Talk:Authentic Gospel of Matthew

COMMENT

Ril had some good points forcing us review the sources and revise the article.

Higher Criticism

One of the most important aspects of Higher Criticism in relation to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Authentic Matthew or The Gospel of the Hebrews ) is to recognize its limitations. Scholars have no text to study or analyze. The writings of the Church Fathers, are all we have. Yet there are quite a number of them.

Modern scholars -- the majority of whom are English or German speaking -- are studying the writings of the Early Church, which are in Greek (or Latin). Note this is not Modern Greek, but Koine Greek that was used 2000 years ago. Latin and Koine Greek are extinct languages. Thus nothing can be accepted or rejected with certainty. Therefore, Higher Critics analyzing the GHeb fragments have four general categories:

A. Highly Probable; B. Probable; C. Possible; D. Unlikely.

Clement

Clement of Rome was a leading presbyter in the early Church. He was probably born shortly before the crucifixion, and, according to Tertullian, was ordained by Peter. Many Church Fathers believed Clement succeeded Peter. His letter to the Corinthians was considered divinely inspired by many.

GHeb-1 and GHeb-2

Scholars are split about GHeb-1 and GHeb-2. Some argue that Clement is quoting from the oral tradition. It is equally ‘possible’ that he is quoting from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . It is, however, agreed that these two excerpts are not from the Canonical Gospels.

Didache

This document is a formulation of the rules of conduct for Christians. It first appeared about the year 100.

GHeb-3

This version of the Lord’s Prayer is different from the one found in the Canonical Gospels. For this reason, some believe it is ‘possibly’ from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . It is interesting to compare this fragment with GHeb-47, which confirms that this Lord’s Prayer was found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Ignatius

Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch, Syria, who was born some ten years after the crucifixion.

GHeb-4 This fragment from Ignatius has caused much controversy among scholars because the term “bodiless demon” is used. We know that this excerpt is not from the Canonical Gospels, nor would this term be used in Hebrew. Thus, some have argued that this fragment was written in Syriac but with Hebrew letters.

Jerome affirms “bodiless demon” is in the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . Therefore it is ‘probable’ that GHeb-4 is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew , and it raises the possibility of Syriac being used.

Papius

Papius was born approximately thirty years after the crucifixion and eventually became a bishop in Asia Minor.

GHeb-5 It is ‘probable’ that this fragment is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew , as that Gospel is mentioned. It affirms that Matthew wrote it in Hebrew. However, there are problems. Papius’ five-volume work has been lost, and this fragment only survives in the writing of Eusebius. Secondly, the text is ambiguous in its wording. The phrase ‘ta logia’ has been interpreted in numerous ways, i.e. sayings, teachings, or even Gospel.

Polycarp

Born some thirty years after the crucifixion, Polycarp is an important link to the Apostolic Age. A strong defender of Orthodoxy, he seems to have been aware of the Gospel of the Hebrews written by Matthew.

GHeb 6-7 These quotes are ‘possibly’ from the oral tradition or possibly from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . Scholars are not certain as to their source.

Barnabas

A Levite who became one of the earliest Christian disciples at Jerusalem, the writings of Barnabas are an important window on the development of early Christianity.

GHeb 8 It falls into the ‘possible category’ for most of the same reasons mentioned above for GHeb 6 & 7.

Justin

Justin was born 67 years after the crucifixion in Samaria of non-Christian parents. He defended Christianity from the attack by Judaism, wrote an apology of Christianity to Emperor Antonius Pius, and was martyred for his faith. He is an important and reliable witness to the development of the early Church and the New Testament corpus.

GHeb-9 and GHeb-10 It is ’probable’ that these fragments are from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . The Church Fathers explain that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles. Justin cites as his authority the “Apostles of our Christ” and the “Gospel of the Apostles.” (See GHeb-55) Also, Jesus being ‘begotten’ at His baptism is unique to the Hebrew Gospel.

Irenaeus

This great defender of Orthodoxy in the early Church has much to say about the Hebrew Christian Sect called the Ebionites. He argues that their beliefs are closer to those of the Jews than Christians. Born some eighty years after the crucifixion, his writings are considered reliable by most scholars of ancient and modern times.

GHeb-11 Here Irenaeus states that the Ebionite community uses only the Gospel of Matthew! Other Church Fathers confirm what he writes, but say the Ebionites only use the Gospel of the Hebrews, making it ‘probable’ that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew. It is highly unlikely than he is referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel (see Epiphanius and Eusebius).

GHeb-12 Irenaeus states that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews in their own dialect. Biblical scholars agree that Irenaeus cannot be referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which has been shown to be composed in Greek by a person other than Matthew. This raises the ‘probability’ that Irenaeus is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .

GHeb-13 (See GHeb-11)

Pantaenus

The first head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria, Pantaenus had extensive knowledge of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-14 This excerpt explains why those who were associated with the school of Alexandria had such extensive knowledge of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. This document acquired by Pantaenus could not have been the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which was written in Greek by an unknown redactor. Therefore it is ‘probable’ that GHeb-14 is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

Tertullian

Tertullian was born in Carthage, studied law, and converted to Christianity.

GHeb-15 Some scholars say that this quote is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. However, the evidence is scanty and therefore must be placed in the ‘possible’ category.

Hegesippus

A contemporary of Irenaeus, Hegesippus was a master of Syriac and Hebrew. He was familiar with Jewish oral tradition as well as Hebrew Christianity, and, more particularly, the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-16 This fragment directly cites the Gospel of the Hebrews and is therefore in the ‘highly probable’ category.

Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria was the successor of Pantaenus, and thus had access to the Gospel of the Hebrews as Matthew originally wrote it in Hebrew script.

GHeb-17 and 18 and 19

These three will be treated together, as they are from the same work, the Stromateis, and refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews. Waitz and others assign these fragments to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the evidence suggests that it is ‘probable’ that they are correct. From Clements’s text it would appear that these teachings are familiar to Clements’s readers. ‘Seeking until one finds’ and ‘seeing God in your brother’ are themes developed in the Canonical New Testament. Also, it is clear that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew , or it least its teachings, were known to the writers of the Gospel of Thomas.

Origen

Origen is considered one of the greatest scholars of the Early Church. He had an extensive knowledge of Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . He spent most of his life in Alexandria, but later resided in Caesarea, which is where he died.

GHeb-20 This fragment cites the fact that the gospel in Hebrew script was written by Matthew. Most scholars put it into the ‘highly probable’ category.

GHeb-21

This fragment was developed in the ‘Judgment’ of the Gospel of Matthew. However, because it so strongly reflects the poverty theme of the Ebionites, it probably originated with their oral tradition and it is only ‘possible’ that it was ever part of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .

GHeb-22 Origen cites this fragment as being “of the Hebrews” and since there is no evidence to the contrary, it is ‘highly probable’ that he is correct. This fragment is very important to literary scholars, as this story is found in the Canonical Matthean Gospel. The Matthean redactor treats his Hebrew source in the same way he treats his Marken source. It is tightened, simplified, and unnecessary details such as “scratched his head” are omitted. It is made less Hebrew in nature, for such terms as “sons of Abraham” are omitted. So is the word ‘frates’. According to higher critics, this proves that the quotation originated fred the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .

GHeb-23 It is ‘highly probable’ that this fragment is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew , as Origen cites it as his source and there is no evidence to contradict him. It is apparent from GHeb-23 that the Gospel of the Hebrews is well known to the Christians at Origen’s time and is causing theological problems that need to be dealt with. Still, the use of the phrase “if any accept” shows that they are not the majority, or maybe they are, but they simply see GHeb as a threat to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the virgin birth and the maleness of God. Spong and others have argued that “these doctrines” were developed later in Church history. Higher criticism points to GHeb being composed in Hebrew, for Hebrew has the Holy Spirit as female while Latin and Greek do not. Finally, the Holy Spirit being female and the mother of Christ became more and more abhorrent to the Roman Catholic Church and is an important factor in the Gospel of the Hebrews being excluded in the Canon.

Eusebius

Of all the scholars of the early Church, Eusebius is probably in the best position to give us reliable information about the New Testament corpus and the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . The reason for this is three-fold: 1. Eusebius was born 227 years after the crucifixion of our Lord. This puts him in the best period of time to know extensively about the early Church writings. A hundred years earlier and one is too close to see the entire picture objectively. A hundred years later and one is too far away from the events.

2. He was baptized at Caesarea. This mean he was living in the right place and at the right time to give us the best possible information regarding the New Testament corpus that had been developing over the past two centuries. In the city where Origen had resided and taught at the end of his life, Eusebius was heir to the scholarly material collected by Origen and his predecessors.

3. He was the Church’s first comprehensive historian. Over his life he wrote a meticulous, detailed and extensive history from the time of Jesus to his own time. It can fairly be said he was the Josephus Flavius of Christianity.

Eusebius catalogues all the Church writings of the first two and a half centuries of the New Testament corpus with a view to their authority and reliability. Many of the works he wrote extensively about are no longer in existence, including the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .

GHeb-24 It is ‘probable’ that this was from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .

GHeb-25

This is an authoritative source that the Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew before he left to preach to other nations. Since modern Higher Critics and Epiphanius agree this could not be the Canonical Matthean Gospel, and that only the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew in the Hebrew language, this excerpt ‘probably’ refers to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .

GHeb-26 This shows clearly that Eusebius knows of both the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which is in Greek, and the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew , of which Hebrew Christians are especially delighted.

GHeb-27 Eusebius makes a very important correction. Irenaeus states that the Hebrew Ebionite community uses only one Gospel, which he calls the Gospel of Matthew. Eusebius knows the confusion this can cause. Therefore, he corrects GHeb-3 and GHeb-5 by changing the name of the original Hebrew Matthew to the Gospel of the Hebrews. From Eusebius on the Greek Matthean Gospel written by an unknown redactor is often called the Gospel of Matthew by the Church and the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is called by many the Gospel of the Hebrews is . Confused?

GHeb-28 Scholars place this in the ‘possible’ category due to its lack of detail.

GHeb-29 It is ‘probable’ that this quotation from Eusebius is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew , as Eusebius knew that it was the only Gospel used among the Hebrew Christians written in Hebrew script.

Didymus

Didymus was a disciple of Origen. He was also the Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Therefore, he had access to the scholarly works collected by his predecessors, Pantaenus, Clement and Origen. Thus he was familiar with and had access to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-30 It is highly ‘probable’ that this reference is to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, as we know Didymus has access to it and he cites it as his source regarding people with two names. It is also obvious that the people to whom he is speaking have full knowledge of this Gospel and recognize it as authoritative. What we cannot know is what aspect of this Gospel makes him believe that Matthew was not called Levi, or why he would consider the Gospel of the Hebrews more authoritative than the Gospel of Luke.

Epiphanius

Epiphanius was the Bishop of Salamis, Cyprus, and spent most of his life battling heretics. The Panarion is particularly helpful in understanding Hebrew Christianity during a time in which the Church was moving away from its Jewish roots.

GHeb-31 Epiphanius was probably the first to write of the Hebrew Christian community called the Nazarenes. They had a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews, written by “Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly preserved among them as it was first written in Hebrew letters”. Thus, it would appear they added little of their oral tradition to this Gospel, making it quite reliable. According to Epiphanius, the community of the Nazarenes existed in Beroea, Syria. This group began when the disciples moved from Jerusalem, for they believed that Jerusalem would be destroyed.

According to the Panarion Chapter 29, Epiphanius states that they were not Jews, but Hebrew Christians. The reason the Jews resented them was that they had been Jews of Hebrew stock but preach that Jesus is the Messiah. Except for the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, no other Gospel is mentioned by Epiphanius, and he certainly does not allude directly or indirectly to the Nazarenes composing a Gospel.

GHeb-32 This states that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew in Hebrew and was the only Gospel to be composed in Hebrew. This confirms what literary critics have suspected. The Canonical Matthean Gospel was not composed in Hebrew nor did Matthew write it. Rather, Matthew wrote only the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-33 – 38 All these excerpts are taken from the Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew. There is no doubt of this as one reads Panarion Chapter 30.

The problem is that Epiphanius alleges that the Ebionites adulterated the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Literary analysis has not been conclusve.

Of particular interest is GHeb 35 (see also GHeb10) for it solves the mystery of the Letter to the Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "Today you are my Son; I have become your Father"

Only the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew has the word "today". Therefore the Letter to the Hebrews was based on the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew for the Gospels in the Bible do not contain the word "today".

Jerome

Born 298 years after the crucifixion, Jerome is reputed to be one of the great scholars of the Church. Since the 8th century he was considered to be a Father of the Church and Pius XII found him to be an indisputable witness to the mind of the Church in dealing with the Word of God. Literary scholars agree that he is our greatest source of information regarding the the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Jerome explains that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew letters for Hebrew Christians. The library in Caesarea acquired the original work, of which Jerome knew or might even have seen. Yet it was the Nazarene community of Beroea that gave him a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Jerome translated this copy from Hebrew into Greek and thought of GHeb as being authoritative. However, it must be noted that Roman Catholics and Protestants view Jerome’s works very differently. Roman Catholics view him as if he were some kind of SAINT (quite literally), while many of the Protestant writers have called his work into question. Some Protestants not only maintain that Jerome’s works reflect a lack of scholarly intellect, but go so far as to say they show a lack of Christian integrity. It is maintained that he falsified information and that he even lied about translating the Gospel of the Hebrews into Greek. The historical evidence shows that Jerome enjoyed a good reputation among his contemporaries, had a superior intellect, a Christian education and a deep commitment to the scholarly truth. Today, the writings of Jerome are generally considered to be authoritative.

GHeb-39 The phrase “our bread of the morrow” indicated that this fragment had Hebrew origins, or possibly even Syriac. It further illustrates that Jerome believes that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the "authentic" Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. It is ‘highly probable’ that it was part of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew because of GHeb 47.

GHeb-40 This fragment was written in Hebrew script. Since Epiphanius states that only the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, Biblical scholars would place this in the ‘probable’ category.

GHeb-41 Probable. GHeb-42 ‘Highly probable’, as the Gospel of the Hebrews is cited. (See discussion on “bodiless demon” in GHeb 4.)

GHeb 43 and 44 It is ‘highly probable’ that these excerpts were part of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Jerome says that this is his source and he is dealing with a problem that arises from the Hebrew language. More importantly, he spends considerable effort to explain away a female Holy Spirit. This indicates that both he and the reader recognize the authority of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

To Jerome, a female Holy Spirit, a Jesus with two mothers (Mary and the Holy Spirit), and the concept of the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary making her with child are clearly disturbing. Yet Jerome feels he cannot dismiss the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as spurious.

GHeb-45 ‘Highly probable’ – The Gospel is cited.

GHeb-46 ‘Highly probable’ – GHeb cited as source. It should be noted that GHeb 46, 48, 57 and 58 all attest that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was translated from Hebrew into Greek.

GHeb-47 ‘Highly probable’ as the Gospel is cited by Jerome.

GHeb-48 See GHeb-46, above. It is also important to note Jerome maintained this Gospel is “authentic” Matthew.

GHeb-49 Epiphanius maintains that only Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. This excerpt seems to confirm this fact. Thus, it is ‘probable’ GHeb-49 is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-50 ‘Possible’.

GHeb-51 ‘Highly probable,’ as Jerome cites this as his source.

GHeb-52 ‘Possible.’ No gospel is actually cited by Jerome, but see GHeb-53.

GHeb-53 ‘Probable,’ if one accepts that only one Gospel was composed in Hebrew letters.

GHeb-54 ‘Probable,’ if there is only one Hebrew Gospel.

GHeb-55 ‘Highly probable.’ This citation clears up many problems. It affirms that the Gospel in Hebrew script is indeed the Gospel of the Hebrews. It also states that this Gospel was written by Matthew. It further states that there is a transcript of the Gospel of the Hebrews in the library at Caesarea as well as at the Nazarene community. It is clear that although Jerome and others refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews as Authentic Matthew, the Hebrew Gospel, etc., that they have only the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in mind.

Jerome mentions that the Gospel of the Hebrews is sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles. This is not the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, which has nothing to do with the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-56

‘Highly probable,’ for the Gospel is cited as the source.

GHeb-57 ‘Highly probable.’ This confirms that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew script, for the Hebrew Christians.

NB: Here it should be noted that much confusion has been caused by the term “Jewish Christian” which is an oxymoron. Judaism is a religion that accepts the Old Testament but does not accept Jesus. Christianity is a religion that accepts the Old Testament and Jesus. Hebrew, on the other hand refers to one’s language, culture, even ethnic origin. Thus, there are Hebrew Gospels, Hebrew Christians and Hebrew Jews, but never Jewish Christians nor Jewish Gospels. Sloppy semantics seem to be a major source of difficulty.

A second error of semantics takes place when GHeb 57 is translated as “permitted me to copy it.” Some scholars then argue that there is no evidence Jerome went to the Nazarene community to copy it, thus the conclusion is inevitable that it was not the Nazarenes who communicated knowledge of this gospel to him.

Sloppy semantics makes it sound as if Jerome was only given permission to go there personally. Actually, the permission was broader than that. Here it is important to go to the original text and study it carefully.

GHeb-58 See GHeb-46.

GHeb-59 ‘Possible.’ .

• Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Four Gospels : A Study of Origins. - He shows that Canonical Matthew was "probably" NOT written by Matthew in Hebrew.

• P. Parker, The Gospel Before Mark - He raises the "possiblity" that their was an Authentic Gospel of Matthew . Thus he provides a meeting of the minds between old and modern writers.

• R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah. - After reading Brown one comes to the conclusion the this Wiki-article is a true and objective reflection of what we know of the Authentic Gospel of Matthew spoken of by the Church Fathers.

--Poorman 04:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

A great article

The links are very helpful -- 132.206.33.148 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC).

Merging

With the recent merging templates, I believe it would be best to merge all the Jewish-Christian Gospels together into this article (including authentic Matthew). There is a lot of repeated content, often very POV and fringe. Putting the articles together will help achieve a neutral and helpful article. --Ari (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a general reader, that would make reading easier.. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

These articles do need work but they are distinct topics that should not be merged. They are on my "to do list" - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have decapitalized "authentic" in English and Latin which better seems to reflect the intent of in quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum. As a little request it would be interesting to see in the refs views of whether plerisque is a generalism or whether plerisque refers to Nazareni et Ebionitae. Best regards.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Again you have a good point. As far a the merge is concerned you have won me over. I am going to be bold and redirect. If get into trouble... well it won't have been the first time. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Authentic Gospel of Matthew after merge

I merged this article in good faith. I now see I "was played" (See Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof and Talk:Gospel of Matthew) Obviously the only way to delete an article is with an AfD. Sorry - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ret prof.

• 1. The merged content still populates Gospel of the Hebrews. So a restore post merge is duplication.
• 2. You were not "played," I rather think you played other editors. You seemed fairly eager to move Authentic Gospel of Matthew into Gospel of the Hebrews and present all the POV there as a fact.
• 3. As far as AfD, so why have you twice within 24 hours (04:04, 17:39, 24 March 2011) unilateraly deleted Hebrew Gospel hypothesis?
• 4. Why do you continue to delete all content related to the actual text at Gospel of the Hebrews?In ictu oculi (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Point # 3

I checked WP Policy and you are correct. I will not merge the POV fork, but post an AfD. As to the other points - Please see talk at the Gospel of the Hebrews Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

• I found this AfD 2005 inconcluded and this Not sure what to make of them. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You might also note that Authentic gospel of matthew is currently a redirect to Jewish-Christian Gospels, which seems kind of strange considering (I think) it is probably best a redirect to this page. Alternately, maybe it should be deleted, as most people (I think) capitalize the "M" in "Matthew." John Carter (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew Paralipomena section & other comments

My most significant reservation about this article is the length of the above named section. It looks to be, to the uninitiated on this subject (like me) to be, basically, a "copy" of the work in question. More or less, by policy and guidelines, we summarize material, we do not try to reproduce it. If there were an external site that included it all, it might be better to include that as an external link and just summarize the major points of disparity between the "accepted" Gospel of Matthew and this work.

I also have a bit of question regarding the use of the word "authentic". The use of that word implies that all other versions are "unauthentic" or false. Granted, if that is the name most used for this source, as per WP:NAME, then it should be used. Otherwise, maybe something a bit more "neutral", like maybe "Original Gospel of Matthew", might be more appropriate.

The nine links one right after each other in the lead is perhaps one of the other main stylistic reservations about this article. If there would be any way to reduce the number of them, that would probably help as well. The lead could be expanded to provide a better summary of the content as well. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, out of interest, what do you judge the subject of the article is?

The Latin of Jerome's authentic is usually translated "original" as you say. Neither the words "paralipomena" nor "authentic" are found in academic texts discussing these issues. Both of these are, in their usage on these Wikipedia articles, neologisms, introduced here by an earlier editor direct from (a) Pick's Latin book title, (b) Jerome's Latin sentence.In ictu oculi (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you mean what the putative subject of the article is, or what the apparent subject of the article, based on the existing content, is. Obviously, the apparent subject of the article is the "Authentic Gospel of Matthew" or "Original Gospel of Matthew," whatever you want to call it. It does seem the majority of the text is about, in some way, the Gospel of the Hebrews, which is an entirely different matter. While there is clearly a theory that the two are identical, it would be POV pushing to assert that in any of the articles. I have seen "authentic Gospel of Matthew" appear frequently when I did a google search for the term, but, of course, I would. Even then, Original Gospel of Matthew was one of the first four or five results, though. My main question with the word "authentic" is that, in general usage, that would imply that the "original" was written by Matthew (given the relationship of "authentic" and "author" which is I think often understood in English), and that the Gospel of Matthew itself wasn't. I'm not sure if the first possibility is part of this theory, and I don't think the latter is an idea necessarily generally accepted now either. Regarding the use of the "paralipomena" word (and I thank you for including it above, it is kinda hard to spell), knowing nothing about this subject myself, I would have to think that it probably shouldn't be used. Certainly, this article could say, in effect, that "source x" is considered to contain some of the text of the subject, and the articles on the various "source x"'s, particularly the shorter ones, could definitely include in full the texts of those fragments. With links from this article to those articles, it would then be possible for someone interested in finding the text to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

HI John. Yes, well the Gospel of the Hebrews content has already been merged into Gospel of the Hebrews. It's not really clear why after merge it was then recreated here.In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it is in the main article, then only a short summary section as per WP:SS should be here. Also, out of curiosity, how exactly is this hypothesis different from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew? From looking at Eerdman's Encyclopedia of the Bible yesterday, and its article on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, I got the impression (possibly false, of course) that the "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" is considered by many to have survived as the Gospel of the Hebrews. Is that the case? John Carter (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, no not all, thats just one of the various OR/POV views in this article.

• Gospel of the Hebrews = a translation of Matthew from Greek into Aramaic given to Jerome.
• Hebrew Gospels of Matthew = medieval translation from Latin to Hebrew.
• Hebrew Gospel hypothesis = a group of related theories. Among which this "Authentic Gospel of Matthew" article might be partly based on/share some ground with a couple of those, but this article (before it was merged to Gospel of the Hebrews, and as it now is reappeared) was heavily POV/OR.

In ictu oculi (talk)

Well, if the content of this article really is more or less identical to the material regarding that subject, then I would think that WP:NAME should apply and this article should be moved to that title. There is a question as to how individually notable the separate texts currently discussed in Hebrew Gospels of Matthew are - if they are sufficiently notable, and if there is enough encyclopedic content to merit a separate article, I could see that article (or three separate articles, one for each text) existing. That is, if they do meet notability and have enough separate content to merit an article. The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis seems to me to be separate enough for a separate article, although there potentially be questions about various things. Anyway, as you seem to agree that the first two might be, basically, redundant, I think it makes sense to propose this article be moved, and the Hebrew Gospels of Matthew article be merged, at least temporarily, into this article (under the title Hebrew Gospel of Matthew), and am now proposing such. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The main problem is that the content of this article is not going to identical to any objective article since this article is the sandbox/blog of 2006 user(s) Poorman/Melissadolbeer. There is some content that could be merged with Gospel of the Hebrews and has already been merged with Gospel of the Hebrews. WP:NAME should apply to all of these articles, however I now realise that "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" (the current title of the article about the medieval Jewish translations of Matthew) does not meet the requirements of WP:NAME and is based solely on a fringe view by one author.

I think the two questions are: (1) Given that this article was already merged (and has been restored from a REDIRECT) why not simply go back to the REDIRECT. (2) Does the redirect "Authentic Gospel of Matthew" even deserve to be kept as REDIRECT? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: closed; this is a redirect. If you would like to move Jewish-Christian Gospels please start a discussion there. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Authentic Gospel of Matthew → Hebrew Gospel of Matthew –

It seems that this subject is generally better known under the name Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. That being the case, it makes sense to me to move it to its more common name, and I would support such a move. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

John, thanks, but a merge has already happened to Gospel of the Hebrews 3 or 4 months ago. This page has virtually nothing to do with 14th Century rabbinical translations of Matthew.In ictu oculi (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed Merger

I have proposed that the article Hebrew Gospels of Matthew be merged into this article. At present, I cannot see any overwhelming reason for it to be a separate article. Should any individual texts referenced there be proven to be sufficiently notable and to have enough relevant content to merit a separate article, of course, then there would be legitimate grounds for discussing spinout. For the purposes of optimum clarity, I would myself support such a merger. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi John. Why would an article on Shem Tov ben Isaac ben Shaprut's translation (1375) and two other medieval rabbinical versions of Matthew, be merged into an article (which itself was already merged with Gospel of the Hebrews and deleted) about the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis? I have moved The page "Hebrew Gospels of Matthew" (links | delete) has been moved to "Rabbinical translations of Matthew" which while not a perfect title is at least going to stop confusion.In ictu oculi (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The three texts, which are all medieval Hebrew translations of Matthew, have finally been cleaned up, thanks to In ictu oculi, and they should stay that way. All of the rabbinic texts except Shem Tov are close copies of Greek Matthew. Shem Tov shows some variants which suggest a possible origin from a Latin harmony. None of these texts have anything to do with a hypothetical original Hebrew Matthew, although there have been editors over the history of the article who think that they do, apparently out of complete ignorance of the subject matter. I think the name change to Rabbinical translations of Matthew is helpful in attempting to avoid this confusion in the future. Ovadyah (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for choosing to disagree with me after I agreed to IIO's comments below. I would have thought that the comments there were clear enough to indicate my thinking that the points raised above and in the section below were, apparently, valid, and I agreed with the proposal made there. My primary reasons for suggesting the merge were questions in my eyes whether the three specific translations, as entities themselves, qualified as sufficiently notable per WP:N to merit spinout. I still am not entirely sure that they do, but as my own comments below should make clear, I am willing to accept his opinion regarding the matter of notability. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Why must you take everything so personally? I was responding to the proposal to merge itself. The fact that you initiated the proposal doesn't mean the ensuing discussion is all about you. Ovadyah (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, there is no rational basis to conclude that all Hebrew copies of Matthew must somehow be related to each other and to a Hebrew original because they are in Hebrew. I don't know of any modern scholars that would support that conclusion. Ovadyah (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) First, I note that, while it is nice to have comments on proposals, it is even nicer if those comments themselves seem to be made in a time-appropriate way. I had already agreed to IIO's proposals below before Ovadyah chose to disagree with this proposal. Evidently, he was either unable or unwilling to notice that. Having said that, I can and do see no reason for the proposal to remain active. In response to the point of the copies being related, I don't see how that is necessarily relevant. The question is more about the specific notability of the subject as per WP:N. So far as I have seen, the three works in question may only be sufficiently notable for a separate article if they are taken together as a single topic. If that is the case, whether one editor counts it as "rational" or not, policies and guidelines determine what the content and scope of articles is, not one individual's POV, however well or poorly informed. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John, Ovadyah for that. I think what was lacking in the original rabbinical translations of Matthew was recognition of the original context - Jewish apologia in 14thC Spain - wheras the article was originally written on the basis of a 1-man theory that Shem Tov's Touchstone was written using a lost original Hebrew Matthew. Ovadyah, I have taken your point on the Latin harmonies and added ref there from William Horbury Hebrew study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda 1999 p129. Cheers, both.In ictu oculi (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding the original structure of the article. I do however still have a concern that the topic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which has a separate entry in the Eerdmans Encyclopedia of the Bible (or is it E Dictionary otB? - I forget) still does not itself apparently have a separate article. I would think that subject would, hopefully, be a bit higher priority for a separate article than this, apparently offshoot, topic. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, it must be the Dictionary, 1425 pages (Unlikely that Eerdmans' Family Encyclopedia of the Bible (1978) 328 pages has an article on ... but Wikipedia has two articles:

• Ibn Shaprut - The Touchstone
• Rabbinical translations - Ibn Shaprut's Matthew.

Does the text really require a third article of its own (The Hebrew Matthew translations in Ibn Shaprut's Touchstone)? Particularly seeing as the Touchstone has never even been translated to English, so its impact on the English speaking world would be marginal. Also Ibn Shaprut's Matthew builds on and is followed by other Rabbinical translations, such as the Milhamoth ha-Shem "Wars of the Lord" of Jacob Ben Reuben 12C, which has its own Hebrew Matthew 1:1-16, 3:13-17, 4:1-11, 5:33-40, 11:25-27, 12:1-8, 26:36-39, 28:16-20, so I think taking Ibn Shaprut's Touchstone out of the main rabbinical article would lose all context. It may be that the Eerdman Dictionary entry is just a stub and doesn't mention (or even know about) the 5 other rabbinical translations of Matthew. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to check the source now, actually. As I remember, it is a rather substantial article, as such articles go, being at least a few paragraphs. As I remember, the idea there is, more or less, the same as this one. I am going to the library to check the source now, and hope to return with the full quotation from it for use tomorrow. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman, Eerdmans, 2000, on pp. 873-874 has a three-paragraph entry on the "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" written by George Howard. The first paragraph of that entry is about the early patristic belief that the original text of Matthew was in Hebrew, the second is about Shemtob, and the third is about Munster and de Tillet. The Anchor Bible Dictionary vol. IV, pp. 642-643 has a substantially longer article on the idea of Hebrew versions of Matthew, also by George Howard. So, I'm getting the impression what George Howard says on this subject is more or less universally accepted? His book on the subject is, apparently, called the "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew," which would be a point to support that being the title of the article. I'm not personally convinced that is the strongest point available regarding the title, however, particularly given the title of the article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary by the same author. I do however think, at the very least, there should be at least a subheading in some article, possibly/probably this one, on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which could be directly linked to from that redirect page. I do think that there might also be a fair case as per WP:NAME for that actually being the title of the main article, depending on whether the content of this article is basically similar to that of his book. Also, I think that the use of "Hebrew" as an adjective is possibly less problematic than the use of "authentic", "original," or any of a number of other basically synonymous words, at least in part because of the number of potential synonyms which could be used there. However, I acknowledge that I have not read Howard's book, and that your point about the potential ambiguity of entitling all this content by the Hebrew title is also a good one. I do however think that there should be somewhere a section titled Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which that page can be used as a direct redirect to. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi John

>So, I'm getting the impression what George Howard says on this subject is more or less universally accepted?< Hardly, as far as I know no one takes it seriously at all, though only James Carleton Paget, John Duncan Martin Derrett, Bernard Dov Cooperman don't go into details - only William Horbury has written at length why. And a bit unusual that Anchor, let alone Eerdmans, would invite the originator of a 1-person theory to write a dictionary article on his own theory, but I guess neither dictionary could find another author for the subject. Which in itself is a bit of an issue for Wikipedia, it would mean sources were Howard-HGoMbook, Howard-Eerdmans and Howard-Anchor. I'm fine with there being a subheading in some (several) articles, on Howard's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew book which could be directly linked to from that redirect page. In fact I've already tried linking out from Special:WhatLinksHere/Rabbinical_translations_of_Matthew.

But I don't think that any of the above justifies retaining all the Authentic Gospel of Matthew which was already merged 6 months ago. I suppose what's left (the redirect) could direct somewhere. But where? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In no way disagreeing with your point, I do notice that Howard included his own book in the bibliography of the article in Eerdmans (not that that's a surprise, mind you), and, although I didn't write down the bibliography of the Anchor, I seem to remember it was included there as well. Let me try to find any reviews or comments in journals, specifically academic reviews and comments, on the Howard book today. Yeah, I know you may have/probably have already done so, but there might be additional comments since then. The other sources listed for the Eerdmans article, FWIW, were the Elliott The Apocryphal New Testament, Hennecke/Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha, Klijn's Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, and Klijn & Reinink's sole collaboration, whose title I forgot to write down. They apparently discuss the idea at some length as well. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I should help with Anchor but I've misplaced key to my CD-Rom box. RBL has nothing on Howard's book. Klijn and Reinink, Jewish-Christian Sects, 1973 by any chance? Horbury's review is in JJS 47 (1996), and his appendix in Matthew 19-28 ed. William David Davies, Dale C. Allison In ictu oculi (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally get the impression that this is, perhaps, a rather infrequently discussed matter in modern literature? I find very little about it in JSTOR either. If so, that might be one of the reasons that there are such few sources available on it. And it may well be that Howard was chosen as the author of these texts based on the fact that he might be one of the few authors who has discussed the matter in independent works at all, and perhaps in no way as an endorsement of his personal theory regarding the matter. And I do note that the article in the Eerdmans book doesn't seem to specifically say anything about Howard's theory, just refering to the works themselves. If that is the case, maybe that would be the best way to proceed in the article, just using him (and the other sources) as sources for the material, and giving only a rather quick discussion on Howard's theory itself? John Carter (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Article already merged Oct 2010 with consensus, then restored/duplicated March 2011 without consensus

• This article was merged here, at the time based on consensus on the Talk pagem then then restored, but merged content left on Gospel of the Hebrews without consensus. As it is the simplest cleanest way to deal with this is simply revert the restore. All in all the way we've got here is clearly a bit of a mess, but the result should be to leave properly titled/written/referenced articles which would resemble what a normal encyclopedia would have:
• (1) fragments of a 3rdC Nazarene text preserved in Jerome.
• (2) 3x 14thC rabbinical Hebrew texts of Matthew
• (3) the hypotheses of James R. Edwards (2010) etc. which seem notable enough for one article.

In ictu oculi (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Goodo, then we'll leave this as it is for a few days, see if anyone else comments, and if not re-revert. Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)