1.5 which are probably worth preserving as minority but not fringe views, for example the Pontifical Commission, etc. One specific comment also is to note Bauer's Orthodoxy observation that Papias ..in defence of the Greek Matthew... which I have inserted in square brackets in your draft, since understanding the purpose of Papias' comment speaks to the relevance and validity of his testimony.
  • Third Proposal RetProf = RetProf to preserve/redraft 1.1.
RetProf propose
Ictu oppose.
I can't see that anyone else has "voted".
In ictu oculi (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus at Wikipedia is not about voting. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As my proposal would involve deleting all of 1.1 in any case I think my position on that is clear. My aim is to produce an article which will give the interested but uninformed reader an overview of the main positions of modern scholarship, while recognising that he/she will undoubtably come with the preconception that the Gospel Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew. In other words, I'm aiming at a general reader, not a scholarly one. (Any PhD student who comes to Wikipedia for his research will deserve the unhappy end towards which he is hurtling).
RetProf, what's the irreducible minimum that you'd like to save from 1.1?
InOc, re the Bauer material, is it really necessary? Do we really need to hypothesise over what Papias was trying to do? And even if the answer to that is 'yes', I'd then ask how widely accepted Bauer's position is - do a majority of modern scholars feel that Papias wrote about Matthew in order to defend a Greek text (if that's Bauer's thesis)?
Re hedging: I try to copy what my sources say. If they say "most modern scholars say...", so do I. If they don't I don't. Generally. It would be a good thing to do it consistently, of course.
Minority views: Yes, but how do we distinguish a notable minority from a fringe? I can't - that's why I rely on modern sources that say "most scholars..." or "many scholars..." or whatever. Anyway, please tell us what specific minority non-fringe views you think need to be covered.PiCo (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi PiCo, I guess the criteria for a Wikipedia:Notable minority would be tens of millions of followers worldwide, lots of money, big buildings and a long history - therefore a Pontifical Commission is a non-fringe view, as would be whatever the mainstream fundamentalist-conservative evanglical view is. Specifically the mentions of Roman Catholic and fundamentalist US Protestant views in the existing sections should be W:preserved, where they occur, as a second view to the SBL critical view. You can spot them as I can. Sure Papias can be left to the Papias article. CheersIn ictu oculi (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the pontifical commission finding of 1911 is still current - it was issued at a period when the Papacy was fiercely resisting modernism, including modern critical methodologies, and stressing tradition instead - therefore, said the Commission, the tradition of two millennia trumps all. Later, in the 1940s, a new pope issued a new ruling and said that critical methods were permissible after all. The upshot is that the Catholic Church today takes no official position on matters like this. PiCo (talk)
Okay, fair enough, but please leave whatever conservative/traditional views have modern mainstream references.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste of duplicate material

Dear RetProf. Since this concerns duplicate contributions to Talk:Gospel of Matthew, Talk:Canonical gospels, Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus, Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament I make the comment here (as per archive) to make it clear, the concern is twofold: 1. Some of the claims in the below section [e.g. most easily identifiable that the Acts church "revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php "] were introduced into the text of Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews on a claimed "merge" of Authentic Gospel of Matthew - yet the content is not found in either article. 2. Re the duplication of this section verbatim on several pages:

CUT AND PASTE DUPLICATE SECTION
Matthew, a Galilean and the son of Alpheus [2] collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas.[3][4][5] Matthew was "called" by Jesus of Nazareth to be one of the Twelve Disciples.[2][4][6][7][8] As a disciple, Matthew followed Christ, and was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension.
It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish.[9][10][11][12] They remained in and about Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jesus son of Joseph was the promised Messiah. These early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes.[13][14] It is near certain that Matthew belonged to this sect, as both the New Testament and the early Talmud affirm this to be true.[5][15][16][17][18][19]
As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This Oral Tradition interpreted the Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.[20][21][22] It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Oral Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" or Logia to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]
This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the consequent upheaval of Jewish/Christian social and legal norms. Jewish Christians were required to face a new reality— without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study), the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period of upheaval, that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.[20][22][25][26][27][31][32][33]
The resulting diaspora, (or Tefutzot תפוצות, "scattered") after the defeat in the Great Jewish Revolt meant Jews were scattered throughout the Empire. Matthew (one of the Twelve disciples and a Jew) was part of the Diaspora.[34] The Church Fathers recognized this and Matthew was said to have written the first Gospel out of necessity. [35][36]
ENDS HERE

There is no need for this to be duplicated verbatim on several Wikipedia pages. I suggest in the friendliest possible manner than perhaps you first decide which page this content belongs on, and then submit to the review of peers there. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


RetProf
>I agree with Ictu to revise and in some places remove duplication<
I'm very sorry but Ictu did not propose that you "revise and in some places remove duplication", Ictu proposed that the removal of the whole section which you have cut and pasted from Gospel of the Hebrews, and has been removed twice (and reverted by yourself twice) be removed and stay removed. Given that no one apart from yourself has shown support for its presence here, I have restored the earlier edit by PiCo which removed it and it is now removed. It is not a "good will gesture" to insist that cut and paste of your own content stay on the page with only you acting as gatekeeper/owner of an article into which you have pasted a large block of duplicate content. Removed. If you want to edit, please edit here.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
And immediately the large block of cut and paste material from Gospel of the Hebrews is back "It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish" etc reverted. What will it take to remove this?In ictu oculi (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ret.Prof
Think what you will, it is not normal for any Wikipedian to have cut and pasted duplicate material of this sort or this length into half a dozen articles. If you really want to edit this material 1.1. then you could do so on one article (which I presume will be Gospel of the Hebrews since that appears to be where you originated the 1.1 section which you cut and pasted here). In the meantime, since you have again restored the duplicate section 1.1 the first proposal remains to remove 1.1.

Consensus at Wikipedia is not about voting. And how did my oppose get put below. Ictu are you now voting on my behalf? - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Support In Ictu
Support PiCo (as above)
Oppose Ret Prof. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplication issue resolved?

As I explained to you before, I actually agree, therefore I fixed the duplication from the articles - which you now seem to be undoing?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste concerns cover for Ictu POV pushing

Ictu has been dramatically saying that he is upset over what he calls "cut and paste concerns". As a good will gesture, I was going to replace the "material he found so very upsetting" with the material from Blackwell's article on the Gospel as it covers the same points as in the article but with different wording. He rejected this compromise. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that most of his concerns, even those that sound good are a cover for his POV pushing. This is not acceptable for Wikipedia articles must be written from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

I see that my position is being misrepresented (See reflections). My primary concern is that the Gospel of Matthew must be written from NPOV. This is not happening! There are several different aspects that come up when writing about this topic:

First Issue - Duplication or Back to the Fountainhead

  • Jerome explained "The New Testament, was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who was the first in Judea to produce a Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead. [1] [2]
  • Cassels, Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker, Butz, etc., are agreed, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, under various names, such as the Gospel according to Peter, according to the Apostles,the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians, etc., with modifications certainly, but substantially the same work, was circulated very widely throughout the early Church. [3] [4]
  • [1]Google Link [2]Google Link
    • If I understand your position correctly, since Matthew, the Hebrew gospel and the Oral tradition are mentioned in other articles it represents "duplication" and therefore all the above scholarship must be deleted from this article.
    • My position is that this is a false reading. This scholarship is essential to understanding the topic and therefore is allowed. I further believe that Ictu is using this as a cover for POV pushing.
    • If Ictu prevails on this issue, then the above mentioned scholarship should remain in this article but removed from other articles.

    Second Issue - Matthaei authenticum

    Close to 75 ancient historical writings from the time of Jesus to the time of Jerome (c.385 C.E.), state Matthew wrote an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus called the Hebrew Gospel or sometimes the Gospel of the Hebrews. No ancient source either Christian or non-Christian disputes this. There are many scholars such a Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, who agree with the historical sources and explain why. Then there those who disagree such as Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.
    • If I understand your position correctly all material from the Church Fathers, as well as all the scholarship of Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, should be deleted and the article should be written from the narrow point of view of Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.
    • My position is that is serious POV pushing, particularly since these works are not even about Matthew or the Gospel of Matthew (see below)

    Third Issue - Matthew and the Gospel of Matthew

    What is the relationship of Matthew to the Canonical Gospel of Matthew?
    1. The Roman Catholic position is that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible was written by Matthew and is authentic.
    2. Liberal scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew is a "false Matthew" written by an unknown redactor long after the time of Matthew.
    3. A third group believe the Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew (See Aramaic original) was used as one of the sources of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew.
    • If I understand your position, because some scholars have argued that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew should be deleted from the article. Also since Matthew is mentioned in other parts of Wikipedia it is duplication to mention him in this article.
    • Here I most strongly disagree. Removing Matthew from the Gospel of Matthew seems a little counterintuitive. I did a quick Google search and found almost all articles on the Gospel of Matthew had a section on Matthew. Even those sources that believe Matthew did not write "his" gospel had a section on Matthew. Google Link I thought we came to consensus with Blackwell's article but I see you removed all my edits that were based on that source. Unfortunately, I must accept your deleting my work. However it should be noted that I did not suggest "Blackwells" but accepted it as a compromise.

    We must work out these three issues. If we cannot, then we must seek outside help. We, as editors, must work together to compose a NPOV article. (See Reflections at User talk:Ret.Prof) Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

    Dear Ret.Prof
    Can you please not refactor the Talk page
    Other editors
    Is there anyone who supports RetProf's section Gospel_of_Matthew#Matthew_the_Evangelist which is a cut and paste here from Gospel of the Hebrews? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

    Keeping Ictu Honest: It is not about canvassing or alternate accounts but references. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

    Dear Ret.Prof
    If you have anything to say about my honesty, or anyone else's honesty, or any other personal matter by all means feel free to say it. However I see no evidence for "canvassing" and "alternate accounts" by any of the editors here.
    Other editors,
    Back to the issue at hand, we still have RetProf's cut and paste section Gospel_of_Matthew#Matthew_the_Evangelist 1.1 verbatim from Gospel of the Hebrews. Is there anyone who is in favour of keeping this cut and paste duplicate material? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    You missed the point. If you get 10 editors who share your POV, at Wikipedia that means nothing. It is about references - reliable sources not votes. Sorry if I was a bit harsh. Have a good day. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

    Dear Ret.Prof Well it does mean something, by the 3RRR it means 20 reverts to 2 reverts. I note you restored the duplicate cut and paste sections from Gospel of the Hebrews written by yourself on all pages.

    Other editors, As before, if anyone supports or opposes they should add support or oppose at:

    etc. Or other editors may do as Ret.Prof is doing and forgo voting for use of the undo function. Or alternatively if you believe this section genuinely needs to be on multiple articles on Wikipedia then please say so and I will desist in proposing that the duplication be removed. Regards In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

    Dispute summary request

    The disputes above have become unwieldy to sort through. Could someone please provide a short summary of the main points of contention so that additional editors can be solicited to weigh in? Eusebeus (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

    Welcome to the Gospel of Matthew where confusion rules. By the way I love your user name. My biggest problem is the approach to editing at this and other related articles (See Reflections on my talk page). We are not a pleasant, jocular bunch to say the least. I have carefully researched the edit histories here and at related articles (IE the Gospel of the Hebrews). As far as I can tell the problem seem to have originated with a now banned editor named user:CheeseDreams circa 2004. I noticed you have had a "taste". Do think CheeseDreams was unfairly banned? Is he still active on Wikipedia. Is he still active here? Who is responsible for seeing he does not evade his block with alternate accounts?
    Since you are a new face, maybe you would like to act as an informal mediator. Your first request is a wise one. Most of us have lost our focus. All of us should put forward a short summary of what we believe. I was planning to walk away from this topic, as I am now making few ConstEdits and this topic is not bringing out the best in me. (Talk about understatement!) However, I found your summary request encouraging and will start working on my short summary of the main points. Thanks again for weighing into this topic. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

    Summary - In ictu oculi

    I regret that PiCo posted a very good summary and then had second thoughts and decided to undo it.
    There are two related items in dispute:
    (1) I have proposed to remove the subsection "Matthew the Evangelist" 1.1 which appears, in its entirety, in three other articles across Wiki. I think this is excessive, but I am also using it as a test case, because if neutral editors cannot see that 1.1 should be removed, and more importantly will support its removal, then there is no hope of the more mainstream/important/useful edits PiCo is proposing getting made. My hope is that once a clear case of duplicate POV material is removed then it will open the field for PiCo and others to get on with (2)
    (2) is the excessive length of the "Composition" section, of which the duplicate 1.1 subsection is now a part. I share PiCo's concern in that the article appears to treat the Wiki-reader as if he/she's a PhD student. In fact that's not the case, since the content in these sections is pseudo-academic at best at would get thrown out at highschool level, let alone freshman. But it "appears" PhDlevel. I agree with PiCo that Average Wikireader as an interested but not very knowledgeable member of the general public. This means that I also see this article as just setting out basic information, not arcane details. The problem with my approach (which hasn't worked) is that I've been trying to correct arcane details which are fringe/wrong/POV as well as arcane. PiCo's approach, just simplify, has a great deal to recommend it.
    However this is all theoretical, since the ends to both, and the obstacle to both are the same.
    As PiCo correctly said earlier, his approach (2) would necessitate (1) removal of the subsection "Matthew the Evangelist" 1.1 so I propose let's find out first if (1) can be removed, because if it can't we're wasting everyone's time planning (2).
    SUMMARY if 1.1 can't be removed, forget cleaning up anything else.In ictu oculi (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for these summaries. May I suggest the following. The confusion on this page is considerable, so I would propose a brief editing moratorium. I will ask editors from various related wikiprojects to take a look and weigh in, as well as evaluate the case myself. I have been reverting edits at the Gospel of the Hebrews, where there is also much confusion, so perhaps we could extend the moratorium to that page as well pending some fresh and neutral eyes. Eusebeus (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    A wise suggestion. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

    RfC

    This page has become the object of dispute, laid out in the section above. For the purposes of bringing some clarity to this issue, this section should be reserved for outside editors only who can thereby weigh in on the relative merits of the dispute. In ictu oculi (talk · contribs) and Ret.Prof (talk · contribs) have offered plenty of back and forth above (and are welcome to continue), but let's please reserve this space solely for those who are not involved in the dispute.

    Seems a bit harsh but I will assume Good faith - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

    There are three basic questions.

    1. Should the section on Matthew the Evangelist be removed from this article since it duplicates content found elsewhere?
    2. Should the Composition section be rewritten, shortened & simplified?
    3. What constitutes WP:FRINGE with respect to Matthean scholarship? What source or sources should be considered authoritative in terms of outlining the evidence for composition?

    Please include comments or any additional insights below. Thanks. Eusebeus (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

    • Comment by PiCo

    The dispute is largely between InInct and RetProf, and although I've had some involvement it hasn't been nearly so intense, so I'll post here.

    The section under dispute concerns the authorship of the gospel. If we follow In Ictu's suggestion, then we need to consider just one issue: should this section include several hundred words on Matthew the Evangelist? Did he write this gospel? If he's the author, then the section belongs; if he's not, if he's just a figure to whom an anonymous work became attached at a later date, then it's much harder to justify.

    There's certainly a tradition that he did, dating back to the 2nd century, but, and I quote Blackwell's Introduction to the New Testament, "Most scholars doubt this tradition." (Blackwell's Introduction etc, p.174). Even Edwards, one of the modern scholars RetProf quotes in support of the idea that Matthew wrote Matthew, actually says he didn't - he calls the idea that he did "a mistake", one "very easy to make". (Edwards, "Hebrew Gospel", p.252)

    RetProf probably accepts that most scholars today don't think Matthew wrote the gospel that has his name, but his position, as I understand, is that we should give equal weight to traditional sources, sources from the 2nd century to the 18th, which is when the tradition began to be questioned. I wouldn't call these sources "fringe" - Eusebius and Jerome are far from that. "Fringe" just isn't the appropriate term. The correct question is, do they have equal authority with modern scholars? I'd say no: our task in scholarly articles is to show the reader the current consensus on questions. That said, I certainly think the ancient tradition should be mentioned - it's part of the history of the subject - but we need to make clear that modern scholarship, in this case, shares a very different idea about the authorship of this gospel.

    (Actually, in all modesty, I'd like to point to the proposed draft for a new section that I pasted in an earlier thread, not too far above this one - short, comprehensive, and balanced, IMHO).PiCo (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

    • Comment by Eusebeus

    First off, since Edward's work is being bandied about quite a bit, the reviews are starting to trickle in and they are fairly lukewarm regarding his thesis. (See DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0922.2010.01448_22.x; DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9418.2010.00630.x; doi: 10.1177/0014524610364908.) From the latter, Professor Foster's concluding comment reflects the general tenor: "overall its plausibility fails, the evidence on which so many of its inter-related theories are constructed is too slender, and the way the Patristic evidence is fitted to the Procrustean bed of his ‘Hebrew Gospel’ theory means that in all probability these ideas will be seen as an idiosyncratic proposal, rather than a compelling challenge to any of the major proposed solutions to the synoptic problem." Per WP:RS, Wikipedia articles should not be presenting fringe views that have failed to attract general consensus.

    With respect to the authorship question, and I agree we should tackle this straight off, it should certainly be noted that the early Christian tradition ascribed authorship to Matthew. No serious modern scholarship, however, accepts this view. I agree with PiCo - what should be elaborated in this article is the prevailing views about why this authorship was so ascribed, not treat it as a serious alternative. As such, the section on Matthew should be eliminated and a summary overview of the prevailing scholarly consensus be provided, with relevant links provided to our articles on Papias, etc.... Eusebeus (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

    • Comment by History 2007

    I think both In ictu oculi and RetiredProf are very good editors. My suggestion: Nobody does anything until Monday, so everyone will calm down, and a new week begins. I will not even bother to read the details of the debate, because heated debates are usually not the best. So 3-4 days will not make a difference to a document that is 2,000 years old. I actually have no interest in the details of teh debate, but I do think that this effort can be put to better use in improving articles that need real help if 3-4 days are allowed to pass. History2007 (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

    • History2007, Eusebeus, PiCo, the above all sounds good to me and I don't have anything further to say. Clearly I now have history with RetProf (though I didn't go looking for it), since I have been trying for about 3 months now to introduce exactly the sort of sources PiCo is proposing and found the "Hebrew Gospel" material to be resolutely defended by the revert button. For the record I don't object to 4th Century primary sources being used alone without academic context example from 06 Jan 2009, but it is better to use academic sources. But I'm going to stand back from this page now and see whether the three of you or others can improve the article. I will not comment on the talk page unless specifically asked to, but I will lurk, and if I see RetProf revert edits by other editors and put the words "no Consensus" in the comment box I will immediately re-revert the revert to W:Preserve the work of the other editor. That seems to me to be the best contribution I can make at this point. Good luck with cleaning up the article.In ictu oculi (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

    Good Will & Format

    I am finally starting to feel good about this article. It also appears that Ictu is prepared to meet me half way. His pleasant and polite attitude is the example we must all follow. I plan to try to meet all his concerns. Don't get me wrong. There a still major differences that will take a while to work out. I have looked at other articles and taken the liberity of formatting. Please note it is not written in stone and is open to improvements. I have also contacted Admin. User:Jayjg and asked for his help through the difficult patches as he is a skilled diplomat. I look forward to working with you in the weeks (and months? ahead) - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for contacting me. The first thing that needed to be done was to archive a large amount of stale material from the page, so that the salient and current issues could be found and read. I've done that now. Please don't undo it. Jayjg (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    Proposed Draft Edit # 1 - Lead

    The Gospel According to Matthew (Greek: κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον, kata Matthaion euangelion, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον, to euangelion kata Matthaion), commonly shortened to the Gospel of Matthew or simply Matthew, is one of the four canonical gospels and is the first book of the New Testament. This synoptic gospel is an account of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It details his story, from his genealogy through to his Great Commission.[1] [2]

    The Gospel is well written. Its rhythmical and often poetical prose[3] make it suited for public reading, and it remains a popular liturgical choice. [4] Certain details of the Infancy Narrative and the Church (or ecclesia) are mentioned only in Matthew. [5]

    The Gospel of Matthew is closely aligned with 1st-century Judaism and can be broken down into five distinct sections: the Sermon on the Mount (ch 5-7), the Mission Instructions to the Twelve (ch 10), the Three Parables (ch 13), Instructions for the Community (ch 18), and the Olivet Discourse (ch 24-25). Some believe this was to reflect the five books of the Pentateuch. [6] [7] The Gospel of Matthew stresses how Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy and also emphasizes obedience to and preservation of the Jewish Law.[8] [5]

    The authorship and composition of the Gospel of Matthew continues to be the subject of heated debate. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations is that the Apostle Matthew composed the Gospel of Matthew. Scholars such as Craig Blomberg, F. F. Bruce and Gregory Boyd support the position of Matthean authenticity. [9] [10][11] However, this position has been challenged by leading scholars such as Bart Erhman. They argue that the Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew but rather it was composed by an unknown redactor, in Greek, long after the time of Matthew. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16][17] A third group of scholars lead by Nicholson, Edwards, Tabor and Butz support the position of Erhman in that they argue the Gospel of Matthew is not authentic. However, they then go on to say that the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, Ebionites and other Hebrew Christians indeed was written by Matthew. [18] [19] There are also numerous variations of the aforementioned scholarly positions.

    Discussion

    Pretty good, but I'd prefer leaving the Lead till last - otherwise we'll get bogged in petty squabbles before we even touch on the article itself. PiCo (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for the kind words. This first edit seems to have offended no one. You are correct that we should come back to it at the end of our collaboration and revise it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

    Consensus

    • Qualified: This edit is pretty good, but we should come back to it at the end of our collaboration and revise it.

    Status

    (NB: If any editor objects to the posting of this edit, they may temporarily revert the edit pending consensus)

    • Posted March 31, 2011
     Done— To me, "leave the lede until last" simply means "no changes to the lede (summary) until the text it summarizes has been accepted".
    Also, the way to handle fringe theories is to enhance the readers' knowledge that a theory happens to be "on the edge". If such theories can be shown to have scholarly, reliable sources, then they must be included in the article. If the sources are believed by someone to be unreliable and/or not scholarly, then the easiest path to resolution is probably to bring the source up on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which can be done by any editor. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    Agreed. I am disappointed but accept your revert. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

    Proposed Draft Edit # 2 - Matthew

    Place draft edit here______________________

    Discussion

    Please start with the worst section - This Talk is getting pulled off track by the Jewish-Christian Gospels. Talk on Gospel of Matthew should start with the problem with this article. The worst section is Gospel_of_Matthew#Matthew_the_Evangelist

    • Propose - All but the fist 3 lines are moved to Talk, as per PiCo's edit, but leaving first 3 lines and a link to MAIN|Saint Matthew.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

    Ictu, would you honor us by doing the first draft of the proposed edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

    1. As PiCo points out, print encyclopedias don't have wikilinks to enable the reader to click through to

    Main article: Matthew the Apostle

    Also

    2. The section PiCo tried to delete (and I supported) is a DUPLICATE cut and paste to/from the Matthew article and other articles:

    CUT AND PASTE DUPLICATION OF MESSIANIC POV MATERIAL FROM/TO ST MATTHEW ARTICLE + ELSEWHERE
    Matthew, a Galilean and the son of Alpheus [2] collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas.[3][4][5] Matthew was "called" by Jesus of Nazareth to be one of the Twelve Disciples.[2][4][6][7][8] As a disciple, Matthew followed Christ, and was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension.
    It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish.[9][10][11][12] They remained in and about Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jesus son of Joseph was the promised Messiah. These early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes.[13][14] It is near certain that Matthew belonged to this sect, as both the New Testament and the early Talmud affirm this to be true.[5][15][16][17][18][19]
    As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This Oral Tradition interpreted the Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.[20][21][22] It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Oral Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" or Logia to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]
    This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the consequent upheaval of Jewish/Christian social and legal norms. Jewish Christians were required to face a new reality— without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study), the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period of upheaval, that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.[20][22][25][26][27][31][32][33]
    The resulting diaspora, (or Tefutzot תפוצות, "scattered") after the defeat in the Great Jewish Revolt meant Jews were scattered throughout the Empire. Matthew (one of the Twelve disciples and a Jew) was part of the Diaspora.[34] The Church Fathers recognized this and Matthew was said to have written the first Gospel out of necessity. [35][36]
    DUPLICATION FROM/TO ST MATTHEW ARTICLE +ELSEWHERE ENDS HERE

    This is all basically, after the first 3 lines, what is technically known as total hogwash. But can be deleted anyway, hogwash or not, since it is just cut and paste from an article which can be wikilinked.

    So Repeat proposal. :) Delete all duplication, except 1st 3 lines. Check 1st 3 lines' sources actually support statements, then go to couch, pour a Martini, put on some Bach, have some cheese and crackers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

    RetProf
    The problem is you should not be editing Messianic POV material that you yourself posted. You had the opportunity when you cut and pasted this material into the article in the first place here
    The cut and paste of new material is disguised with "Temporarily reverted edits by Ictu" but the new cut and paste section on Matthew is given away by page size jump from 63,185 bytes to 73,487 bytes:
    (cur | prev) 01:31, 15 March 2011 Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) (73,487 bytes) (Temporarily reverted edits by Ictu - no consenus - See talk page) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 00:39, 15 March 2011 AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) m (63,185 bytes) (Dating maintenance tags: [citation needed]) (undo)
    What is actually happening in this "revert" (deletion of some mainstream scholarly refs I put in) is actually a wholesale cut and paste of new material you have cut and pasted into other articles also here - comparing 15 March to 7 March: "It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish" ... As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This Oral Tradition interpreted the Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. http //www ahavat-israel com/torat/index php Ahavat Torat Israel etc..... This is the cut and paste PiCo tried to delete, you reverted, I deleted your revert, you reverted. You have cut and pasted a large amount of Messianic non-W:NPOV text from elsewhere and now you want to edit it? No, sorry, the proposal that has been made is:
    Proposal = delete cut-and-paste section leaving only the 1st three lines. That is the proposal as it stands. If you want to make a counter proposal that your cut and paste section be edited, by you, to a new section, then propose it, but since you would be editing your own work I suggest you should instead take it to a W:Sandbox. Thanks.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

    For reference, I have deleted all but first 2 lines from Talk:Saint Matthew and proposed editing of partially duplicate material at Talk:Gospel/Talk:Canonical gospels. Part of the duplicate material issues in edits here, but I am slightly confused by one thing. The duplicate material "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php " enters the Gospel of the Hebrews article on 1-3 October but back on the Authentic Gospel of Matthew before merge has no mention of "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php " I could easily be confused, the trail here is very hard to follow... In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Anyway, don't let that distract from the proposal to delete cut and paste content.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=100&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&um=1&tbo=u&tbs=bks%3A1&tab=wp&q=Torah%20Shebichtav&spell=1&sa=X

    Does this Google Link help? - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    Hello Ret Prof.
    No, sorry but the Google link doesn't help. The Google link doesn't explain how Messianic POV content such as "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php " which wasn't in 2 articles on the morning of 3 October 2010 had by the evening of 3 October 2010 entered the merged Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews article. Nor does the Google link explain how the same content then entered Gospel of Matthew here with a page size jump from 63,185 bytes to 73,487 bytes. Where did this sentence "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php " originate? Did you
    I'm asking a fair question am I not? As you've reverted 2 editors attempts to remove the cut and paste it is reasonable to ask you this question isn't it?In ictu oculi (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • And the same text was planted here and here though you have no redirected to your article created from the REDIRECT canonical gospels. How many times does this material need to be on Wikipedia? And why should deleting this cut and paste duplicate paragraph here even be worth discussing.?In ictu oculi (talk)

    Re CUT AND PASTE DUPLICATION, please note much of the duplication has already been fixed, but Jesus and other aspects of this article will be duplicated in other articles because they are both important and relevant. I actually share your concerns and am prepared to rework it. Still, I have been researching the topic, and most articles include at the beginning of their "composition" section:

      • Matthew: Articles on the Gospel of Matthew have a section on Matthew's relationship to his Gospel. Even those who contest that Matthew wrote the Gospel which bears his name put forward his supposed relationship and then present their arguments why the Gospel of Matthew is not authentic. The question is one of degree. Ranging from conservatives & Roman Catholics on one extreme (See the New Catholic encyclopedia), to liberals on the other. Here the challenge will be to get the balance right ie NPOV. Linking to Matthew can be helpful. List of suggested references

    I still think the above is important to the topic, but only as how it relates to the composition of the gospel. I am willing to work on an edit that meets your concerns. Don't get me wrong . There still may be hogwash, but it will be well-referenced hogwash from a neutral point of view. Are you still willing to meet meet me half way. Now I am about to go to couch, pour some Merlot, put on some Bach, and have some imported cheese (but no crackers ;) Have a good weekend - Ret.Prof (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC) PS - Please explain how worship at the Temple and the Oral tradition equal Messianic POV content?

    See below - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

    Origin of Torah Shebiktav and Torah Shebeal Peh material?

    Dear Ret Prof, it is just my opinion that the statement that the part of the duplicate material that says of the the Acts church "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh" sounds like Messianic POV content to me, i.e. that is my opinion. Could you please answer the question as to the origin of this material:

    What is the origin of this duplicate material? ___________________________________________ Please. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

    The Torah Shebiktav is the Written Torah. According to tradition, God dictated the entire Torah (except for the very last part of the book of Deuteronomy) to Moses in the Sinai desert. See Google Link for a list reliable sources. The Torah Shebeal Peh is the Oral Law. See Google Link for a list reliable sources. I do not think it is Messianic POV content? In any event if you find the "non-English" terminology offensive we can drop it. Still a little confused but I hope I answered your question? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    Ret.Prof, It's not that I find non-English terminology offensive, nor even that this is Messianic POV, the problem is what I said the problem is; namely that in an edit when you said you were "merging" two articles, somehow this Messianic POV content crept in, and then was cut-paste duplicated to here. Therefore I'd like to know from where you sourced this content. Did you:
    Can you please answer the question: ___________________________________________.
    This is a reasonable question. Will you please answer it, (a) or (b).In ictu oculi (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

    Actually at wikipedia it is not a reasonable question. (See Relections on my talk page). At Wikipedia it is not important who wrote something or if it reflects my point of view. The only issue is references. So the answer is that it is solidly supported by the reliable sources. The Torah Shebiktav is the Written Torah. According to tradition, God dictated the entire Torah (except for the very last part of the book of Deuteronomy) to Moses in the Sinai desert. See Google Link for a list reliable sources. The Torah Shebeal Peh is the Oral Law. See Google Link for a list reliable sources. So please stop playing games and find some references that support your position. I hope that was not too harsh. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

    Draft new section: "Authorship, composition and date"

    Confused by this Talk page? I certainly am. I read through the thread immediately above this and couldn't make head or tail of it.

    And so, in an heroic though possibly doomed attempt to create a useful discussion on the article, I offer the following. The idea is that it would replace the existing section headed "Composition," which is far too long and turgid. Exactly how long and turgid it needs to be is a matter of taste, but I certainly think that less would be better - our audience is the general reader with an interest in the subject but no academic background therein, not bible scholars with PhDs up to their elbows. (Try citing Wikipedia in your next paper to the SBL and see what reception you get).

    I've separated it out into sentences to make it easier to comment, but they should be read sequentially. The four sentences make up the first paragrpah, and deal with the traditional authorship (and the reference is Dennis C. Duling, Gospel of Matthew, in Aune, David E., (ed) "The Blackwell companion to the New Testament" (Blackwell Publishing, 2010), pp. 301-2

    • Papias of Hierapolis (c.125-150 CE) wrote: "Matthew put together (or in some manuscripts, "wrote") the sayings (logia) in the Hebrew dialect and each one translated them as he was able."
    • Papias does not identify this "Matthew", but it is likely that he meant the tax-collector named "Levi" in Mark and Luke, although Levi does not appear as a disciple of Jesus.
    • Modern scholars interpret Papias to mean that Matthew made a collection of Jesus's sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic, which others then translated.
    • By the end of the 2nd century the Papias tradition had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts.

    I don't want to overburden everyone with any more at this stage, so please, comments on this as the first paragraph of the proposed section. PiCo (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

    PiCo. Page confusion like this?
    Support - I would be completely happy with this. Parallel with fixing this paragraph I think we should still first delete the cut-and-paste duplicate section from Gospel of the Hebrews which does not need to be four times on Wikipedia. As you already supported and deleted would you please add the word "Support" under the below proposal. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

    Proposal to delete duplicate cut and paste section

    Proposal to delete this section copied verbatim from Gospel of the Hebrews to here 15 March:
    CUT AND PASTE DUPLICATION OF MESSIANIC POV MATERIAL FROM/TO ST MATTHEW ARTICLE + ELSEWHERE
    Matthew, a Galilean and the son of Alpheus [2] collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas.[3][4][5] Matthew was "called" by Jesus of Nazareth to be one of the Twelve Disciples.[2][4][6][7][8] As a disciple, Matthew followed Christ, and was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension.
    It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish.[9][10][11][12] They remained in and about Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jesus son of Joseph was the promised Messiah. These early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes.[13][14] It is near certain that Matthew belonged to this sect, as both the New Testament and the early Talmud affirm this to be true.[5][15][16][17][18][19]
    As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This Oral Tradition interpreted the Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.[20][21][22] It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Oral Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" or Logia to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]
    This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the consequent upheaval of Jewish/Christian social and legal norms. Jewish Christians were required to face a new reality— without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study), the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period of upheaval, that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.[20][22][25][26][27][31][32][33]
    The resulting diaspora, (or Tefutzot תפוצות, "scattered") after the defeat in the Great Jewish Revolt meant Jews were scattered throughout the Empire. Matthew (one of the Twelve disciples and a Jew) was part of the Diaspora.[34] The Church Fathers recognized this and Matthew was said to have written the first Gospel out of necessity. [35][36]
    DUPLICATION FROM/TO ST MATTHEW ARTICLE +ELSEWHERE ENDS HERE
    • Proposed - In ictu oculi (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Ret.Prof, see below.

    Counterproposal

    Dennis C. Duling, Gospel of Matthew, in Aune, David E., (ed) "The Blackwell companion to the New Testament" (Blackwell Publishing, 2010), pp. 296 FF

    PiCo and Ictu, thanks for looking at my references. Ictu has won me over. I agree with Ictu to revise and in some places remove duplication and although this source on the Gospel of Matthew is liberal, it does cover the standard points. It further confirms that such issues as the "Oral tradition", "Sitz im Leben" "the destruction of Temple in 70 CE", etc are not only important but standard aspects that need to be covered. Now with Ictu on board we have neared consensus. I had no trouble with PiCo excerpts mentioned above. In addition I found the following excerpts from The Blackwell companion helpful.

    • This work points to key issues in recent scholarship which are worth noting. The first, primarily historical and literary, is the question whether the gospel is really “Christian” in the usual sense of the term. "A number of scholars now hold that it is a Jewish document." "The importance of this issue cannot be underestimated, given worldwide ethnic tensions, especially post-Holocaust Jewish–Christian–Muslim relations."
    • This work points out that scholars typically analyze the gospel text in order to understand "the oral origin", to "a particular "Sitz im Leben" (situation in life)" in the social relations and ethical norms as there is no text without context.
    • We should replace section title,"Matthew the Evangelist" with the section title "Author and setting" p. 301
    • Early "Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–ca. 339 CE), is generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." Indeed, the material from early scholars from Papias to Jerome is used extensively in this book.
    • Matthew is identified as the toll collector from Capernaum, the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee is clearly better than, Matthew, a Galilean and the son of Alpheus[28] collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas.[29][30][31]
    • The Blackwell companion stresses that the "major historical event in the Mediterranean region in the first century was the Jewish Revolt against Rome (66–73 CE). The war resulted in the Roman destruction of the city of Jerusalem and its sacred temple in 70 CE."
    • Legal experts – rabbis and scribes and their interpretations led to "an elaborate oral tradition" which was "eventually codified as the Mishnah about 200 CE" needs to be added our Wikipedia article.

    I will continue on the draft and I am hopeful Ictu will be pleased. I will track Blacks very closely. When I am finished you and others will make further revisions and when we reach consensus, we will then post the edit. Thanks to both PiCo and Ictu for all the hard work and good will. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

    Oppose - The proposal is to remove the cut-and-paste duplicate section (it is already W:Preserved on the Talk page several times, not to mention where Ret.Prof first posted it on Gospel of the Hebrews and other articles. If after removal anyone has other content they want to write, new/old, they can edit as normal without cut and pasting duplicate material.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    I agree with Ictu to revise and in some places remove duplication based on the The Blackwell companion It confirms that such issues as the "Oral tradition", "Sitz im Leben" "the destruction of Temple in 70 CE", etc are not only important but standard aspects that need to be covered. Now with Ictu on board we have neared consensus. I had no trouble with PiCo excerpts mentioned above. In addition I found the following excerpts from The Blackwell companion helpful.
    • This work points to key issues in recent scholarship which are worth noting. The first, primarily historical and literary, is the question whether the gospel is really “Christian” in the usual sense of the term. "A number of scholars now hold that it is a Jewish document." "The importance of this issue cannot be underestimated, given worldwide ethnic tensions, especially post-Holocaust Jewish–Christian–Muslim relations."
    • This work points out that scholars typically analyze the gospel text in order to understand "the oral origin", to "a particular "Sitz im Leben" (situation in life)" in the social relations and ethical norms as there is no text without context.
    • We should replace section title,"Matthew the Evangelist" with the section title "Author and setting" p. 301
    • Early "Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–ca. 339 CE), is generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." Indeed, the material from early scholars from Papias to Jerome is used extensively in this book.
    • Matthew is identified as the toll collector from Capernaum, the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee is clearly better than, Matthew, a Galilean and the son of Alpheus[28] collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas.[29][30][31]
    • The Blackwell companion stresses that the "major historical event in the Mediterranean region in the first century was the Jewish Revolt against Rome (66–73 CE). The war resulted in the Roman destruction of the city of Jerusalem and its sacred temple in 70 CE."
    • Legal experts – rabbis and scribes and their interpretations led to "an elaborate oral tradition" which was "eventually codified as the Mishnah about 200 CE" needs to be added our Wikipedia article.

    I will continue on the draft and I am hopeful Ictu will be pleased. I will track Blacks very closely. When I am finished you and others will make further revisions and when we reach consensus, we will then post the edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

    Action

    It's a bit hard to keep track, but I gathered there was agreement to my proposal for replacing the "Composition" section with something a little shorter, so I've actioned that.

    RetProf, I agree that the bullet-points you quote from Blackwells are important and useful and I want to use at least some of them, but I think you're biting off quite a big mouthful here. I do like your idea of replacing the section title "Matthew the Evangelist" with "Author and setting" - let me work something up that would replace that existing section. PiCo (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


    Archiving

    I increased the frequency of archiving on this page because the discussion was rapid, the page was almost 250k, and it had 32 main threads and a similar number of sub-threads. It was simply too big to load, and too long to read. Automated archiving reduced the size of the page to 90k, which is still very long, but at least readable. The automated archiving was, however, reverted - but the archived material was not removed from the archives, nor were the new archives merged. As a result, further archiving would have duplicated the material in the archives.

    I'm fine with the change of the archiving rate of stale threads from 3 days to 7, but the simple reversion of this archiving was done improperly and was completely inappropriate, given the length of the page and the number of stale threads. The page is now long, but still useable, and all information is available in the archives. Please do not unarchive this page again. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    Text and tone in "Gospel of Matthew"

    The presumptive tone and authoritative text of the following astounded me. "Matthew, a Galilean and the son of Alpheus[19] collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas.[20][21][22] Matthew was "called" by a Jewish rabbi named Jesus to be one of the Twelve Disciples.[19][21][23][24][25] As a disciple, Matthew followed Christ, and was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension. It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish."

    The identity of a specific "Matthew" as the author of the gospel is not an established fact.

    Jesus as a "rabbi" needs clarification in that he may have been widely known as a teacher, but it would take a great deal of evidence (with very little available) to establish him as a priest of the Temple in the common meaning of the word.

    Most readers consider the chosen 12 to be "apostles" and the scores of others as "disciples."

    Typically and commonly the women were witnesses to the resurrection. The Apostle Matthew was one of a group, among many groups, who saw the resurrected Jesus. In Corinthians, Paul describes Jesus as first appearing to Peter and then the other Apostles. Gospel of Luke has Cleopas and a companion as the first witnesses. Gospel of Mark lacks an ending and the apocryphal verses are not trusted.

    It is a very large presumption to assert that Matthew (the presumed author of the Gospel), Mary (which of the 3 or 4???), James the brother of Jesus, and other close followers were Jewish. To the average reader looking up a gospel in Wikipedia, these people very clearly believed in Jesus and were the earliest Christians.

    It requires knowledge of apocryphal (non-canonical) writings such as Gospel of Hebrews and Gospel of Thomas to perceive any validity to these concepts.

    In my opinion, this paragraph (and much that follows it) are in many respects very contradictory to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox teachings, unnecessarily so.

    Wurmanx (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)wurmanx

    Authentic Gospel of Matthew

    Mainstream users editing Gospel of Matthew should be aware of past attempts (apparently by mainstream users) to AfD Authentic Gospel of Matthew, article created by User:Poorman (a euphemism for "Ebionite") and User:Melissadolbeer ; apparently "When this article was merged and redirected, numerous sockpuppets appeared, to restore it." and a flurry of counter-sockpuppet accusations.

    Something strange is evidently going on here, but it's quite clear from the history that 1 or 2 or 3 individuals have been populating Wikipedia with fringe material on "the Hebrew Gospel" (sic) since 2005 and resisting any attempts to revert/delete that material by changing identities. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

    Dear RetProf
    Well I am not anyone, other than myself. If you are Professor Peter of the University of Destiny 2006 that is okay. Just say so. Are you?
    And incidentally, I'm not familiar with all the names above but, for example, it's evident User:Bearnfæder is evidently a completely mainstream user who has no dog in this jumble.
    I'm not sure that Gospel of Matthew has been compromised, other than that so far the other editors have not actually succeeded in removing a single byte of your cut-and-paste contributions from Gospel of the Hebrews nor do I know whether a "full Administrative investigation" is actually going to remove all the Authentic Gospel of Matthew theory material over a dozen articles. Right at the moment the only thing between removing (or toning down) that content is you. You're acting as gatekeeper for that view on a dozen articles.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

    I did a quick dig around. This is the first time I've done this on another user, and I'm perhaps stupid for not having done this before. And also surprised how easy it is. Okay so, from the above link you are User talk:207.81.154.64. Fine, editing under an IP is not a sock puppet. But your very first post 14 June 2010 (I'm assuming the one 2005 edit from that ISP on Stargate Atlantis was a previous subscriber) weighs straight into an Admin saying "I am the Anon from the Okanagan who you accused of vandalism. All my edits are good faith edits. Please explain. 207.81.154.64 (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)" which indicates that you had been involved in edits at Gospel of the Hebrews which an Admin had identified as vandalism. We'd have to look at the day before, 13 June 2010, at Gospel of the Hebrews to work out exactly what the edits the Admin thought were vandalism were (User_talk:207.81.154.64=User_talk:207.194.164.93 identify each other? Then User_talk:96.22.215.70). Your own logged in edits are fairly clean of involvement in Gospel of the Hebrews related controversy until 6 Feb 2009 when you added Gospel of the Hebrews material to James the Just while logged in as Ret.Prof. Whoops!. This isn't exactly the impression that is given on your talk page that you only got involved in Gospel of the Hebrews ‎several months ago User_talk:Ret.Prof#Reflections "Several months ago I started my edit quest. Things got ugly when I finally came to the Gospel of the Hebrews. I have read the extensive edit history and this edit war has been around since 2004." It has hasn't it. I'm surprised that I hadn't bumped into this stuff before 1:37 1 Oct 2010 when i added some very bland mainstream academic sources, which survived exactly 3 hours till you next logged in and deleted it, your bad luck really that someone as bloody minded as myself walked in on your protected territory. I hadn't even looked at Schneemelcher for 15 years, been gathering dust with other reference books on a top shelf in the games room. And I don't even remember reading Vielhauer's "Jewish Gospels" section. The whole New Testament Apocrypha area is for fruitcakes imho (no offence to these worthy Tubingen scholars). And now look at me, I'm persistently trying to get their "critical" SBL views into your protected articles. Rather fortunate for me, and fortunate maybe for the articles, that you cannot accuse me of being a sockpuppet, given, shall we say, my rather distinctive interests in Polish Unitarianism, languages and Spanish renaissance music. I'd like to see a sockpuppet imitate that :D. Thanks by the way for introducing me to various dusty scholars to write bio-stubs on.

    So, back to this article, Gospel of Matthew, given that you've got this long history of, shall we say, engagement for the Gospel of the Hebrews and Authentic Gospel of Matthew, perhaps that'd be a reason to be hands off while other editors decide what to do with this chunk of Gospel of the Hebrews that you have inserted into Gospel of Matthew here? Just a suggestion. I'm 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)

    Talk Page refactored

    To make sense of above, see before Ret.Prof refactor

    Ret.Prof, on the subject of "good faith" you do realise that you brought this on yourself by making (as above) allegations against bona fide users of being sockpuppets, at the same time as yourself carefully avoiding mention of Special:Contributions/Poorman and Professor Peter of the Destiny University 2006. If you hadn't pointed fingers I wouldn't have checked on the pointer.In ictu oculi (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Re. this change] you cannot "agree" with something no one has said. What I said was that the mainstream editors should be able to get on with the job once you have stopped blocking deletion of your cut-and-paste section 1.1 from Gospel of the Hebrews Canonical Gospels and elsewhere. Since my edits consist primarily of trying to remove OR and POV material that it is not limited to material originating from User:Poorman's Authentic Gospel of Matthew article etc. there might well be other material to remove/improve, I just can't see any at this minute. And again other editors should do that. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

    sockpuppets et al.

    Allegations of sock puppetry should not be made on the talk page of an article; please review WP:Sock puppetry#Handling suspected sock puppets. The references to sock puppetry are relevant to this discussion, but only after sock puppetry has been investigated and proven.

    If a request for mediation hasn't been filed (on casual inspection, I don't see one), it would seem that this article needs it.

    I came here because of a notice on a project page. My main and general observation is that you can't see the forest for the trees here. As example, let me point to the fact that in coming to this article, one sees the jargon "Markan priority" before being told that the Sermon on the Mount is part of this Gospel. From what I can see from an admittedly cursory look at the discussion, PiCo is aware of this problem. The article should first describe as simply as possible what this gospel is, and outline its content, before reducing it to a heap of scholarly jargon.

    In short, this is an encyclopedia article for the sort of general reader who might look up Gospel of Matthew. Who might that be? Not a scholar, and not a serious student of religion, who will make direct use of the scholarly sources. It is not a college textbook, which is what you are trying to make of it. It should outline the exegetical questions raised by this gospel, not attempt to decide them. Its first aim, as always, is to describe; please review WP:NPOV#Explanation of the neutral point of view. See also the essay Wikipedia:Describing points of view. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

    Section 1.1

    Question: Is there anyone who wants to see the cut-and-paste Section 1.1 remain in the body of the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

    Supposed Greek

    In the paragraph entitled "Instructions to the Church", in a reference to the Protestant interpretation, it is assumed or asserted that Greek was used in the conversation. Actually, both parties were probably speaking in Aramaic. This makes the remarks about Greek grammar a total waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.45.120 (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

    That section is a good example of the way we need to cut back to encyclopediac statements. That the "thou art Peter" passage from Matthew is used by the Catholic Church to support Papal authority is a fact, and note-worthy, but anything more (especially a discussion of whether this claim is or is not justified) is not our business. (Some other article maybe, but not this one) PiCo (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    PiCo is right. That's exactly how this article is going astray. It is a fact that the statement is so used; it is not the job of this article to go on and on about whether the claim is justified. The article should outline the ways in which the Gospel of Matthew is noteworthy; the article is not itself an exegesis or commentary. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    The simplest would be to wikilink to relevant Matthew sublinks (which readers may not realise are in the side box anyway). I have added in
    Main article: Confession of Peter
    above that content. To the comment of the Anon, well it's often said that kepha, rock and bedrock are the same in Aramaic, but this anon Gospel is in Greek. But Cynwolfe and PiCo are right. This needs moving to the main article (assuming it isn't there already).In ictu oculi (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

    Dual sonship?

    PiCo, per Encyclopedia of World Religions Johannes P. Schadé 2006 "He strongly opposed adoptionism (dual sonship of Christ), resulting in his condemnation of the teachings of Archbishop Elipandus of Toledo, Spain. Adrian II (792-872) Pope from 867 to 872." If so, and it sounds like it is so, then this would confirm that Howard W. Clarke should probably not be taken as a main source in this article.In ictu oculi (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

    Any other editor might like to tweak Joseph="earthly father" phrase from Clarke with a more suitable ref given that the anon author of "Matthew" scrupulously refers to "the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." R. T. France The Gospel of Matthew 2007 p28 "The first two words of Matthew's gospel are literally “book of genesis” (see n. 1 above).8 The effect on a Jewish ... All MSS and versions agree in making it explicit that Joseph was not Jesus' father, with the one exception of sys.." In terms of text and literary form the author's "Book of Genesis of Jesus Christ" opening is probably referenced in another Wikipedia article somewhere and could be wikilinked.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    Done. Couldn't find internal wikilink so just added it.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

    Revised section, Composition

    The dispute between editors relates entirely to the composition of the gospel. We discussed earlier a heavy revision of the section that would make it much shorter and still touch on all the major points - but without going into detail and scholarly jargon that will simply turn away our readers. I had a proposal on Talk before that seemed to be acceptable, and now I've used it to replace the Composition section. I don't think we need to be any longer than this, and I think it touches on everything we need to touch on - the Matthew tradition, how that tradition probably came about, the Jewish roots of the gospel-writer and his community, his sources, the probable date and place of composition. I welcome discussion, but I'd be grateful if we don't simply revert. PiCo (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

    The text now seems reasonably general and makes the valid points about authorship and provenance. It seems as if some of the transitions between topics could be less abrupt.

    The mention of Jerome describes him, parenthetically, of the 5th century. That is only partially accurate since he flourished to a great extent in the 4th century. How about the actual dates, c. 347 to 420 C.E., in the parentheses. It's also interesting that his comments about having worked from a Hebrew text of "sayings" is not included. However, possibly, that's the intro. to another very unsettled scholarly controversy, best left on the sidelines.

    The comment about "insider baseball" is highly appropriate, but there are genuine, modern, scholarly, vehement differences of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wurmanx (talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

    I've added dates for Jerome as you suggest. I'll go back later and have a look at transitions between topics. I feel that mentioning Jerome's comments about working from a Hebrew text of Matthew belongs better on Gospel of the Hebrews, and of course there should be a link to that article somewhere - maybe in the See Also section? "Insider baseball?" PiCo (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    I'd just like to repeat what I said earlier when PiCo posted it as a draft on the Talk page. This new composition section (drawing mainly on Aune, a mainstream SBL author) is excellent. At this point as the editor who added POV tag on the article, suggest it can be removed. Some POV remains in other sections, but what remains is untidy/surplus rather than greatly POV. NB The paragraph "The author drew on three distinct sources" should really begin "Most textual scholars consider that..." seeing as that is the majority, but not only view. (Where was "insider baseball" mentioned?) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

    Deception

    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. This time 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) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


    With best hopes for the future: InIctuOculi and RetProf to bow out of this article

    I've had a personal message from RetProf (on my talk page) saying he would like to withdraw from editing this article. If In Ictu Oculi would like to do likewise, I think it might be the best hope for getting a way to move forward.

    This is the exchange:

    I am taking a break from editing this article. My only request is that when the average reader looks up this article, they are able to know what is going on in clear readable prose. It is a hot topic in academic circles, but also a lot of lay people are now interested in finding out if Matthew wrote a Gospel after all. - Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    Sounds reasonable. Editing Wiki should be a pleasure, not a battle. Have you told InIctu and asked him to do likewise? PiCo (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    Clear readable prose I can do, but the latest scholarship is beyond me - I'm not any kind of scholar, NT or OT or other, I'm a professional writer, I do journalism for a living. PiCo (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    It is not hard, just read Ictu's references and mine and be fair. It is and will be a hot story or Tabor would not be writing about. He likes to sell books and be in the limelight. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

    There have actually been quite a number of editors around in recent weeks - CLIMAX, Ckruschke (talk, and others. I certaibnly don't want to be the only one doing editing - I'd be very happy to leave it to others. As I said to Ret Prof, I'm a writer, not a scholar. But I do think that Wikipedia needs a decent article on this subject. PiCo (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

    Hi PiCo, with respect I don't see any moral obligation to "bow out", I have not been cut-and-pasting chunks of duplicate fringe theory content into the article. In fact I have been trying to preserve a POV-removal of yours that was reverted. Section 1.1 including "It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish" and so on. This kind of POV material needs to go, even if it wasn't cut-and-pasted. It's just very unusual to find this kind of material so tenaciously defended. However, as I said before it would be much better if someone else (e.g. anyone) did the removing. I'm hoping that one of the other editors will actually act to remove that material rather than talk about it.
    You "don't see any moral obligation to bow out"?? How about keeping your word for starters. See

    Deception above - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

    As regards to Ret.Prof's specific request that the reader of the article be made aware of the work of Tabor (presumably The Jesus Dynasty and preface to Jeffrey Bütz' The Secret Legacy of Jesus) that's fine, there should be a mention of minority views. But that doesn't require having content such as "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh." in the article body.
    Going forward: My interest is more in deleting than adding, but with regard to your own edits what I've seen so far is pretty encouraging. However, I'm not sure that for example Prof. Howard W. Clarke's somewhat flowery style (in the genealogy edits) will sit well in the article. Don't get me wrong, I have respect for Clarke as a major authority on classical Greek literature (atUCLA), but this is a "commentary with a difference" so it would probably be better to go with more typical SBL commentaries such as Word or Anchor series, and tertiary sources. There are 2 reviews of The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers: A Historical Introduction to the First Gospel on RBL Eric Noffke, published 8/15/2004 Joel Kennedy, published 8/15/2004 http://www.bookreviews.org/rblSearch.asp It'd be better to simply state what the genealogy is, keep it short, move on. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    "It'd be better to simply state what the genealogy is, keep it short, move on." Agreed, but let's let the proposed Composition section settle in first. PiCo (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

    Jewish elements

    Hi PiCo - I note your edit comment (→Jewish elements: What's the relevance to the Gospel of Matthew?) on a delete in edit history. Looking at the whole section:

    • While Paul's epistles and the other Gospels emphasize Jesus' international scope, Matthew addresses the concerns of a Jewish audience ref name ="Harris"/...... fair enough, though "Harris" doesn't tell us what page Harris says that.
    • The cast of thought and the forms of expression employed by the writer show that this Gospel was written by a Jewish Christian [citation needed] of Iudaea Province. [citation needed].........A yes, B no. How can anyone distinguish a Hellenistic Jewish text from Judea from one from Lebanon, Syria? Hence no source.
    • Portions of the oral sayings in Matthew contain vocabulary that indicates Hebrew or Aramaic linguistic techniques involving puns, alliterations, and word connections. Hebrew/Aramaic vocabulary choices possibly underlie the text in Matthew 1:21, 3:9, 4:12, 4:21–23, 5:9–10, 5:23, 5:47–48, 7:6, 8:28–31, 9:8, 10:35–39, 11:6, 11:8–10, 11:17, 11:29, 12:13–15, 12:39, 14:32, 14:35–36, 15:34–37, 16:18, 17:05, 18:9, 18:16, 18:23–35, 19:9–13, 19:24, 21:19, 21:37–46, 21:42, 23:25–29, 24:32, 26:28–36, 26:52. ref Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard, 1995, pp. 184–190 ref ...............Howard is a book on the medieval Jewish commentary on Matthew The Touchstone. At first glance that list does include some vaguely Jewish idioms, but seeing as Matthew was written in Greek by a Jewish author what's the relevance of this list. Would probably bump this content over to the page on Hebrew Gospels of Matthew which is about the medieval Touchstone text. As is ref to An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel, Hugh Schonfield, 1927, p. 160
    • ref Clontz, T.E. and J., "The Comprehensive New Testament with complete textual variant mapping and references for the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, Nag Hammadi Library, Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, Plato, Egyptian Book of the Dead, Talmud, Old Testament, Patristic Writings, Dhammapada, Tacitus, Epic of Gilgamesh", Cornerstone Publications, 2008, pp. 439–498, ISBN 978-0-9778737-1-5 ref ...........?????? no idea. This is a respectable tool, got a good SBL review. But have no idea what it says pp. 439–498 no comment.
    • The one aim pervading the book is to show that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah — he "of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write" — and that in him the ancient prophecies had their fulfilment. This book is full of allusions to passages of the Old Testament which the book interprets as predicting and foreshadowing Jesus' life and mission. This Gospel contains no fewer than sixty-five references to the Old Testament, forty-three of these being direct verbal citations, thus greatly outnumbering those found in the other Gospels. Matthew uses Old Testament quotations out of context (as is common in Jewish writings such as the Talmud), as individual lines or even letters of Scripture were said to have inspired meanings different from the original ones. ref name ="Harris ......this is all more or less true. I don't really like "out of context (as is common in Jewish writings such as the Talmud" - although it is true, the same is true for Greek and Roman authors of the same period. The way people thought then was more lateral.
    • The main feature of this Gospel may be expressed in the motto "I am not come to destroy [the Law and the Prophets], but to fulfill" (5:17). See also Expounding of the Law. It was the contention of Marcion that Christ had come to destroy the law. http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/Epip13.html&date=2009-10-25+06:05:32 Epiphanius:Panarion: No.42 See Biblical law in Christianity for the modern debate. .......you already deleted this. FWIW I agree.In ictu oculi (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    The edit summary ("what's the relevance to GofM") relates to these lines out of that section: "The main feature of this Gospel may be expressed in the motto "I am not come to destroy [the Law and the Prophets], but to fulfill" (5:17). See also Expounding of the Law. It was the contention of Marcion that Christ had come to destroy the law.[20] See Biblical law in Christianity for the modern debate."
    To explain my deletion in a little more detail:
    (1) Saying "The main feature of this gospel is... (followed by statement or quote)" is a value judgment. Who's judgment is it? We're not told. So my deletion was because of the failure to cite the source. But you're right, it has a lot to do with GofM.
    (2)My edit summary really related to the next part, about Marcion. We agree that this isn't relevant to our article. I guess Marcion would disagree violently with Matthew, but that's something for the Marcion article. (I apologise for an inadequate edit summary - should have been two separate deletions with a summary each).
    All in all there's some useful mainstream material in this section, and I think it can be used as we go on.
    PiCo (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

    Deleted Genealogy section

    I deleted the Genealogy section from this article and moved it to the Talk page of Genealogy of Jesus. The rationale is that it takes up a lot of room here, and it's more efficient to refer readers via hyperlink to the main article - this article just needs a very brief mention.

    All in all, I'm working towards having the summary of the Gospel follow the outline given at the top of the section - it will be easier for readers to follow.

    Comments?PiCo (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

    Sounds/looks very sensible to me. To be honest I'd move Clarke's comment about genealogieS (plural in Clarke?) to that article too. Seems to me a rather novel and complex rationale for what in Second Temple period documents doesn't need explaining - explaining genealogies is a bit like explaining social security numbers. Particularly seeing as Clarke's point applies to the Luke 3 genealogy (from God) wheras Matthew 1 is only from a man - Abraham. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

    User:Ret.Prof - Final Response

    Notwithstanding Ictu'a deceit (see Deception above) I will continue to step back from editing this article. My life experience has taught me that honesty and integrity are alway best in the long term. (See my talk page)

    My greatest disappointment is that Ictu has been successful at making this debate about discrediting me, rather than scholarly debate on the references.

    Old Consensus

    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.

    There was a time when the Catholic view prevailed - which said that the Gospel of Matthew was merely a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. Modern scholars have more or less disproved this position, and called the testimony of the Church Fathers into question. Indeed most scholars in the last century have 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

    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. 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.

    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.

    In closing, let me say that there two issues that we as editors must be aware:

    • The first issue is "did Matthew write a Gospel?" As I pointed out above there are many reliable sources that say the answer is yes. There is considerable historical evidence that Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel which was in wide circulation up to the time of Constantine.
    • The second issue is generally, "What is the relationship of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel to the Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible?" Here the reliable sources are divided into three:
    1. The Roman Catholic and conservative position is that the Gospel of Matthew is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Gospel;
    2. Liberal scholars argue that the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Greek, and therefore could not be based on the Hebrew Gospel, but rather it was composed much later by an unknown redactor.
    3. The third position agrees with liberal scholars that the Gospel of Matthew is not genuine. However, they argue that the Hebrew Gospel was authentic and the basis for the other gospels in varying degrees.

    This is what the all reliable sources say in varying degrees depending on their point of view. Since there is serious disagreement among Biblical scholars, we must work together for both clarity and NPOV in our article. This has not been a pleasant time for me as I have tried to reflect fairly what the references say. As I step back, it is time for good faith editors and admistrators to do their duty. All my best to everyone. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

    New Catholic Encyclopedia

    I thank Ret.Prof. for his admirably clear description of the three possible positions on this. But I deny that #1 is the Catholic position; conservative it undoubtedly is. It was held in all varieties of Christianity at the time of Baronius; it was not distinctively Catholic then. For the opposite reason, it is not distinctively Roman Catholic now; far too many Catholics disagree with it.

    From the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd ed, Catholic University of America, 2003) "The Gospel according to Matthew", Vol. 9, p. 358):

    Historical Situation. A resurgent interest in Matthew's Gospel on the part of Scripture scholars has yielded significant studies of Matthean theology (Kingsbury, Meier) and a few commentaries. As already noted, the view that the Gospel according to Matthew was written by one of the Twelve in Hebrew or Aramaic and is the oldest and most complete account of the life and teachings of Jesus is no longer held. Although the Gospel numbers Matthew as one of the Twelve and describes him as a tax-collector (9:9; 10:3), there is a consensus that the evangelist was most likely a second-or third-generation Christian-Jew, probably trained as a scribe in a school where several versions of the Scriptures were available (Stendahl). Modern scholars see an autobiographical reference in Matthew's esteem for the scribe who brings new things and old out of the treasure house of tradition (13:52). Matthew's Gospel can be dated about A.D. 85, about 15 years after the Jewish revolt against Roman rule. It seems to have been composed in a predominantly Jewish-Christian community, probably in Antioch or some other urban center in Syria or Palestine where the postrevolt reform movement, influenced by the Pharisees of Jamnia, affected the religious environment.

    A Catholic source, both current and reliable; and yet it says that position #1 "is no longer held".

    The distinction between #2 and #3 is a matter of degree; the issue, after all, is the similarity between the Gospel of Matthew as we have it and a text in a different language which does not survive. One intermediate position is that the Fathers (or some of them; are they all writing of the same text?) saw a Gospel in Hebrew which included the Sayings of Jesus or Q which may have been in Hebrew or Aramaic, with Matthew read in Greek. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

    Some notes on Ret.Prof's remarks above

    I can't recognize the literature I am familiar with in any of your synthetic remarks. 'The first issue is "did Matthew write a Gospel?'

    • No. The issue is, 'is Matthew the evangelist the same Matthew as the one identified as writing a Gospel in Hebrew?' Your question is, undoubtedly inadvertently, framed to predetermine one possible inference, in its assumption that Matthew is the Matthew of the New Testament. Modern scholarship almost universally denies that the Matthew here was Matthew the apostle.

    The Roman Catholic and conservative position is that the Gospel of Matthew is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Gospel;

    • That should properly read that 'Patristic tradition held that the Gospel of Matthew was a Greek version of a Hebrew original.' To confessionalize this is highly misleading.

    Liberal scholars argue that the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Greek, and therefore could not be based on the Hebrew Gospel, but rather it was composed much later by an unknown redactor.

    • What 'liberal' means here (non-fundamentalist? Almost all serious scholars are not fundamentalists). You mean: 'Modern scholarship generally agrees that the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Greek.'

    The third position agrees with liberal scholars that the Gospel of Matthew is not genuine. However, they argue that the Hebrew Gospel was authentic and the basis for the other gospels in varying degrees.

    • What do you mean by 'genuine'? No Gospel is 'genuine' in the sense you apparently use the word here. (b) In the present instance . James R. Edwards, whom you cite in support of your positions, actually is opposed to them. He argues that the 'Hebrew Gospel' influenced (special) Luke, not Matthew as we have him (The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition 2009). For Edwards, Matthew is an honorary title for the Gospel by that name, and refers to the Matthew Papias et al referred to, who, however, influenced Luke, not our Matthew, who is properly to be placed as the last of the synoptics, and most distant from the original Hebrew Gospel. That is just one of many details which make your synthetic survey of 'contemporary positions' completely incomprehensible to my eye.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

    Welcome to the two above editors. Unfortunately this talk page is now confusing again due to another large refactor boosting one editor's (though several IPs) convinced view to the end of the talk page, and shifting the discussion on cleaning up the article further up. There's some hope for this article as the number of mainstream editors attracted here is now it seems quite sufficient. That leaves other articles where the above POV can be advanced, including Authentic Gospel of Matthew and Canonical gospels which are basically private blogs, and Jewish-Christian Gospels and Gospel of the Hebrews which are closed to "liberal" (i.e. mainstream/scholarly/academic/properly sourced) content.In ictu oculi (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

    Deletion from Structure/Content section

    I'm trying to turn this section into a description of structure and content, not an exegisis. So I've deleted the following, but would like to keep it on hand in case it can be recycled:

    • The genealogies and infancy stories together demonstrate how Jesus' status as the Messiah and Son of God preceded his birth, and was not conferred after his death (since some of Paul's letters, which pre-date the gospels, give the impression that Jesus' divinity was confirmed only by his death, resurrection and ascension),[21] and the infancy narrative likens him to Moses, in that he escapes a massacre of children and travels from Egypt to the Holy Land.[22][22]

    PiCo (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

    Sound. Is any exegesis consensus of the sources? Interpretation of the Gospels is a different article. Flat theological statements like John 8:58 might be a different matter; but not this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

    I'm also moving this here, as it might be reused later

    • The sermon on the mount is an interpretation of the Law made up of six expositions or antitheses (depending on how the sermon is interpreted, see Expounding of the Law), with parallels to First Chronicles 29:10–18.[23]

    Structure&Content section

    This section is now pretty much done, although I'd like to revise the summary of the Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection - a well-known story, and it's difficult to decide how much to put in and what to leave out. Anyway, please offer any comments and suggestions, or make your own edits. (And please bear in mind that the aim has been to provide a summary of the contents of the gospel, keeping explanations and comment to a minimum). PiCo (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

    Themes in Matthew

    I've added some headings under "Themes". They're taken from this collectyion of essays by Luz, and I think should give us a structure to work with. Does anyone have other suggestions on what themes we need to include? PiCo (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

    Moving from Lead to Talk

    I'm moving the bulk of the lead to the Talk page. This is because there's a tendency to get bagged down with refining the lead, but it really makes more sense to get the article right first and then use that as a basis for the lead. But I don't want to lose the lead entirely, so I'm pasting it here for future use.PiCo (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC) +++

    moved lead

    The Gospel of Matthew is closely aligned with 1st-century Judaism and has been linked to the Jewish-Christian Gospels. It stresses how Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecies.[5] Certain details of Jesus' life, of his infancy in particular, are related only in Matthew; it is the only Gospel to mention the Church or ecclesia.[5] Matthew also emphasizes obedience to and preservation of Biblical law.[8] The Gospel's rhythmical and often poetical prose[3] make it well-suited for public reading, and it is a popular liturgical choice.[4]

    Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed in the latter part of the 1st century by a Jewish Christian.[12] Papias of Hierapolis (c. 110–130) records that "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew dialect." Modern scholars believe that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek[24] by a non-eyewitness whose name is unknown to us.[14] This redactor depended on sources like the Gospel of Mark and Q,[15][16][17] a position known as Markan priority. However, scholars such as Craig Blomberg disagree variously on these points and believe Matthew did write the Gospel.[17][25][9][26]

    The Gospel of Matthew can be broken down into five distinct sections: the Sermon on the Mount (ch 5–7), the Mission Instructions to the Twelve (ch 10), the Three Parables (ch 13), Instructions for the Community (ch 18), and the Olivet Discourse (ch 24–25). Some believe this was to reflect the five books of the Pentateuch, but most do not.[27][28]

    This seems like a sensible temporary move, just need to ensure with the speed it was necessary to reset self-archiving for the Talk page that the lede does not disappear off the top of the Talk page before the article is ready for a lede to go back in. It may be needed to cut and paste lede further down again as the page moves up.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    1. ^ "Gospel of St. Matthew" Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)
    2. ^ Kata
    3. ^ a b Graham N. Stanton (1989), p.59
    4. ^ a b "Matthew, Gospel acc. to St." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
    5. ^ a b c d Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
    6. ^ Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1992 p. 7
    7. ^ Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009, p.37
    8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Amyp373 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    9. ^ a b Strobel, Lee. ”The Case for Christ”. 1998. Chapter one, which is an interview with Dr. Craig Blomberg, notes that he holds that the traditional authors are probably the actual authors for all Gospels, and says about Matthew that he was "a former hated tax collector, he would have been the most infamous character next to Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus!" According to Strobel at the beginning of the chapter, Blomberg "is widely considered to be one of the country's foremost authorities on the biographies of Jesus, which are called the four gospels...[he was a scholar at] Tyndale House and Cambridge University in England, where he was part of an elite group of international scholars that produced a series of acclaimed works on Jesus. For the last dozen years he has been a professor of New Testament at the highly respected Denver Seminary."
    10. ^ F.F.Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, InterVarsity Press 1981. p 30-35
    11. ^ Gregory Boyd, The Jesus Legend: The Case for the Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, Baker Academic, 2007. p 370-380.
    12. ^ a b For a review of the debate see: Paul Foster, Why Did Matthew Get the Shema Wrong? A Study of Matthew 22:37, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 122, No. 2 (Summer, 2003), pp. 309-333 Cite error: The named reference "PFoster" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
    13. ^ Metzger B. Text of the New Testament
    14. ^ a b Bart Erhman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, p.44
    15. ^ a b Brown, Raymond E., 1997, pp. 210-211 Cite error: The named reference "Brown 210" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
    16. ^ a b Bart Erhman (2004), p. 92
    17. ^ a b c Amy-Jill Levine (2001), p.372–373
    18. ^ Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings That Passed from James the Just, Inner Traditions / Bear & Company, 2010. p 174-176
    19. ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009. p 259-260
    20. ^ Epiphanius:Panarion: No.42
    21. ^ Clarke, p.1
    22. ^ a b Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "Matthew" pp. 272–285
    23. ^ Clontz, T.E. and J., "The Comprehensive New Testament with complete textual variant mapping and references for the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, Nag Hammadi Library, Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, Plato, Egyptian Book of the Dead, Talmud, Old Testament, Patristic Writings, Dhammapada, Tacitus, Epic of Gilgamesh", Cornerstone Publications, 2008, p. 451, ISBN 978-0-9778737-1-5
    24. ^ Metzger B. Text of the New Testament
    25. ^ Howard Clark Kee (1997), p. 448
    26. ^ Darrell Bock (9 October 2007), The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities, Thomas Nelson Inc, ISBN 9780785289067, retrieved 16 October 2010 {{citation}}: Text "Darrell L. Bock" ignored (help)
    27. ^ Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1992 p. 7
    28. ^ Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009, p.37
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_Matthew/Archive_5&oldid=1055442075"