Talk:Noncanonical gospels/Archive 1

Archive 1

Misinformation

A lot of this article seems loaded with misinformation. I think we need to get some serious editors working on it, primarily those who have access to actual scholarly research on this matter, and then lock the article so it cannot be toyed with. It is clear that this article, as written, is just full of pseudo-scholarly religious doctrine. It hardly meets Wiki standards of impartiality.Bearnfæder (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. It is a complex area. Also the are many areas of scholarly disagreement. I that suggest that you list the areas of concern and I will take the time to find the references and rewrite the material. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

To start, there is no serious academic support behind the claim of a Hebrew gospel by Matthew being the first written. Nevertheless, an entire section in this article is devoted to this notion with hardly any reference to to this lack of disagreement by the academic community.Bearnfæder (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising your specific concern. I have just spent the past couple of months trying to get to the bottom of this issue. If you read the following you will see that their is "serious academic support" for the position.

1. ^ First Clement,
2. ^ Didache,
3. ^ Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans
4. ^ Polycarp to the Philippians
5. ^ Barnabas,
6. ^ Justin, Dialogue,
7. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies
8. ^ Tertullian, On Prayer 26
9. ^ Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
10. ^ Origen,
11. ^ Eusebius, Theophany on Matthew
12. ^ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
13. ^ Didymus, Commentary on Psalm
14. ^ Epiphanius, Panarion
15. ^ Jerome, On Psalm 135
16. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah
17. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel
18. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Micah
19. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
20. ^ Jerome’s Letter to Damascus 20 on Matthew 21.9
21. ^ Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia
22. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians
23. ^ Jerome, Against Pelagius
24. ^ Jerome, On Illustrious Men,
25. ^ Pick Bernhard, Paralipomena: Remains of Gospels and Sayings of Christ BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009 p.31
26. ^ Sabine Baring-gould, The Lost And Hostile Gospels, Nabu Press, 2010. p 122 - 129
27. ^ Waite Burlingame, History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred, BiblioBazaarPub, 2009. p 278
28. ^ Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005. pp 111 - 134
29. ^ "Artifact Record Details: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932: Letter, Thaius to Tigrius (Fragment)". Spurlock Museum at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2001. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/search/details.php?a=1914.21.0010. Retrieved 30 May 2007. "Artifact of the Month: Letter from Thaius to Tirius, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932". Spurlock Museum. 2002. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/collections/artifact/oxyrhynchus.html. Retrieved 30 May 2007.
30. ^ S. Kent Brown comments on the text of Oxyrhynchus 840 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 1000
31. ^ Discourse on Maria Theotokos by Cyril 12A
32. ^ Grabe, Johann Ernst - Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Seculi Post Christum natum
33. ^ Kitto, John - A cyclopædia of Biblical literature.
34. ^ von Harnack, Adolf - Texte und untersuchungen zur geschichte der
35. ^ Weber, Christian Friedrich - Neue Untersuchung über das Alter und Ansehen des Evangeliums.
36. ^ Boyce, William Binnington - The higher criticism and the Bible.
37. ^ Archibald Hamilton Charteris, Johannes Kirchhofer - Canonicity: a collection of early testimonies :to the canonical books of the New Testament.
38. ^Handmann, Rudolf - Das Hebräer-Evangelium.
39. ^ Nicholson, Edward Byron - The Gospel According to the Hebrews.
40. ^Pierson Parker - A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews".
41. ^ Farmer, William - The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
42. ^Walter Richard Cassels - Supernatural Religion.
43. ^Edwards, J.R. - The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition.

My goal is not to bury you with sources. I hate it when people do this to me. Therefore I will give you four Google Links that I believe will be helpful.

1. Google Link
2. Google Link
3. Google Link
4. Google Link

I hope this is a sound start. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Had I realized your deep involvement in the creation of the mess we have with the article, I would have thought twice about accepting your assistance. The points raised in your links are malarkey, and are refuted by serious academic sources.Bearnfæder (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments seem a bit harsh. Please explain what you mean by "mess" and "malarkey". How do you define serious serious academic sources? Still wishing you a warm welcome to Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hi Bearnfæder. I just noticed that you are new to Wikipedia and that the above was only your 74th edit. Welcome to Wikipedia. Hope to see more of you. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure, to you, I count as new to Wikipedia as well. I have to say that if the comments above had been addressed to me I would have found them extremely patronising. I agree with Bearnfæder, this is a heavily biased article, designed to support a view which is very much in the minority. It seems to ignore the pre-70 existence of a Gentile church despite the evidence of Paul's letters, assumes the author of Matthew to be the apostle which most scholars would not, and says that Peter went to Antioch after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 when the referenced sources show that Peter died in the last year of the reign of Nero, 68.

I do not intend to take up the invitation to debate this point by point, because I see no 'point' in doing so. The article on 'Gospel' already has a perfectly good section on the canonical gospels. Propose that this article should either be deleted, or merged after heavy editing with others on the 'Hebrew Gospel'.Matruman (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Summary of evidence and sources.

First, it is important to note that their is no primary source for the Hebrew Gospel. This is a summary of the secondary sources i.e. (Josephus, writings of the Church Fathers, etc) and tertiary sources (Edwards, Parker, Nicholson Schoemaker, Lillie etc) ***It is important to read the Google Links in the full context in which they are cited.***

The existence of the Hebrew Gospel

There is broad consensus that there was a gospel written in Hebrew. Indeed there is no scholar, past or present that denies the existence of a Hebrew gospel. Google Link Google Link Google Link Combined, there are some 75 different attestations to the Hebrew Gospel in ancient Christianity. Google Link

The Hebrew Gospel was written by Matthew

There is broad consensus that the Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew. Google Link Google Link Google Link In fact at least twelve different Church Fathers attribute the Hebrew Gospel to the apostle Matthew. Google Link More importantly, no historical source attributes it to anyone other than Matthew. Google Link

It was called, Gospel according to the Hebrews

The ancient writers state that the Hebrew gospel was also called, a Gospel of the Hebrews. Google link Also no Church Father disputed that the Hebrews gospel was circulated under the name Gospel of the Hebrews. Google Link Google Link Google Link

Again, this is but a brief summary. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to list any and all viewpoints of a particular topic. It is the job of the editors of any article to flush out the neutral, reliable sources from the biased, unreliable ones and then build an article out of this information. While this does not rule out the inclusion of information from biased sources, it does faithfully keep them at distance from the heart of an article, and require that they be clearly labeled as non-scholarly, non-academic, and biased sources, the information from which being solidly reproached from within the academic community. Unfortunately, with this article, the exact opposite has been done, and the biased, non-scholarly sources have had their information ingrained into the meat of the article, with casual mentions of serious academic opinions left to sit on the side, as though they were fringe theories with little to no supporting evidence. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; it is an encyclopedia. Newspapers of today are simply copy-pasters that seek out as many different opinions as reasonable to fill their pages, with no regard for the accuracy of the information presented by the opinions—various fact-checking news groups aside. Encyclopedias, on the other hand, seek to be accurate and in accord with the serious academic opinions of their time. This is why published encyclopedias rely on informed individuals to compose their entries, and Wikipedia on serious academic sources to support any editions, particularly in a topic of such a clearly academic-based nature as this one.

I do not deny that the article, as written, presents each position—including serious academic ones—, but do contend that this article, as written, gives undue weight to non-academic information and sources (regarding the Hebrew Gospel, that is) by putting the non-academic information in the forefront and pushing the academic information to the sidelines. This violates Wiki's POV standards.Bearnfæder (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but the devil is in the details. Are Jerome and Eusebius serious scholars? What about Nicholson and Parker? or the Gospel of the Hebrews, Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome, and John McBrewster, Alphascript Publishing, 2010? Google Link Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Again, your comments seem a bit harsh. I also disagree. However, if you propose this article for deletion I will not take offense. I only request that it be done fairly in accordance with Wikipedia policy. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Wishing you a Happy New Year - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

From My Profile: AfD

The following exchange began on my profile; I've just now noticed it and am posting it in this page in order to make this more public. I'm not certain that a discussion of only this page taking place in my profile only is appropriate:

I've picked up in the discussion page on your comments to the author of this piece, and agree it is highly biased. Personally I think it is irrecoverable, and have proposed that it be deleted or at best merged with other pieces on the Hebrew Gospel. I doubt the author will agree, and suspect I'm going to be exploring the possibilities for 'dispute resolution' which Wikipedia offers. Hope you will feel able to support me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matruman (talk • contribs) 17:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, you "suspect" wrong! I will not take offense at an AfD. All I ask is that it be done fairly in accordance with Wikipedia policy. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Wishing you both a Happy New Year - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I have not been around much. Honestly, I began to find the task of fixing this article an impossibility, especially on my own against one such as Ret. Prof, whose dedication to the inclusion of poor source material, and tiring lists of 'references' in his favor make any attempts at productive editing certainly futile. Quite frankly, I am in no way opposed to the deletion of this article; it serves no purpose on Wikipedia. There is already an article regarding the Synoptic Problem, and individual articles on the canonical (and non-canonical) gospels; why this page is needed at all confuses me, since it offers little in the way of additional information to the already-present articles and nothing in the way of quality or reliability. Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect in all of this, however, is that the poor-quality research and information contained in this article has found its way weaved into so many other articles on Wikipedia; a full removal of this gibberish (which is all it is) is going to be a task representing a massive undertaking, which will no doubt be fought against vehemently by folk with the strong religious bias that produced and spread this information through Wikipedia in the first place. As such, I don't see a solid way of remedying any of this without some sort of authoritative action; thus, I agree fully with you, Matruman, and believe that some sort of dispute resolution will be necessary, and I am willing to give parts of my time to this cause. And, of course, whether or not Matruman's actions regarding this are appropriate or within Wikipedia guidelines is of little concern to me, and entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not some sort of authoritative action needs taking. Bearnfæder (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Was the article ever proposed? I agree with the above comments.In ictu oculi (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplication

The following section seems extremely resilient. Either the person who originally wrote this essay-like passage sowed it in various places, or others have copied it/keep restoring it. It currently resides in full also on Gospel of the Hebrews, but bits of it appear also in Jesus outside the New Testament, Jesus in the Talmud, etc. :

Begin Quote: Hebrew Gospel tradition Originally, Jewish/Christian scholarship had been oral. Jesus (for example his Expounding of the Law) and other rabbis expounded and debated the law (the written law expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of additional written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim).

This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 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 that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.[23][24]

The Church Fathers recognized this and said that the first gospels were born out of necessity.[25] Matthew, a Galilean Jew and follower of the rabbi Jesus is said to have written the first gospel.[26] It was composed in Hebrew and meant for Hebrew Christians.[27][28]

As a disciple, Matthew followed Jesus, and would have been an eye witness to the rabbinical midrashic discourse of the "Rabbi from Nazareth". Matthew may have even participated in the development of the Torah Shebeal Peh as the Talmud mentions him as a follower of Jesus the Nazarene.[29][30][31] Matthew reduced this Logia into a written form in what would become known as the first Gospel.[32][33][34]

Because of the writings of the Church Fathers we know a great deal about Matthew's gospel. It was composed in Hebrew near Jerusalem for Hebrew Christians and it was translated into Greek, but the Greek translation was lost. The Hebrew original was kept at the Library of Caesarea. The Nazarene Community transcribed a copy for Jerome which he used in his work.[35][36][37]

Matthew's Gospel was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews [38][39] or sometimes the Gospel of the Apostles [40][41][42][43][44] and it was once believed that it was the original to the Greek Matthew found in the Bible, although this is currently disputed [45] by modern Biblical Scholars.

Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews was widely circulated among early Hebrew Christians.[46][47] These groups included the Nazarenes, Ebionites etc. It was generally believed that they added their own oral traditions or midrash to the "Hebrew Gospel" giving rise to what are now known as the Jewish Gospels.[48] Almost all critics are agreed, that the Gospel according to Nazarenes, the Gospel according to Ebionites, etc. are just modified editions of Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews but were essentially the same gospel and are important to understanding the gospel tradition of early Christianity.[49][50] From Egypt, to as far away as India,[51] in various editions,[52] the Gospel according to the Hebrews [53][54][55][56][57][58] remained one of the most important primary Christian writings [59][60][61][62][63] until Jewish Christianity was displaced by the State church of the Roman Empire. [56] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]

Among the claims which stick out is "It [i.e. GMatthew] was composed in Hebrew near Jerusalem for Hebrew Christians and it was translated into Greek, but the Greek translation was lost." No ref. No source. Where did this encyclopedia fact come from? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The article Gospel, to which this article was a redirect, also has similar duplicate material. Tagged there.In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed per WP policy - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for not reverting my removal of the material on Talk:Gospel. However your duplicate material still exists on other pages.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Article move

Since this article is 80% about Noncanonical gospels and 20% about Canonical Gospels I have moved it there. I've also restored the REDIRECTCanonical gospels back to Gospels#Canonical_gospels_2 where it was before. Best regards In ictu oculi (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ret.Prof Wikipedia already has articles on:

• Development of the New Testament canon
• Gospels Synoptic gospels

Since this article is 80% Noncanonical gospels it is at Noncanonical gospels. Edit history will be where it was. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you want to delete this article, an AfD is the way to go.
• This article was about the Canonical gospels, why they were chosen and how they came into being. Your statement above is misleading to say the least. Not to mention being a POV fork that you just created.
• Please restore true edit history.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• It is against Wikipedia Policy for an editor to perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. WP:3RR
• It is against Wikipedia Policy for an editor to perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period with "alternative accounts". Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
• It is against Wikipedia Policy to canvas other editors to revert on their behalf.Wikipedia:Canvassing

You behavior is actually getting me confused. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Move to Noncanonical gospels Dear Retprof 1. What have any of those 3 points above got to do with me? 2. Re the move, please read what was said above. 3. You now have 2 duplicate articles Canonical gospels and Noncanonical gospels, both of them 80% about noncanonical gospels.In ictu oculi (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You are making no sense? Please explain? - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Retprof

1. What have those 3 points above WP:3RR Wikipedia:Sock puppetry Wikipedia:Canvassing got to do with me?

2. Re the move, please read what was said above. Your edit history is still with the article at Noncanonical gospels.

3. In copying it back you have now made 2 duplicate articles Canonical gospels and Noncanonical gospels, both of them 80% about noncanonical gospels.In ictu oculi (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What you saying makes no sense? Are you doing the duplicating? - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You have now redirected noncanonical gospels to canonical gospels!In ictu oculi (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Important Wikipedia article This is an important Wikipedia article. Please do not vandalize it. If you believe it should deleted, then post an AfD. What you are doing is wrongful. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks - 21:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Ret.Prof, I beg to disagree, this is not an important article, or a good article, or about the subject of the title. This article is just an essay-style piece of Original Research you created yourself out of a REDIRECT Gospel#Canonical gospels into 26 Oct 2010, to put your theories and your views in the way of Wikipedia readers finding the existing articles on Gospel Synoptic gospels Development of the New Testament canon. What you have written is largely about Noncanonical gospels. It belongs there.In ictu oculi (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And please stop doing these == headlines.In ictu oculi (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• It is against Wikipedia Policy for an editor to perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. WP:3RR
• It is against Wikipedia Policy for an editor to perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period with "alternative accounts". Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
• It is against Wikipedia Policy to canvas other editors to revert on their behalf.Wikipedia:Canvassing

This is an Important Wikipedia article

This is an important Wikipedia article. Please do not vandalize it. If you believe it should deleted, then post an AfD. What you are doing is wrongful. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• PS - Please restore true edit history.

Dear RetProf

Please see Talk:Noncanonical gospels - the edit history is there.

When you move by cut and pasting not move, naturally the edit history shows cut and pasting, not move.

There's nothing I can do about that.

Restore REDIRECT Gospel#Canonical gospels

With 500 hits a day important Wikipedia article. shouldn't this article be feeding users back to where it was feeding before you inserted this new article in where a redirect was before? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Gospel of Matthew In ictu oculi (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• See also archived talk on this page. This article is a POV essay taking up the baton from User:Poorman's contributions to Authentic Gospel of Matthew.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Re. AfD : The archive shows that past attempts to make more mainstream the content here by other editors (see archive) have been resisted by essay/article creator. In my own case POV OR tags removed with the article author issuing challenge to take this to Articles for deletion. Realistically an AfD probably is the best way to proceed with this. Though some content could be salvaged for Noncanonical gospels, which is what 70-80% of the article is, and the original redirect to Gospel on which the essay/article was written restored. The trouble is, an AfD requires at least 3 editors serious enough to make a case. If anyone coming across this article also feels that this essay is POV, then by all means please leave a note on Talk here. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 12 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD or Endless edit war?

This specifically is what would need to be deleted if it is not available to edit. The alternative is to simply proceed with editing, so that the content (a) reflects title, (b) is mainstream.In ictu oculi (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Or, split the article into Canonical gospels and noncanonical gospels?In ictu oculi (talk)
  • As this has become a Coatrack, and the material is covered at the Gospels article, the redirect should be restored and the relevant material added there. It could be taken to AfD, but that seems unnecessary since the notability of the topic is not at issue, and AfD should not be used to resolve content disputes (e.g. POV pushing of a tendentious editorial viewpoint). I'll revert to the rd and suggest other editors remain vigilant to ensure that the coatrack is not restored. Eusebeus (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, in which case the article will be deleted, or merged. An AfD is the right way to deal with this issue. Edit warring is not the right way to go. I am stepping back so why not do things properly?? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is this isn't just fiction, there is some meaningful content in here on the non-canonical gospels that probably should be preserved (moved to noncanonical gospels). But I guess if the sole author of an article says "either AfD or nothing" then that isn't entirely unreasonable.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not correct. An AfD may result in a Keep, but also a merge, or a redirect or a delete. It is better than edit warring, which really hurts Wikipedia. See my talk page. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Authorship is not ownership, so that is not germane. Moreover, AfD should not be used to resolve content issues like coatracking. Eusebeus (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed at Wikipedia, "Authorship is not ownership". Where we disagree is how to remove an article. I believe an AfD is the way to go. You and Ictu can raise your arguments. I get the chance to put forward my position. The Wikipedia community joins in the debate. At then end of the discussion an Admin declares consensus. I believe this is much better than endless edit war. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there are sooo many questions here. First, I would have to question the use of the word "noncanonical," as it implies that there is only one canon. I think we all know that isn't the case, but that there are several "canons", particularly given the number of NRMs which may have added or removed works. This would be particularly problematic if there is evidence that the book in question is or ever has been accepted as "canon" by anyone, as it would be taking a POV in favor of the "existing canons," which would probably violate WP:NPOV. Second, it seems to me that at least some of the works included in the link provided technically aren't gospels. None of the canonical letters are accepted as "canonical gospels", and I don't imagine any other non-"gospels" would be relevant as well. Maybe one alternative would be a List of noncanonical Gospels and/or a List of noncanonical New Testament works. But there might be problems here as well. As I remember, tell me if I'm wrong, there is an "Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ," which, so far as I remember, is generally accepted as being only a few hundred years old. Would it be included or not? Maybe the best way to proceed, at least initially, is to address each of these points, and maybe any others I didn't see right off, individually and try to reach some form of resolution of the various questions involved individually? John Carter (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

John, of course you are right. There are quite a number of ways this article could be improved. However, a number of editors believe it is so very bad as to be removed. If this article survives an AfD, then we can work on your improvements. Or have Ictu and Eusebius conceded that this article should be kept? If this is the case, I will be glad to step back and let you improve it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Folly of edit warring

• The main difficulty I have with edit warring, is that nothing ever gets resolved. As long as you bend the rules, but do not break them, the war goes on and on. The thing that upsets me the most is that our gifted editors are the ones to get tired of wasting their time and leave Wikipedia. I think the greatest challenge for us is how to to keep editing good natured, scholarly and focused on the references. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The first question would be - is the essay/article open to being edited? Maybe I misunderstood but the request seemed to be given : either (a) AfD or (b) leave as is. If that isn't the case then that makes a difference.

*Ans: (a) AfD then (b) improve - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The second question would be, what goes under Canonical gospels. My feeling (which shares some ground with John's comments above) is that what goes under this wikilink should be what it was, a redirect to Gospel.

*Ans: Most articles have at least 3 sections

1. A section explaining what the Canonical gospels are;
2. A section explaining how they were composed;
3. A section explaining why they were chosen to be part of the canon. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The third question would be what to do with 70% of the article content, which is about noncanonical gospels. Where (if at all) are those noncanonical gospels treated now.In ictu oculi (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

*Ans: Can you know what hot is without cold? Up without down? Small without big. A coin with only one side? If this article is kept, I will step back and let you edit it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, but on Wikipedia hot has a wikilink to cold. For most readers, when they type "canonical gospels" they want to be directed to synoptics + John. Wheras when they type "noncanonical gospels" they'd want to be direct to apocryphal gospels In ictu oculi (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying "for most readers, when they type 'canonical gospels' they want to be directed to synoptics + John is interesting. You may even be right. All I am saying is it should be decided with an AfD Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, lost me. canonical gospels = Synoptics + John. What else would it mean? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not important. What is important is an AfD. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is getting a little confusing. I believe that if you want to remove this article, that an AfD is the right way to go. That for me is the central issue. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, well, I'm wondering why anyone would challenge that "for most readers, when they type 'canonical gospels' they want to be directed to synoptics + John" as "interesting", since prior to creation of this article over REDIRECT that's exactly what was happening. Any wikilinks to canonical gospels originally REDIRECTED to Gospel#Canonical gospels, not this essay material. Anyway, looking at AfD criteria, the main reason for a removal of this essay material to a sandbox, and restoration of the original REDIRECT to Gospel would be Wikipedia:Content forking.

• canonical gospels originally REDIRECTS to Gospel#Canonical gospels
• NB Pages which originally linked to Gospel#Canonical gospels which now link to this essay syle article
• noncanonical gospels REDIRECTS to New Testament apocrypha
• apocryphal gospels REDIRECTS to New Testament apocrypha

So in what way is this article not a content fork? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again you may be right, in which case the article will be deleted, or merged. An AfD is the right way to deal with this issue. Edit warring is not the right way to go. I am stepping back so why not do things properly?? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, adding the tag

to an article is not generally considered "edit warring", though deletion of the tag might perhaps be. You are probably right that the issue of WP:POVFORK

precedes the issue of whether the article can be edited by other users. So you are also probably right that the correct step would be Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion, after which (A) your material could be moved to a personal Wikipedia:Sandbox and (B) the REDIRECT to Gospel#Canonical gospels restored. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Confused

Here I am really confused. You believe this article should be removed. Why not nominate it for deletion? Then I can step back from Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)