Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Blomberg hype by Lee Strobel

(a) I don't think the Papias bit should be in the lead, since almost no modern textual or historical scholar accepts it at face value. It sits very awkwardly there prose wise.

(b) Craig Blomberg does, of course. But has he written a scholarly analysis of Matthew's historicity on this question that would stand peer review by historians? A good many of the problems of writing religious articles on wikipedia stem from an inordinate desire to fish out material that is a fringe minority view from evangelical professors based in the United States, which virtually no biblical scholar elewhere takes seriously. In any case, the hyped up and extensive note on Blomberg by the creationist booster and journalist Lee Strobel (note 14) is definitely fringey. We don't use the huge 6 volume work of Luz, Davies and Allison, but find room for Blomberg, and even highlight what are (technically indefensible) opinions or 'obiter dicta' from people who may have the requisite Phd, but are not specifically know for their creative analytical participation in the complex problems of biblical textual redaction.

(c) Matthew's position is depicted as within Judaism generally in the lead, but historically this is highly controversial, from Dobschuetz's view he was a converted rabbi to those who argue he was a gentile. Etc.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(a) perhaps Papias would be better moved down to date (I would like to see in the article the Aune comments on date).

(b) no particular opinion, but suspect Blomberg would be a second view.

(c) mainstream sources e.g. Eerdmans commentary on the Bible p1001 James D. G. Dunn, etc 2003 almost all have "In this context the author of the Gospel of Matthew seems to be a Jewish teacher who believes in and follows Jesus". The suggestion of Ernst von Dobschütz (1870-1934) is an elaboration on this, but isn't particulary notable is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Papias would be best discussed in the dating.Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think one should distinguish sources that contain opinions from prominent names within the Christian academic and evangelical community from textual conclusions from scholars, Christian or otherwise, whose life is dedicated to specific studies in Biblical hermeneutics, exegesis and redaction analysis. Blomberg seems to fit the former. It may be just my bias, but I am not particularly impressed by material that does not come from a scholar of classical and semitic languages actively working at the forefront of the technical issues of the history of that time. If we could establish for wiki articles in this area a strong criterion for inclusion on the last grounds, much of the fringey opinionated stuff drops away. With all due respect to Blomberg, as quoted, his opinion is just silly and cannot be anchored in any argument intelligible to an historian. The articles would then represent the best that modern research is producing. Non-religious readers like myself or most of the globe do not want opinions by big names. They want, as PiCo is trying to do, the essential facts and the basic key frames of Matthean scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dobschütz's article 'Matthäus als Rabbi und Katechet,' had a pretty big influence in its day (1928) and is considered important enough to be reprinted, in translation, by Graham N.Stanton in Stanton (ed.) The Interpretation of Matthew, (1983) 2nd.ed T&T Clark, Edinburgh 1995pp.27-38. In his intro.Stanton writes: 'Discussion of von Donschütz's view that the evangelist was a converted rabbi is still very much alive.'(p.4). Pure speculation of course, as is his argument that Matthew writes from the aftermath of Yavneh, and was connected to Jochanan ben Zakkai. But nearly everything here, given the nature of evidence, is speculative. Nishidani (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've cut most of the lead and moved it her to the Talk page (below). We can come back and review the lead when the article itself is satisfactory. As for Matthew's Jewish setting, I also got the impression that this is standard. (See this essay by Luz, p.84). There's a book in the article's bibliography, "What Are They Saying About Matthew?", that might be useful on this, but I haven't looked at it yet. PiCo (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

From my recollection of casually reading on this topic for years and years and contributing extensively here on Wikipedia, I have to say a) I cringe when Strobel is put forth as a reliable source on general content, instead of say minority to fringy positions, and as a rule wouldn't want to see him in the lead (though some of that might be personal bias) and b) I really recall most of my sources agreeing that Matthew is generally considered the Jewish gospel (or most Jewish gospel or what have you). -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

All the gospels come out of Judaism indirectly, and much of the material is understandable as coming, to borrow a phrase from Saldarini, 'active deviant associations and sects within Judaism' (cf. Anthony Saldarini, 'Matthew's Christian Jewish Community', U Chicago Pr 1994 p.84). This formula is particularly true of Matthew, if only because it is important to distinguish here the 'Matthew' associated with a Gospel of the Hebrews, from our Matthew. That is why it is not helpful to speak of a 'Jewish gospel' in regard to the Greek prose, and demotic style of Matthew the evangelist. 'most Jewish' . . well, what was 'Jewish' in those days? Certainly the adjective bore a strong ethno-cultural connotation, but the period of Ist century CE was riven by sectarian movements under the large umbrella of Judaism. Matthew has significant attacks on 'their synagogues', the Pharisees and the Jerusalem elite, and is in a halfway house that can and has been interpreted as either wholly within, or distinctly a step outside the house of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Any ideas on what we can put in the Themes section, and relevant sources?PiCo (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There's so much one might add, given the huge quantity of RS on this. I'd prefer to hang in here, as you revise thoroughly. My compliments on the work so far, by the way. I think it best for others to let you revise it with a completely free hand, and then collectively fine-tune it once your succinct recension is completed. Just one point at the moment, however. In the Themes section we have:-

The cast of thought and the forms of expression employed by the writer show that this Gospel was written by a Jewish Christian of Iudaea Province.

As you know we had an earlier sentence in the lead acknowledging that no one can fix from where Matthew wrote, within or beyond what at that time was the territory of Judaea Province (e.g. Phoenicia, Syria, Alexandria, Edessa, Antioch, etc). Patristic tradition has gotten the upperhand here. Some of our strongest recent commentators however are rather decidedly in favour of Antioch (Luz, Meier, Davies, Allison). Above however we have a very confident assertion that contradicts Davies and Allison's own survey of the scholarly options (Matthew:1-7 pp.138-147)

'the community in which he lived as he wrote his gospel was not, in all probability, in Palestine' (p.141)

They themselves propend towards Syrian Antioch:'while, in our judgement, the Frst Gospel was probably put together for the church of Antioch, this conclusion remains no more than the best educted guess.'(p.147)Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the Matthean community

Please have a look at this section and let me know if I've made any major errors or omissions. PiCo (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a good summary of Davies and Allison, but perhaps needs tweaking to represent the other major recent commentator's opinion, namely Luz, who writes:-

I see the Matthean community as Jewish Christian, originating in Palestine. There the community’s mission to Israel failed, and eventually, probably in the period preceding the Jewish War of 66-70, they were forced to leave the land of Israel. They found a new home in Syria and began to missionize among the Gentiles.’ Ulrich Luz, 'Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew as a Historical and Theological Problem: An Outline,' in U. Luz, Studies in Matthew, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005, ch.12, p.244

What Davies and Allison argue is also Saldarini's conclusion. He writes:-

'This study concludes that the Gospel of Matthew addresses a deviant group within the Jewish community in greater Syria, a reformist Jewish sect seeking influence and power (relatively unsuccessfully) within the Jewish community as a whole.' Anthony Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, University of Chicago Press 1994, p.198

Thanks for the work in the meantime. It gives an excellent basic structure for other editors to work on and finesse for details.Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, Luz definitely needs to go in. Saldarini can quoted just to get away from over-reliance on Senior, but he represents what might be called the Orthodox Church of Davies and Allison, whereas what's needed is major alternatives, like Luz. Does the Luz/Davies pair cover all the major views? PiCo (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A distinction exists here between the community for whom Matthew wrote, and the place where Matthew wrote. The major alternatives for the community for whom Matthew wrote are (a) within Palestine (b) beyond. Luz emphasizes its origins, and Davies-Allison accentuate where it was situated at the time of composition. So you have that covered, it's just a matter of tweaking it to make this distinction. Luz in his 1993 essay details that Matthew's community in his view joined the diaspora in Syria after failing, before the 66-70 war, to convince 'Israel'.

You might say that the association of the Gospel with Antioch in Syria is the traditional view. Luz wrote in the first volume of his commentary:

the Gospel of Matthew does not betray its place of origin. Certainly it was a large Syrian city whose lingua franca was Greek.’ (Matthew: a commentary, Augsburg, 1989 (German original 1985) p.92

In his Festschrift contribution, 'Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew' (1993) he reaffirms that it was written outside of Palestine, but that the community Matthew addressed had some decades before come from there. So really, there is a continuity between their perceptions on where it was written (Greater Syria), a certain nuancing in Luz when it comes to origins. Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, but what exactly is the distinction between "A large Syrian city whose lingua franca was Greek" and "Antioch" - a suggestion of Laodicea? I'm underwhelmed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Papias tweak

Apropos

"Matthew put together (or in some manuscripts, "wrote") the sayings (logia) in the Hebrew dialect and each one translated them as he was able." Modern scholars interpret Papias to mean that Matthew made a collection of Jesus's sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic, which others then translated.

There are two ambiguities in Papias's phrasing, hebraïdi dialéktōi, and the verb hērmēneuse (which we give as 'translated'). As to the former, it has been translated as 'in Hebrew', 'in Aramaic', or 'in the Hebraic/Semitic manner' (meaning that stylistically it has the rhythms of Semitic prose, though in Greek). The last option has been overlooked (which would effectively dispose of a lot of contention, were it true). The second term can be taken to mean 'translated' (as we have) or 'interpreted'. For details see David L. Turner, Matthew, Baker Academic, 2008 pp.15-16 here Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Finished!

Or perhaps I'm just tired of this game. Anyway, please look, check the refs, check the sins of omission and commission, and generally do as you will. (Do you think it could go for GA status?)PiCo (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for the thorough revision, and hard work, you've done to put this page back on a solid footing. I haven't had the time to be of much help, for which I apologize, but when possible, I'll return and give it a closer examination. I certainly think it has strong potential to be lifted to GA level, and the best way to do this is to get a team of us to review it closely. If others can register an interest in pushing it through to that level, then,(many hands make light work), we could organize this as a project at a mutually agreed time. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

PiCo - ditto, I haven't seen such a through and balanced page clean up on Wikipedia. I'd support what Nishidani says about GA, though don't have time unfortunately for next 2 months. That shouldn't stop others. Well done PiCo In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding my voice to those above - this an energetic and admirable effort. Eusebeus (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. It's been a pleasure, I've learned a lot. If anyone cares to take this further, I believe the Themes section is quite weak, as is the section on comparison with other literature, and the Lead needs to be expanded. PiCo (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Current text

The current text says that the Greek text does not sound a though it is translated from Hebrew. This is true, as far as it goes, but see Matthew Black, "An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and the Acts". The third edition seems to be the latest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.45.120 (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I gather that Black argued that there were Aramaic sources behind part of Q - in other words, the words ascribed in Matthew to Jesus himself (or at least some of them). The book is rather old now, but I also gather that it's regarded as very solid. That said, I think that including Black's nuances would take us to a level of detail that Wikipedia isn't really suited to - the Aramaic background to Q seems to me to be a bit abstruse for a readership still trying to come to terms with the very existence of Q. Still, if you can propose how it might be worked in, give us a proposal. PiCo (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

("Casey offers a compelling argument that Aramaic sources behind part of Q are of extremely early date" - maybe this fits better in the article on Q source?)PiCo (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Any written Aramaic-language source for the New Testament (if there even was one, which many scholars doubt) would almost certainly have been a "sayings document", or list of quotations of Jesus, and so somewhat remote from any of the books of the New Testament as we have them. AnonMoos (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No mention is made of the Hebrew edition of Matthew, as studied in some recent scholarly books (Example, "The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus" by Nehemiah Gordon) and the evidence for Hebrew 'word play' in the parables. Shouldn't this information be referenced? 81.110.126.221 (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The following seems to be rather POV:

"The narrative tells how Israel's Messiah, having been rejected by Israel (i.e., God's chosen people), withdrew into the circle of his disciples, passed judgment on those who had rejected him (so that "Israel" becomes the non-believing "Jews"), and finally sent the disciples instead to the gentiles.Luz (1995), p.84 The gospel is nevertheless aimed at a Jewish audience, and its message is that that Jesus was the Messiah; Jesus, not the Law, is now the focus of Jewish identity; and that Jew and gentile are to be brought into the one community.Senior (2001), pp.8-10"

I see that it has been sourced, (Luz and Senior), but the latter seems to contradict the former, and Luz's conclusions appear to be presented as mainstream. Is that the case? A Georgian (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately my google-books access to Luz has now fallen foul of the way pages are subtracted the more you visit, but perhaps you can look at that page for me and tell me if it's being quoted properly. As for Senior, I've still got access to that and our article does seem to reflect his views. Senior also says that Luz's view on the community of Mathew is that it had already made the break with Judaism. I have to say that personally I don't see a conflict/contradiction between these two passages - where do you see it? PiCo (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The contradiction is that the first quote characterizes Jesus as having given up on the Jews, while the second indicates that it was directed to a Jewish audience. I wasn't questioning the source or the accuracy of the quote. Maybe if the quote leads with, "according to Luz" it would be more clearly an informed opinion than implied settled consensus. I also think his first parenthetical odd and the second lacks an antecedent. No big deal; I didn't delete it, I just wanted to bring it to your attention. If it passes your scrutiny, then maybe I'm just "seeing things". A Georgian (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography Needs to be Completely Redone

Has anyone who edited here ever written or paper or gone to college? The current bibliography lists reference articles and texts that are not mentioned or cited at all in the Gospel of Matthew article. If they are not "referenced" for information they should not be in the references section. For unreferenced commentaries, possibly a section or subsection should be created separately. For all others, they should be listed as external links or for further reading... This bibliography is a mess and has virtually no application to the article that is written. Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to take up the sword and edit. It's easy to point out all the things that are "wrong". Ckruschke (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Unlike Luke

"and unlike Luke, who traces" Yeshua's "ancestry back to Adam, father of the human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the Jews" Abraham was the father of the Hebrews, Jews are the people of Kingdom of Yehuda/Judea the desert-mountain southern part of Eretz Yisra'el. Bhug (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Author

On what basis, other than tradition, is the author "most likely St. Matthew"? If none can be offered, it should be removed from the lead or changed to possibly St. Matthew.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The section Gospel_of_Matthew#Authorship_and_sources says that most scholars doubt Matthew's authorship so I'd tend to agree. Elizium23 (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

error in article

The author stated that the apostles were eventually sent to the Gentiles. However, the only apostle that was sent to the Gentiles was Paul. This is stated many times and was clarified in Galatians 2:6-21, that Paul was to go to the Gentiles and Peter and the other 11 apostles were to go to the Jew only. This is the most glaring error that I see but if anyone cares, I would be happy to clarify a few others. thanks, bob Bror0060 (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to this sentence: "Matthew's gospel tells how Israel's Messiah is rejected by Israel, withdraws into the circle of his disciples, passes judgment on those who have rejected him so that "Israel" becomes the non-believing "Jews", and sends the disciples instead to the gentiles.", or another? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Matthew 28:16-20: 16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. ... 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” PiCo (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Another error

According to http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=circumc&searchtype=all&version1=48&language1=en&spanbegin=1&spanend=73&startnumber=26 and http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=gentile&searchtype=all&version1=48&language1=en&spanbegin=1&spanend=73&startnumber=26 , the Gospel of Matthew does not mention anything about circumcision nor about being circumcised. Therefore the claim about allowing uncircumcised people in the church seems phony. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have read the Alison text cited (it is available online at Google Books) and it fully supports the statements preceding. Elizium23 (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Matthew's sources

Burkett (pp.175-6) says the author drew on three "primary" sources - the article bases on that. I assume by "primary" he means "main" rather than "original" or "first-hand". Nothing about this being a "majority" view. If you know of any other view, please let us know - but so far as I'm aware there isn't any other. PiCo (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect introduction

The Wiki introduction to the Gospel of Matthew states that Jesus "passed judgment on those who had rejected him".

Jesus did not pass judgement on anyone.

John 12:47 "And if anyone hers my words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world."

Whoof - I agree - that's a highly biased POV. I'll see if I can "fix" it. I'm sure others will chime in for/against your comment. Ckruschke (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

You were right :).

We can't do Wikipedia on this basis: we have to follow reliable sources, and Luz is very much a reliable source. His four-volume commentary on Matthew is among the most significant of recent works on the gospel (you can look up reviews in RBL and elsewhere), and he's recognised by his peers as a leading specialist. You can't delete material sourced from him on the basis of your own reading of John.

What Luz is saying is this: Jesus began by preaching to Israel (meaning the community of God's chosen people); but the Jews rejected and crucified him; so he turned instead to the previously inferior gentiles (the "nations"), sending his disciples to them instead of to the Jews. (Note the distinction between Israel, the holy community, and Jews, an ethnic group.)PiCo (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I was also touched by this tricky way to say things; "passed judgment on those who had rejected him" seems to refer to a resent personality and it is the author of this part of the article the only one who is passing his own judgement, Jesus was doing a lot more than that. I don't see why Luz in its all wisdom cannot accept to choose his words more carefuly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.32.228.82 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus re Papias

Thank you for allowing the Papias quote! As you remember, I believed it was important to understanding Matthew. I have looked at all the hard work of PiCo, Ckruschke, Carl etc and must say congratulations are in order. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ehrman 2012, Casey 2010 & Edwards 2009

Great article! All we need to do now is add the most recent scholarship. Recently scholars such as Ehrman (2012) pp 98-101, Casey (2010) pp 86-89 and Edwards (2009) pp 2-10 have taken the position that that Matthew collected the Sayings of Jesus and reduced them to writing. All three further state that this Hebrew Gospel is NOT the same as the Gospel of Matthew we have in our Canon.

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman is one of the most formidable Biblical historians of our time. He is the holder of a Distinguished Professorship. Not only is he required reading at most seminaries, but he has managed to hit New York Times best sellers list. In his most recent work Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 98-101 Bart D. Ehrman explains why Papias, who was born in 63 CE and was a Bishop in the Early Church is so very important. Although Ehrman takes the position that Matthew reduced the Oral Tradition to a Hebrew dialect (probably Aramaic) he does not believe that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is the same as the Gospel of Matthew in our Bible. Because there is "a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to" what we call Matthew". Ehrman adds, in fact, what Papias "says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels." The Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew is distinct from the Gospel of Matthew that eventually came to be included in Scripture.p 101 Papias then, is "testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves."P 101

Maurice Casey

Maurice Casey is one of Britain's most noted historians. He is Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham, having served there as Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the Department of Theology. His most recent work Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. p 86-89 supports the aforementioned scholarship. Casey believes that Matthew collected the oral traditions of Jesus and reduced them to writing. "Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down... There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. p 86 Therefore "it is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language."88 Finally, he agrees with Ehrman that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel has no connection with our Gospel of Matthew. "This tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognized." p 87

James Edwards

Unlike Casey and Ehrman, James Edwards is a Christian scholar. He is a Bruner-Welch Professor of Theology, an Ordained Presbyterian minister, a contributing editor of Christianity Today, and member of the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton. In his most recent work the The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 2 he confirms that the Oral Gospel traditions were collected by Matthew and that Matthew wrote them down in the Hebrew Gospel. p3

Then Edwards evaluates the testimony of Papias using the criteria of Casey and Ehrman. Papias is supported by 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Twelve of the Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer, either Christian or Non Christian, challenged these two facts. Google Link - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oral gospel traditions

I added this link because these two articles are sequentially related and we must take care to avoid duplication. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Edits by user Eric Kvaalen

This is for user Eric Kvaalen, who has told me on my personal talk page how upset he is that his hours of work were reverted. I can understand his feelings, and he deserves a respectful answer and explanation. I had intended to put the two edits side by side, but it proved impractical, so I'll give a more general overview.

Firstly, the article is carefully and exhaustively sourced: if the article says, for example, that "Matthew probably originated in a Jewish-Christian community in Roman Syria towards the end of the first century A.D.," that's probably what the source says. If Eric changes this to read that "it is theorised" that Matthew so originated, he's moving away from the source. Possibly the bulk of Eric's edits are of this type.

Secondly, Eric devotes a great deal of his editing to the theory that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (the Hebrew gospel hypothesis). This theory has practically no support among modern biblical scholars, and any coverage at all would be undue weight - in this article we talk about the gospel as understood by modern scholarship, we don't try to argue a case for a view with almost no proponents.

Other edits seem to serve no real purpose that I can see - changing "Jesus travels to Jerusalem" to "Jesus travels towards Jerusalem", for example. I don't object to that sort of edit, but I don't think it's all that valuable, either.

I guess this still seems harsh, but at least it's an explanation with more detail than I could give in an edit summary. The essential point is: we need to respect our sources, and we need to observe the need for giving due weight to various viewpoints. PiCo (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

PiCo, imo, Eric Kvaalen was way too easy on you. In particular, please explain your deletion without discussion of the following reliable sources:

Brown 1997, p. 210-211

Brown 1997, p. 210 "There are medieval Hebrew forms of Matt that most scholars think of as retroversions from the Greek of canonical Matt, often made to serve in arguments between Christians and Jews. However, some claim that these texts are a guide to the original Hebrew of Matt (French scholars like J. Carmignac and M. Dubarle have contributed to this thesis...) Still other scholars think they can reconstruct the original Hebrew or Aramaic underlying the whole or parts of the Greek text of canonical Matt on the assumption that the original was in Semitic... The vast majority of scholars, however, contend that the Gospel we know as Matt was composed originally in Greek and is not a translation of a Semitic original... Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament"

• Brown, Raymond E. (1997). An Introduction to the New Testament. Anchor Bible. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.

Jewish Versions of the Gospel of Matthew" by Craig A. Evans, Mishkan 38 (2003), pp. 70-9

This statement - "This theory has practically no support among modern biblical scholars, and any coverage at all would be undue weight" - is false, as these two modern biblical scholars clearly mention it. How do you justify deleting reliable sources without discussion when their content is clearly relevant to this topic? Ignocrates (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

@Ignocrates, how do you get from "The vast majority of scholars ... contend that the Gospel we know as Matt was composed originally in Greek..." to your charge that I'm wrong to say that there's practically no support for the idea that it was composed in Hebrew? PiCo (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The point, my esteemed colleague, is that reasonable people can disagree about the appropriate weight to apply to this material, but the WP:WEIGHT cannot be zero. Craig A. Evans and Raymond E. Brown are notable scholars, per WP:NOTE, and their published works are not outside the mainstream of scholarship, per WP:FRINGE. Therefore, the simple fact that they mention the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew proves the weight is not zero. There is currently a one-way linkage between Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and this article. It should be restored to a two-way linkage, even if only with a brief mention, to maintain WP:NPOV. Ignocrates (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My answers to PiCo:

The author of a book has the right to say something like "Matthew probably originated in a Jewish-Christian community in Roman Syria towards the end of the first century A.D.". Everybody understands that that is his opinion. It's not a "fact". But in Wikipedia, we have to be more circumspect. There are lots of people who would disagree with the idea that Matthew probably originated in a community in Syria towards the end of the first century. The article gives the point of view of one set of scholars, who by the way tend to look down on those who disagree.

I don't think my edit should have been reverted on the grounds that "a great deal of it was devoted to the theory that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew". I put back in some material that had been deleted years ago. I don't think evidence should be ignored just because a lot of people like to ignore it. I'm not saying that Matthew as we have it today was translated from Hebrew. But I don't think we should simply ignore the work of scholars like Craig A. Evans or the Roman Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission, just because the "in crowd" thinks they've figured it all out.

The reason I changed "Jesus travels to Jerusalem" to "Jesus travels towards Jerusalem" is that the part of the sentence right after that refers to something that happens long before he gets to Jerusalem.

I made many more changes which I can very well defend. I don't see why I have to take the time to defend every single one!

PiCo, by reverting my edit, you even put back the statement that "Matthew agrees with Paul that gentiles did not have to be circumcised in order to enter the church"! As I stated in my edit summary, the Gospel of Matthew never mentions the circumcisions of Gentiles.

Now that other people have edited the article since your reversion, putting back my edits is more work than just reverting your reversion. I'm faced with the choice of spending even more time on this, or just forgetting about it.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

@Eric Kvaalen, my concern is that we use reliable sources, give weight to majority views over minority ones, and avoid original research. I've made a change to the second para of the lead after reviewing the source used for that sentence. You're welcome to do that sort of thing yourself. On "Matthew agrees with Paul that gentiles did not have to be circumcised in order to enter the church", I haven't checked the source, but I suspect that that passage was in the article because it's in the source - in other words, if you took it out because you personally interpret Matthew differently, then you;re doing original research. Finally, I don't give a damn, and you're welcome to do what you want - there's more to life than Wikipedia. PiCo (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to stand with Eric Kvaalen on this one. The edit should not of been deleted without more discussion on the talk page. As was pointed out above, deleting reliable sources without discussion when their content is clearly relevant to this topic goes against Wikipedia policy. Eric Kvaalen's work should be restored and discussed on the talk page. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Note how the policy of verifiability is turned upside down, per WP:BURDEN. All of Eric Kvaalen's content, and the reliable sources that support it, are summarily deleted without discussion, whereas, when Eric questions the sources that show where Matthew discussed circumcision of the Gentiles, he is assured that everything in the article pre-Eric is verifiable and the burden is on him to prove otherwise. I can appreciate the irony of a good tragic-comedy, and this surely is one. Ignocrates (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The quote from Brown clearly supports reverting Eric's edits as WP:UNDUE; Wikipedia does not present fringe views as being mainstream. That's also policy. Besides, for the view that Matthew says that about circumcision there was a source in the article and PiCo assumed it was introduced in good faith. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a b.s. argument. First of all, I produced the quote after the content was deleted, not PiCo. Second, no one said it wasn't a controversial minority view. However, that is different than deleting any mention of it. If it's not worth mentioning, why are reliable secondary sources discussing it? Why is there an independent article on it? Smells like the sulfurous odor of POV to me. Ignocrates (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that Ret.Prof has reverted all the edits since mine. I'm glad for the support, but I think we should look at the edits that have been done since PiCo reverted mine. So I am going to try to do that. If someone wants to edit the result, that's legitimate, but reverting to before Ret.Prof's edit is not. By the way, I think it's stupid to condemn the deletion of a simple erroneous statement (that Matthew talks about circumcision) on the grounds that it's original research! What, are we supposed to be idiots who put anything into the article so long as some source says it, even if it's clearly false? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the the U.D....it was accidental. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I added some material from Ehrman (supported by Casey and Edwards)

The following statement from Papias is now considered to be accurate by Ehrman:

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

Today many scholars believe it is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in a Hebrew dialect, Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 87-88 as the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves. Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101 Indeed, Papias's relevant testimony may have come from the apostolic fountainhead. In any case it is very early within living memory of the apostolic age. James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3 Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Apostolic fountainhead is a buzz-word expression. I suggest it be explained in plain English. Ignocrates (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, in the interests of preventing a revert-war, I suggest you consider a RfC, once you are finished making changes to this section. Ignocrates (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As always the concerns you raise are important. It has been a topic of scholarly debate for some time. I will attempt to address your concerns below. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the point of a WP:RfC is to seek the opinions of the broader community, not use it as an opportunity to further elaborate on your own views. I suggest the Request board as a place to start receiving input to reach a consensus on the proper WP:WEIGHT of this new material. That will reduce the likelihood an opposing editor will simply delete all of it, again. Ignocrates (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I will delete "further elaboration on my own views". I fully support WP:RfC. You are able to see things that I am not! Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sage advice

I reproduce here, from the archived talk page discussion, some sage advice by Paine Ellsworth that relates to the current strife on this page:

For you both (editorial note: both = In ictu oculi and Ret.Prof), it might be a better idea to discuss any major changes to this article here on the Talk page before making your edits, thus to perhaps allow other editors to weigh in on your proposals. It would also be a good gentle reminder that here in Wikipedia, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". So please respond to WP:PRESERVE and be very careful about removing cited referenced text. And when you add new textual claims, you are expected to be able to produce scholarly reference sources for your additions.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  03:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Everyone who has a sincere interest in improving the quality of this article should consider following it. Ignocrates (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Thanks for helping me through a rough patch. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

See my user talk page comments about a way out of this. Ignocrates (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)