Talk:Oral gospel traditions/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Duplication

Jesus outside the New Testament by same editor. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

Sorry in some ways but can't see any alternative to this tag; done to hopefully attract attention of other editors. I admit string the various OR primary references from Jerome Eusebius etc together and it looks on the surface to be reasonable. The giveaway is the lack of modern academic sources. The peculiar thing is the nature of the essay, which is largely a wholesale resurrect/revert of old/deleted material.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Back to the fountainhead

I actually agree with you. I am not sure what the solution is. The problem is that sources explain that during the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non-Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link

Letter to Pope Damasus Jerome, 383 A.D.

The labor is one of love, but at the same time both perilous . . . I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judæa in Hebrew characters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead.[1]

Nicholson, Parker, Edwards, Bütz and others agree with Jerome. Thus the Hebrew Gospel is the basis for a number of topics. How do we go back to the fountainhead without duplicating material? The matter is further complicated by the fact that the Catholic Church and a number of scholars believe that Jerome was wrong and that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible was written by Matthew. Until then I will redirect the article as a sign of good faith.- Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Merged

Duplication, not needed per Ictu - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Matthaei authenticum

And this appears to largely be restored POV content copied from old versions of Jewish-Christian Gospels, Gospel of the Hebrews etc.:

Matthew (one of the Twelve disciples and a Jew) was also part of the Diaspora. The Church Fathers recognized this and said that his gospel was born out of necessity. [40] [41] It was composed in Hebrew and meant for Hebrew Christians.[42] [43] [44] [45][46] [47][48][49] This Hebrew Gospel 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.[50][51][52] Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was often called the Authentic Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel according to the Hebrews [53][54] or sometimes the Gospel of the Apostles [55][56][57][58] and it was once believed that it was the original to the Greek Matthew found in the Bible, although this is currently disputed by modern Biblical Scholars. The Hebrew Gospel was widely circulated among early Jewish Christians. [59] [60] 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.[61] Almost all critics are agreed, that the Jewish Gospels, are just modified editions of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. [62][63] [64] [65][66] [67][68] [69] [70][71][72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]

"Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was often called the Authentic Gospel of Matthew"?? That is not a NPOV, one commentator, Jerome, comments that one Jewish-Christian group regarded their version as the original one. This seems to be doggedly preserving a bit of Wikipedia-only reality. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually Ictu has some good points re Google BooksGoogle Scholar that I will try to address over the next few weeks. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplication

The articles having to do with the formation of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus are bit of a mess. Duplication, redundancy, original research, POV pushing etc. Ictu has some valid points. I am going to try to deal his concerns and with a bit of good will we may be able to solve some of the problems. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Title

I was also thinking of changing the title to Christian Oral Tradition Ret.Prof (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

But what is the subject of the article? I'm not sure it meets the criteria of WP:OR or "essay," but it is still in isolation from the main historical Jesus articles. What subject is it adding?
And sorry, see page history, since article restored, POV tag restored. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think my main concern here is this article being a sole-author with a past history on WP of editing solely on subjects feeding into the lost Hebrew Gospel theory. But aside from that there are plentiful other articles about the formation of the Gospels. The following strike-throughs illustrate sentences which are potentially problematic:

Most critical scholars today[17] would accept the view that the texts of the first written accounts of Jesus Christ were based upon the Oral Tradition.[18][19][20] Some scholars believe these early writings were based directly upon the Oral Tradition,[21][22] while others argue others argue that the Christian logia grew into pericopes, which were in turn collected into still larger accounts or proto-Gospels. Then the Gospel authors further developed these proto-Gospels into the final Gospels we have in our canon.[23][24][25][26][27] Scholars are in general agreement that the Christians up to the destruction of the Temple had no written Gospels being circulated among them.[28][29][30][31]

The writings of the Church fathers also tend to confirm[citation needed] that the Oral Tradition was the basis of the earliest gospels. Matthew was said to have been part of the scattered ie (the diaspora or Tefutzot תפוצות, "to scatter"). More importantly, the Church Fathers record that when he was about to leave, he reduced the Oral Tradition to written form. Papias stated "Matthew wrote down (synetaxato) the "logia" in the Hebrew language (Hebraidi dialekto), and each interpreted (hermeneusen) them as best he could.[32][33] Matthew may have written an early hypothesised lost gospel known as the Gospel of the Hebrews or the Hebrew Gospel.[34][35][36][37]

When Peter (one of the twelve disciples and a Jew) left Jerusalem,[38][39][40] he preached the Gospel orally to the Jewish diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor and Bithynia and eventually went to Rome.[38][41][42][43] However it was Peter's scribe Mark who first reduced the Oral Tradition of Peter to written form. According to Jerome,[44] Mark set down these teachings of Peter in what is now called the Gospel of Mark

Most modern scholars agree[45] that Mark composed the first gospel, in Koine Greek. Peter is said [who?] to have reviewed this work and given it his blessing, elevating the Gospel of Mark to the level of an eyewitness account.[46][47][48][49] The Gospel of Mark was widely circulated and scholars agree that it was a primary source used in the writing of later gospels.[50][51]

For reference - what a more mainstream treatment looks like: Taken from the relevant "Oral tradition" section of the Gospels article:

The oral traditions that the evangelists drew on were transmitted by word of mouth for decades. This oral tradition consisted of several distinct components. Parables and aphorisms are the "bedrock of the tradition". Pronouncement stories, scenes that culminate with a saying of Jesus, are more plausible historically than other kinds of stories about Jesus. Other sorts of stories include controversy stories, in which Jesus is in conflict with religious authorities; miracles stories, including healings, exorcisms, and nature wonders; call and commissioning stories; and legends. One of the most important concerns in accurately accounting for the oral Jesus tradition is the model of transmission used. Form criticism (Formgeschichte) was developed primarily by the German scholars Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Martin Dibelius, and Rudolf Bultmann.[92][93][94] The oral model developed by the form critics drew heavily on contemporary theory of folkloric transmission of oral material, and partly as a result of this form criticism posited that the Jesus tradition was transmitted informally, added to freely, and was uncontrolled.[95] However, "Today it is no exaggeration to claim that a whole spectrum of main assumptions underlying Bultmann's Synoptic Tradition must be considered suspect.[96] " A number of other models have been proposed which posit greater control over the tradition, to varying degrees. For example, largely in response to form critical scholarship, Professor Birger Gerhardsson examined oral transmission in early rabbinic circles, and proposed that a more controlled and formal model of orality would more accurately reflect the transmission of the Jesus tradition in early Christian circles, and therefore that the oral traditions present in the gospels have been fairly reliably and faithfully transmitted.[97] Professor Kenneth Bailey, after spending a great deal of time in remote and illiterate villages in the Middle East, used his experience with orality in such places to formulate a similar model of controlled transmission within the early Christian communities, but posited an informal mechanism of control.[95] Controlled models of the Jesus tradition, and with them an evaluation of the gospels as possessing greater historical reliability, have been accepted by several scholars in recent years.[98][99][100] However Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld adds that the early followers of Jesus were not interested in simply preserving the past but were also interested in fitting the narratives to suit urgent information, audience interest and creativity in communication and believed that they were in direct communication with Jesus though the Holy Spirit, thus making it still difficult for historians to assess the historical reliability of the oral tradition.[101] With regards to Bailey's studies, Maurice Casey writes that they cannot be applied to 1st century Jews as they were about a different culture at a different time.[102]

Organization of sources

I suggest the article sources be organized using one of the formats acceptable for WP:GA / WP:FA quality articles. That will save major rework later. The reliable sources should be listed at the bottom in alphabetical order in a section called Literature or References, while the footnotes in the article should be listed as Footnotes or Notes or Citations and refer to the Literature / References. Please see the WP:MOS and GA/FA examples of ways to do this. Ignocrates (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no trouble with that suggestion. What I am doing now is going though the article line by line removing any original research, and providing Google Links for easy verification. Have I missed anything? - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've just deleted some. Note that original research includes using sources that don't actually mention the subject of the article but together are used to make an argument. There were also some self-published sources and some other dubious ones. Still are I believe. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Headlinks to this article on not clearly related articles

There are currently 8 or 9 seemingly promotional headlinks (ie above the whole article lede), mainlinks (above sections) and questionable inline links to this article made (and restored) by RetProf the article creator and sole contributor. See What links here I'm not sure what if any Wikipedia policy relates to this, but the headlinks seem gratuitous, especially seeing as there are better articles with a wider spectrum of Wikipedia editors contribution. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 deleted content back again June 2012

at Christian Oral Tradition. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

References

The references are in dire need of improvement. In particular, with reference numbers referring to this version of the article:

  • The first four references about the Jews' oral tradition seem rather off-topic, and the one link points to a list of books instead of to the correct book. Do we really need four sources for such a statement which is nothing but background?
  • The link for no. 6 points nowhere.
  • No. 7 is the same as no. 5, just the next page. We should merge them into a single reference and tow different footnotes denoting the pages within that reference per Ignocrates' suggestion.
  • No. 8 uses weasel words. Which scholars believe that James wasn't Jesus' brother, and why is that even relevant to this article?
  • No. 9 points to p. 77 of this book which according to Google's preview does not have page numbers. Referring to p. 77 is useless when we cannot tell which page is p. 77. This source also contradicts the next paragraph by saying that according to traditional belief the Oral Torah was received on Mt. Sinai.
  • The paragraph about the Oral Torah being misunderstood as having been given to Moses has another source (no. 12) which explicitly says that it was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Another of the sources (no. 11) has a link pointing nowhere, and not just due to a typo.
  • No. 17 discusses consensus among scholars without providing an actual reference.
  • No. 18 contradicts the statement it's supposed to source.
  • No. 19 doesn't say what it's supposed to say, but at least it doesn't say the opposite.
  • The link for no. 20 could be improved, and I'm not sure from the snippet whether this one actually says what it's supposed to.
  • No. 21 says that some gospels were directly based on oral tradition, but not all. From the snippet one cannot tell what it says about the others, but it's rather outdated anyway.
  • No. 22 is a modern translation of another piece of 19th century scholarship. Is that still the state of the art?
  • Nos. 34 to 37 are ancient Church fathers. Is there no modern scholarship on this subject?
  • Nos. 38 to 43: Six sources for a voyage of Peter? Isn't that excessive for a event rather insignificant in the wider context of this article? Besides, No. 41 doesn't mention Peter's voyage to Rome.
  • No. 40 refers to "pp. 3-203". Could we be a little more specific?
  • No. 44 supports a statement which is flat-out contradicted by modern scholarship. It sounds as if it were meant to be factual.
  • Nos. 45 to 51 are my favourite: We begin and end by claiming consensus of modern scholars, and in between we have ancient Church fathers and an account that is at best disputed by modern scholarship, if not outright discredited. This seems to be a bad case of synthesis of sources to make a point.
  • Nos. 57 to 59 could do with page numbers.

As an aside, the article could do with an entirely rewritten introduction that shows what it's supposed to be about. The current introduction fails spectacularly at that task. Huon (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, although I'm not convinced this can be saved without being entirely rewritten. If it's covered in another article it can be turned into a redirect. Or maybe just turn it into a stub? I think one of those - redirect or stubify so it can be rebuilt - are our best choices.
Note that the author's creator has just said he's no longer editing, claiming he's been hounded - a claim I think is a way of avoiding legitimate complaints. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The article should be demoted to a stub for now, so I will be bold and make that change. If the consensus is to WP:TNT the article, that should be done through an AfD to get wider community input and avoid the appearance of an abuse of process. Ignocrates (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
If In ictu oculi or someone else wants to take the lead on this be my guest, as the time I can devote to Wiki is very limited these days. I would create a Literature section at the bottom and alphabetically list whatever reliable sources are worth keeping. Much of the content appears to be OR or based on primary sources, or in some cases marginal 100-plus year old sources. I would put a lot more emphasis on the scholarship of James Dunn. He is one of the major contributors to this field in recent years, yet his work is barely mentioned in the article. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Since that seemed to be the consensus, I have gone ahead and gutted the article. The remaining stub could probably be merged to Gospel#Oral tradition. I removed whatever I considered off-topic, in particular the Oral Torah (which is not connected to the oral traditions of Christianity), Peter (whose dictating to Mark seems to be discredited by modern scholarship), and the Sitz im Leben discussion of Jesus' background. I'm not a Biblical scholar myself and have no idea what Dunn might have to say about the topic, and the stub I left did not require the one Dunn source we had. Feel free to re-add him and explain what he says. If we decide we want to keep this stub, I'd suggest moving it to Oral traditions in early Christianity or something like that - it doesn't really have much to do with the historical Jesus any more. Huon (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
My feeling is that we are so shorthanded that there is little point in spending effort here. There are bigger issues and larger blocks or error filled text that need attention first, elsewhere all over the project. For this I say let it be for now. History2007 (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, and thanks for taking care of it. There is an extensive collection of agrapha - sayings attributed to Jesus through oral transmission and found only in the commentaries of the Early Church Fathers - that could be discussed here, and which would not easily fit into Gospel#Oral tradition. Ignocrates (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for absence. I would agree with where discussion has gone and the actions taken. As regards sources, apart from James Dunn eg John's Gospel and the Oral Gospel Tradition, and Sanders, there is a representative selection of papers in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition ed Wansborough Sheffield University 1991 including Soards "Oral Tradition before, in, and outside the Canonical Passion Narratives." , Riesner 'Jesus as Preacher and Teacher,' etc. But tend to agree with History2007 that this article isn't an immediate priority. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that there was an earlier version of the article with many more references (to accompany a significantly longer article). I don't have an opinion as to whether any of those references should be reinstated, but there are some problems even with what is left. A quick perusal of the first two (both by Burkett) reveals that both of them apparently just repeat the ideas of others (Bultmann). Likewise, considering the recent date of publication of the third one (Kelber), it too is apparently just a re-hashing of the theories of a couple of previous authors (Gerhardsson and again, Bultmann). I suppose that it is acceptable to list such secondary sources, but I would think that it would be better to acknowledge the original theorists (Bultmann, Gerhardsson, and others?). Alan B25 (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

History of the theory

How about adding a brief summary of the history of the theory? (Who first proposed it? When? When & why did it come to be the majority view?) If the author is knowledgeable on the subject, I would also think that it should not be difficult to list some major proponents (& opponents) of the theory (and to summarize their views). Alan B25 (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Your questions are important. One of the most knowledgeable authors on the subject is Bart Ehrman. He covers all the basics in his most recent work Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 83-93 and pp 98-101 - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
This removed temporarily, sorry seems to be heading directly back in the direction of the OR in the original duplicate article. Also concerned that the conversation above is with a new editor who, sorry Alan, is promoting a self published book exactly on this area/theory. I would like the editors who trimmed this article to look at any proposed re-expansion. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It is not Original Research but Bart Ehrman who explains why Aramaic is so very important to Oral Tradition in his most recent work Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 87-93. Maurice Casey says much the same thing in his most recent work Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 9-12. He clearly agrees that the spoken language of Jesus and his followers was Aramaic. p 10 However his treatment of Bultmann seems a little harsh. (p 11 and p 12). I suggest we stay with the kinder, gentler approach of Bart Ehrman. I will leave your deletion for a couple of days to give you a chance to verify that Bart Ehrman is a noted Biblical scholar and to read what he writes about our topic. I have given you links to make it easier to verify that the material is not OR. I do agree that we should expand the stub carefully. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Fitst, I have to acknowledge that while Ehrmann is an extremely good source, his popular books are just that, and unfortunately the simple fact that someone is counted in general a good source does not mean that he is a particularly good source for any individual subject - book reviews are useful in determining that. The fact that this book by Ehrmann is apparently a popular book does raise questions in and of itself, although I acknowledge that Ehrmann is counted one of the better sources for early Christianity in general. The following material was caught in edit conflict with the above:
Having gone through the lists of articles I've created based on Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible and the 5-volume Brill/Eerdman's Encyclopedia of Christianity, I regret to say that I'm not seeing that either one of these sources even gives this idea even a separate section, although, admittedly, Bultmann is discussed individually. So, while it is a notable topic, I'm not convinced at this point that it is a particularly major one for Christianity, or evethe Bible. This collection of academic papers related to the subject might be useful in developing the content, as would any of the other sources Google books returns on a search for "oral gospel". Some of these books listed at WorldCat here are locally available to me, and I could if requested find out what they have to say on the topic. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
So you are saying that Bart Ehrman is not a reliable source and the material form his book is OR???? Wow do we have a disagreement! Thats OK. I am just stunned. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You know, I don't think any rational person would even remotely jump to the conclusions you made above, and at no point did I even remotely come close to saying that his material would be OR. I am myself stunned at the seemingly irrational jump to completely unwarranted conclusions of the above. You know, for people who are actually trying to build encyclopedic content, which tends to ultimately be rather long, it really does help if they show some ability to actually read material. And, for all I know, in this case, he might well be taking a position which is at variance with the academic position, and in general, no, simply because they have a good name does not in and of itself in every single instance mean that they are reliable sources, and in general popular sources, such as much of Ehrman's work, are not the most reliable of sources, but rather academic works are, as per WP:RS, which you might actually want to read. I am franly stunned at the irrational jump to conclusions which were in no way even suggested in my own comment, and I very seriously urge people, if they wish to be taken seriously, to perhaps demonstrate a bit more maturity and rationality than I myself see in the comment above. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I accept your response and apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion. I agree that although Bart Ehrman is a reliable source, we must take care how we edit the material. I look forward to working with you. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

John C's comments above seem more than reasonable to me. However I'm too fatigued with constantly reoccuring OR in the subject area yet again yet again to have the patience to sort out OR from fact yet again. Which means that, RetProf, I think you have to find someone informed - StAnselm, History2007, Editor2020, Huon, PiCo, Dougweller or one of the others who trimmed the article down, and persuade them here on Talk before anything goes back into the article. There must be other subjects to edit on, and there must be other editors who will add stuff here if it needs to be added? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I actually agree with you and John. I think we all have grown fatigued with OR and the time has come to expand this stub into a proper article based upon reliable sources and written from a neutral point of view. I also agree that we should work slowly giving one another time to verify and discuss edits. I am now a firm believer in the "1 RR rule" and I prefer to discuss changes on the talkpage rather than engaging in an edit war. I will only revert another editor's work after letting it stand for at least 48 hours and then only with cause. I hope you have had a chance to verify that Bart Ehrman is a noted Biblical scholar and to read what he writes about our topic. I look forward to working with you. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Links

WP:LINKS

Shortcuts

Linking is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole. Interwiki links bind the project to sister projects such as Wikisource, Wiktionary, and Wikipedia in other languages. Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand. When writing or editing an article, it is important to consider not only what to put in the article, but what links to include to help the reader find related information, as well as which other pages should carry links to the article. Detailed information about the syntax used to create links can be found at Help:Link.

Now don`t get me wrong. I am not being critical. Quite the contrary! What good is having an excellent article if nobody reads it? Also linking this article will open it up to the wider community. Furthermore I appreciate the Google Links and I agree to follow your example. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Expanding the stub

Stub icon

This Christianity-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Yes, I agree that reducing an article to a stub "to delete" a topic, (rather than using an AFD) would be an abuse of process. However, I think the work of Doug etc has been helpful in establishing the common ground. Also we now have consensus that the topic is notable. Expanding the stub should be done carefully and slowly giving one another time to verify and discuss edits. Ret.Prof (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that notability of the topic itself was ever an issue. Who would deny that oral traditions ever existed in Christianity? I thought the issue related to the use of specific sources. However, notability WP:NOTE is often confounded with acceptance WP:FRINGE, and they are not at all the same thing. Both use WP:WEIGHT as a criterion but in different ways. Ignocrates (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

OR v NPOV

WP:OR

WP:NPOV

There has been some confusion as to the definition of original research. It may be a good idea for all of us to review WP:OR. If a reputable scholar such as Ehrman publishes a work that contains some of his own research this is not considered original research at Wikipedia. Original research refers only to OR done by editors. Therefore any fact found in Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012 cannot be Original Research. It may be "bad research" "biased research" "POV research" "anti christian research" but not original research. If something is found in Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? that is disputed by other reliable sources it should not be deleted but rewritten from a NPOV. For example Ehrman writes that the Oral Tradition is important because it formed the basis of the Gospels. However, if you found a source that said that there was no Oral Tradition at the time of Jesus, and the Gospels were a diary composed at the time of Jesus by his followers, the material must be rewritten from a NPOV not deleted.

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a core policy. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. Nor can it be be done away with by consensus. Also "No original research" (NOR) is also one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.

As far as our topic is concerned there are about 25 notable sources and all 25 of them fit WP definition of a reliable source. Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? would rank in the top ten. (Not only is Ehrman required reading in most seminaries but he made New York Times best sellers list.). It is our job to edit these sources from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk)

See my comment in the previous section about notability vs. acceptance. Before all of you (y'all) go any further, I would recommend that all interested parties paste what they see as important sources in one section on the talk page and discuss both their notability and acceptance. Ignocrates (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ignocrates, have we got anywhere in trying to attract new/other editors to this page? As I said I feel a bit fatigued here. I am concerned that "why Aramaic is so very important to Oral Tradition" (which is highly debatable) will translate into the same old "Authentic Matthew" fringe material reappearing. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand. Let's discuss the options on my talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Aramaic & the Oral Tradition

I have moved a lot closer to In ictu oculi's position on several issues. I too feel a bit fatigued and do not want to revisit Matthaei Authenticum. In ictu oculi asked, "Why Aramaic is so very important to Oral Tradition?" This is an important question which we all need to address for there has been a "shift" in the scholarship.

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 108-120, explains, "Jesus taught in Aramaic, which was also the language spoken by his family and by all his followers during the historic ministry. Moreover, the synoptic Gospels, which are written in Greek, show many signs of their sources being transmitted in Aramaic." He further explains that the significance of Aramaic has not been fully comprehended until recently. However, since the "publication of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, and a variety of other Aramaic documents written in the ancient world, the present generation of scholars have had the opportunity to make massive progress." p 108

"Massive progress" may be a bit of an understatement as quite a number of scholars have jumped on the "Aramaic bandwagon" including Evans 2002. p 419 who states that as "oral traditions were transmitted, those who transmitted the tradition adapted it more and more to their own language. Futhermore, since

  1. Jesus and his earliest disciples spoke Aramaic, and
  2. Greek quickly became the predominant language of the early church, then
  3. traces of Aramaic grammar and vocabulary indicate the presence of very old traditions, dating from the earliest stage of the Oral period and often deriving from Jesus himself."

However the best summary of this "New Scholarship" that I have come across is from Bart Ehrman. He is probably the most formidable Biblical historian of our time. Not only is Bart Ehrman 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 83 - 93 he does a good job of synthesizing several important sources into a readable summary that that can be easily understood. It is also the most up to date work on our topic.

At Wikipedia there has been serious push back on this topic! Here I owe a debt of gratitude to Ignocrates who has tremendous insight into Wikipedia. He has helped me to understand that there is always resistance to anything "new". This is even more true of religious people. Also just because something is new does not mean it is true. Before we go any further, I too would recommend that all interested parties paste what they see as important sources and discuss both their notability and acceptance. At Wikipedia "neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints" - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources

  • Burkett, Delbert, ed. (2011). The Blackwell Companion to Jesus. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-9362-7.
  • Burkett, Delbert (2002). An introduction to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-5210-0720-7.
  • Hammann, Konrad (2012). Rudolf Bultmann - Eine Biographie. ISBN 978-3-1615-2013-6.
  • Kelber, Werner H. (1983). The oral and the written Gospel: the hermeneutics of speaking and writing in the synoptic tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-2532-1097-5.

These are the sources currently in the article. I'm not saying they are good, bad, or ugly. They are complete to the extent the information was available in the article. I'm going to convert the ancient ref citation format to the newer sfn format. Ignocrates (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Change to sfn citation format completed. I also added a notes section. Ignocrates (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Is it possible in this format to put in the relevant sentence that refers to what is being claimed? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question. You can always embed a citation inside a note and add a quotation from the source to support the content in the main text. Hope this helps. Ignocrates (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Good work Ignocrates. As always it is great to have your input. In ictu oculi, your suggestion seems reasonable. Ret.Prof (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The quoted sentence appears as a first of 3 boxes. Can't say I'm enamoured with this new format which splits book, page and cite into 3 boxes. Seems pretty user-unfriendly. (Not a criticism of you using it Ignocrates, just saying). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As an example I've just inserted a ref (happens to be an important point as well but that's not the immediate reason)

  • Markus Bockmuehl This Jesus 2004 p15 "Similarly, we find that a number of Church Fathers quote isolated sayings of Jesus which are not recorded in any of the extant gospels: evidently oral gospel traditions were still in vogue for quite some time after the canonical gospels had been committed to writing."
  • Compare this with the difficulty of navigating the Hamman citation split in 3 boxes.

It may be a minor issue, but I think the traditional format is much more reader friendly. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to change it back. I switched to the sfn format for two reasons: (1) PiCo is using it and I was intrigued, and (2) Pyrotec expressed a concern during GA review on the GEb talk page that notes and citations mixed together in the traditional format might not pass FAC. That was the reason I changed to the sfn format on the Ebionites article. Btw, I used the George Harrison article as a prototype. It is currently under review in FAC. Ignocrates (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
One useful feature of the sfn format is that it forces you to be disciplined because the anchor keys on the author's last name and year published. If we try to keep the same convention with the ref format, e.g. Iggy (2013) p.1, it doesn't matter that much. Ignocrates (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yet one more thing. You can also collapse the notes into the citations with the sfn format using the ps= option, e.g. (curly braces)sfn|Iggy|2013|p=1|ps=collapses notes into citations(curly braces). I will try it out on the Hamman citation and you can decide either way. Ignocrates (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I added Bockmuehl as a source and changed the citation format from ref to sfn. I don't care which format we use, but I do care that citations and sources are added properly. Ignocrates (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not all up to me of course, but I assume that if we are going to add Christian apologetic, like this last source, there will be some other views included as well to balance the article. Ignocrates (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I added this book to the Further Reading section for now, until its notability and acceptance can be verified independently. Please cite all reliable secondary sources completely in the future as I did here. That means include ISBN numbers. I put the question to RSN and FTN for independent verification of its notability and acceptance. Ignocrates (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't get a straight answer out of either noticeboard, which is deeply frustrating. Maybe one will emerge eventually. Ignocrates (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we received two concurrent opinions on RSN that "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman is a reliable source, per WP:RS. That means its WP:WEIGHT based on WP:NOTE can't be zero. Ignocrates (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We received an opinion from FTN that "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman is an acceptable source (i.e. not fringe). That means its WP:WEIGHT based on WP:FRINGE can't be zero. Ignocrates (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Therefore, "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman can be used in this article to support article content on oral gospel traditions. Ignocrates (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I added Maurice Casey's book to Further Reading with a complete citation. If Ehrman's book is fine to use as a source per RSN and FTN, Casey should be a slam-dunk, since he is the foremost Aramaic scholar in the field of gospel studies. However, I will go through the validation process for him too if it comes to that. Ignocrates (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. I believe we now have a solid base for our topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Books about to be released to the public

  • Note Dunn (2013) is one of several books to be released shortly on the "New Scholarship". Some of us may have advanced copies but we should not use them until they are made public. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe that there can be any consensus about a source which has not yet been released to the public. If individuals have advance copies, it is certainly interesting to speculate why they received them, but we cannot determine if a source meets WP:RS standards until and unless those sources have been indicated in independent reviews as being, basically, reliable. If the Dunn book has not yet received reviews, then there is no reason to automatically assume that it meets WP:RS standards, and it should not be used until and unless comments about it support its status as an RS. Honestly, the same is true about all other sources - if they have received neutral, negative, or only widely positive reviews (along the lines of "nice idea," without actually supporting that idea, for instance) their status as reliable sources as per RS is going to be very open to dispute. Of the lot, the one that seems to me, on first flush, to most likely qualify as reliable, without having seen reviews, is the Blackwell Companion to Jesus, given the general nature of such basically encyclopedic works from reputable publishers. It would probably be best to demonstrate the reliability of the others first, and certainly to have clear academic opinions about the yet-to-be-released book before jumping to unsupported conclusions regarding how the academic world might receive it, unless several reviews have already been published and are available. Also, as indicated on the RSN, we really can't judge the reliability of sources like Ehrman in general, but would need an indicator of exactly what material from the book is to be included. The RSN discussion did not indicate what material was being sourced from that book, and on that basis it cannot honestly judge the reliability of any individual statements sourced from that work. It probably meets basic reliability standards in general, but that is a different matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with John C. about Dunn and have removed it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
First, my apologies for having confused the date and timing of Dunn, as I assumed it was a book yet to be published. Actually, I have, over the years, acquired quite a few such books myself, as basically giveaways at a church tied to a university and at a few seminary libraries who were given them by a reviewer who can't sell them but wants to give them away. However, I also note that they regularly have misprints, like all the ones I've picked up have clearly had, and that those advance editions generally say explicitly on the cover or in the opening pages that they are not to be used for quotations on that basis. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Now that was really really confusing! Everything was mixed up into a giant hodgepodge. I have refactored the comments into 'Tertiary sources' & 'Books about to be released to the public'. Please check to see if I made any mistakes. @John C. I always supported your position that Dunn and other books that have not been released to the public should NOT be used at Wikipedia. (Until they are released) - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Disputed content

Disputed content, such as the recently added sourced content that was deleted without discussion, should be brought to the talk page in a separate discussion section. Exact quotations and page numbers should be provided to show that the content is an accurate summary of what the individual reliable sources say. Let's try our best to avoid OR and SYNTH issues in the future. Ignocrates (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC) talk:Ignocrates|talk]]) 18:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I most certainly agree. We must not delete sourced content. If we have concerns about sourced material we all should use the talk page. Exact quotations and page numbers should be provided to show that the content is an accurate summary of what the individual reliable sources say. Exact quotations, links and page numbers should be provided to show that the content is an accurate summary of what the individual reliable sources say. I have also noticed all the good work you have done as well as being the Wiki-Diplomat for this topic. Thanks we all seem to be getting along much better. Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Tertiary sources

Shortcuts

Also, regarding the point about policy, it is worth noting that we have, in general, considered that what might be called "tertiary" sources like specialist encyclopedia or reference articles are considered reliable sources, if the pieces in them are of substantial length and they are written by people who are considered highly regarded in their fields. In some cases, if the person writing it is, basically, not an expert on the subject, because, for instance, the previous "expert" on the topic died and this person is their top student, or where, for instance, the author is a local history librarian, then in some cases there are grounds to consider them clearly tertiary and not optimal. Except in those cases, however, they most certainly can and do qualify as acceptable as per policies and guidelines, even if, perhaps, they might not be "the best" of all possible sources. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with John that Blackwells can be used a a reliable source. However it is important to remember "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on material from secondary sources." Tertiary sources may be used but with care. Encyclopedias etc. cost a great deal to produce. At Wikipedia we are producing our own encyclopedia based on secondary sources, not copy editing the costly work of others.

Verifiability: Remember other people have to be able to check that editors didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. NOTE:verifiability, not truth. Tertiary sources such as encyclopedias and dictionaries remain difficult to verify.

  • With the downturn in the global economy many libraries do not have the most recent encyclopedias etc.
  • Inter library loans policy generally does not cover encyclopedias etc.
  • POD is generally not available for encyclopedias.
  • Google books is generally prohibited from reproducing encyclopedias.
  • Many editors are not in a position to buy an encyclopedia to verify a fact. Not only are they costly but bulky to store.

Therefore, verification has become a practical problem. Also because of the internet, publishers have had to cut costs which means that many Encyclopedias etc are out of date. Finally, it is important when using any source, to give the page number. Having said this the material from Blackwells checks out and I have finally found the page number. I also added a link. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember

This is a topic where the scholarship is changing. All views must be fairly represented.WP:NPOV Looking forward to working with you all! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing a difficult topic

The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a method for reaching consensus. It can be useful for identifying objections to edits, keeping discussion moving forward and help towards breaking deadlocks. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. BE KIND! Some editors will see BOLD as a challenge, so be considerate and patient. Being bold is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. ALL EDITORS are welcome to make a positive contribution. When in doubt, edit! Never just delete sourced content ... the talk page is our friend. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

Simply put at Wikipedia, it is not about votes (ie most "user-accounts" wins) but about reliable sources!

Canvassing, sock puppetry, and meat puppetry. Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is fine – even encouraged – to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter. Using an alternative persona ("sock puppet", or "sock") to influence consensus is absolutely forbidden. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.

Mediation & Arbitration

Notwithstanding the aforementioned, there are times that editors feel so strongly about certain scholarship that consensus can never be reached! For example Ehrman 2012. pp 98-101, Casey 2010 p 86-89 and Edwards 2009 pp 2-10. now take the position that Matthew collected the sayings of Jesus and wrote them down in a Hebrew dialect (en Hebraidi dialecto) and they show that this Hebrew Gospel cannot be the same as the Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible

There are several editors who feel so very strongly that these scholars are wrong, that they will never allow such scholarship into any article at Wikipedia...ever! There are others who take the position that such scholarship is an important development in the field of Biblical scholarship. I suspect we will need help to resolve this dispute. There is no need to be unpleasant. Good Faith Editors will sometimes disagree and that is why we have the Mediation & Arbitration process. Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are several editors who feel so very strongly that these scholars are wrong, that they will never allow such scholarship into any article at Wikipedia...ever! Well in my opinion that is the very opposite of WP:NPOV. It is not for individual WP editors to decide where respected mainstream scholars such as Bart Ehrman are right and where they are wrong and censor the "wrong" views of respected scholars from WP. What they need to do is find opposing views from scholars of equal standing and quote those views as well as the "wrong" ones. This discussion as to where Ehrman's statements are RS and where they are not is ludicrous, that is not for WP editors to decide. His latest book "Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics" was published by Oxford University Press, as mainstream as it is possible to get, he has had fifteen books published by OUP, others by Harper Collins,Harvard University Press, he is the holder of a Distinguished Professorship, a NYT bestselling author, on and on. Some editors don't like what he says, their opinions do not matter, only WP:RS and OUP and Harvard University Press are as WP:RS as it is possible to be.Smeat75 (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You would do well to be prepared for this to get much worse before it gets better, based on past history. I encourage you to think about a short-list of candidates who would be willing to serve as an informal mediator when the time comes. As for me, I will do my best to put a stop to any further incidents of railroading by redirect. Ignocrates (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

General Comments (presenting an unbiased view)

So, statements such as "scholars are in general agreement" should be deleted, but it is okay to describe theories which are supported by no real evidence as if they are uncontested facts? (edit: while citing no sources to support those claims)

I don't have a problem with an article about "oral gospel traditions", but I would think that the proper approach would be to at least mention that there is no real evidence to support it, and that there are some scholars who do not accept it. Alan B25 (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If there are notable scholars in reliable sources then by all means provide them. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

One could cite a few academics (such as Edwards) who recognize some of the evidence of the (former) existence of a Hebrew version of Matthew's gospel (which preceded and was used as a source for Mark & Luke; and which if true, would negate the theory of oral tradition), but I am not that editor.

But since this is only a talk page, I will say that the whole idea of a 'pericope' is supported by no real evidence and could be nothing more than a figment of our modern imagination. That is, just because different gospel authors place a lot of elements in different contexts does not prove that all of those authors moved those elements - it could simply mean that one or more later authors (Luke) had to choose from among conflicting sources (and that he was trying to obscure some of the discrepancies between Matthew and Mark). And neither does it mean that those elements began as "short catchy sayings" which were passed down as oral tradition for several decades before being given context (which may or may not have much relation to anything that actually happened). As far as can be determined from the evidence, an original author (Matthew) could have placed the majority of those elements in precisely the order and context in which they actually occurred.

And even if there is no truth to any of that context (even if Matthew made the whole thing up), there is still no real evidence that any of that content or context existed only as oral tradition for several decades before Matthew wrote his gospel. That idea also requires that we ignore some historical evidence (such as the claim by Papias that Matthew originally wrote a collection of Jesus' teachings, and the claim by Irenaeus that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew "while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome" (c. 54-56 C.E.); and it requires that we ignore the many instances (in practically every passage that they have in common) in which Mark and Luke evidently added elaborations, explanations, clarifications, and even attempts to "correct" Matthew's versions.

In short, the "oral tradition/no original gospel/no direct connection between an original Hebrew gospel and Jesus or his immediate followers" theory is dependent upon faulty logic (that, since some of the same story elements and teachings are placed in different contexts by Matthew and Luke, that that proves that there could not have been an original gospel or an original author who placed those elements in a specific original context, and that all of those elements must have begun as distinct units/short catchy sayings/pericopes for which narrative context was invented and added).

In reality, the fact that Luke's gospel is a jumbled mess in which he often combines elements that form separate passages in Matthew and/or Thomas and/or Mark does not prove either of those things. When we consider Matthew's gospel independently of Luke's, it becomes apparent that it might only have been Luke who made a mess of things as he attempted to accommodate multiple sources (and he attempted to obscure the many discrepancies between Matthew and Mark, or he attempted to obscure what were originally criticisms of Pharisees). It is at least clear that some of Luke's versions have lost some of the original emphasis and meaning as is evident in Matthew (& Thomas).

In short, not only is there no real evidence to support the theory, it fails to adequately explain the evidence, and is even at odds with the evidence that exists both in some early Christian writings and in the majority of what is contained in our gospels themselves. That is, if all of the stories about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted orally for several decades, then where is the evidence of such transmission? - where are the rhyming verses and mnemonics? And if there was no original Hebrew version of Matthew's gospel, why did all of those early Christian writers lie? Why would Jerome have gone so far as to claim that he had personally translated a copy of it? And if there was no early gospel written by one of Jesus' original followers, then why does Matthew's gospel still say that John the Baptist was Elijah (a prerequisite for that "great & terrible day"), and why does it say that the new age would begin before all those living at the time had passed on? And if Mark's gospel was first, and it resulted from a sort of compendium of those (supposed) "oral traditions", then why is it evident in practically every passage that they have in common that Mark's version is a revision of Matthew's?

Alan B25 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The above screed is the personal opinion of the user and is in contravention of talk page guidelines,see WP:TPNO Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The opinion of AlanB25 does not matter, only what reliable sources say and not a single source is quoted in the above text which appears, if my eyes do not deceive me, to argue that Gospel of Mark is a revision of Matthew, which is purest WP:FRINGE imaginable. My attention was drawn to this page by the discussion at WP:FTN as to whether Ehrman was fringe or not, and in fact you cannot get more mainstream than someone who is published over and over by OUP and Harvard University Press, and then I come to this page and see someone pushing a far out fringe view like the one above,which strikes me as deeply ironic.Smeat75 (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

List of reliable sources

Do we have consensus? - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed the ref=harv anchors to eliminate the error messages. The anchors should be added to any new sources that are linked to sfn citations. Improper citations or improperly formatted sources will generate error messages. I am fine with using these sources as a starting point to begin expanding the article. Ignocrates (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been following all the work you have been doing and you have totally won me over! However John still has some concerns about Ehrman. He is not going so far as to say "Bart Ehrman is not a reliable source and the material form his book is OR" (see above) Therefore, I suggest we proceed as follows:

  • For the time being edit from Ehrman pp 83-93 as it is a straight forward summary of our topic and is not controversial. We should stay away from Ehrman p 98ff where he argues that Matthew collected the sayings of Jesus and wrote then down in a Hebrew dialect. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is still controversial!!!
  • Add a second reliable source to confirm the material taken Ehrman.
  • Leave contested material until later.

And with that I hope we have consensus - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted material which was discussed on the fringe theory noticeboard - I think there is too much speaking with "wikipedia's voice" for instance Indeed, all the sources for the Gospels were based on oral traditions, and this has significant implications for Biblical scholars. that should be attributed to one or two scholars, eg "According to modern NT scholars such as Erhman and Casey all the sources for the Gospels were based on oral traditions" etc. They now agree that the oral material regarding Jesus had been in circulation for a long time, not just before our surviving Gospels but even before their sources had been produced. I don't think it should say things like "scholars agree" unless you are quoting a source that actually says those exact words "scholars agree." It should say something like "According to modern New Testament scholars including Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey" and then attribute the views to them. There is absolutely no reason to avoid using Ehrman on the subject of the NT, he is as mainstream as it is possible to be and it is not necessary to find another source to back up what he says, just attribute it to him in the article itself, not just a footnote. His views on tennis or nuclear physics, of course, may not count as a reliable source, but on the New Testament he is for sure, whether stated in "popular books" or academic journals. If other editors object to what he says then let them find modern scholars of equal stature that say something different.Smeat75 (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Well said. These over-generalizations have been used as straw-man reasons to blank entire sections of reliably sourced content (as opposed to fixing them like you just did). Ignocrates (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
@Ret.Prof, I would leave out any mention of a Hebrew Matthew from this article. That has to be dealt with in a specific way that we can discuss later on my talk page. It's fine to talk about Papias with respect to oral traditions he received from travelers who were the associates of Aristion and John the Elder. Ignocrates (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
You are a wise person!! We should edit from Ehrman pp 83-93, as it is a straight forward summary of our topic and is not controversial. Indeed, I would stay away from Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101, Casey 2010 p 86-89 and Edwards 2009 pp 2-10 entirely but you are braver than I. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The problem with sentences such as the following is the ambiguity: They now agree that the oral material regarding Jesus had been in circulation for a long time, not just before our surviving Gospels but even before their sources had been produced. If this means there was an "oral tradition" before the written sources were... written, it's pretty much a truism, unless we suppose that one of the disciples always had a pen and notebook ready to write down everything Jesus said while he was speaking. Of course there had to be an oral tradition. It's a truism. Every written text was based on memories - whether direct of passed from one person to another. The only alternative is the Direst Divine Inspiration view, which is not a position possible within historical scolarship as opposed to faith. The sentence is just confusing, because it does not make it clear what is intended by "in circulation for a long time" - five years; ten years; twenty; a hundred? And what are supposed to be the 'sources' for the Gospels. Is the Q, or some other supposed written source? Paul B (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. @Ret.Prof, please stay within the scope of the specific secondary sources you are citing. Unless a specific source makes a grand generalization (which you should quote exactly in a footnote), you can't do that either. Taking the specific limited claims of several sources and weaving them into over-arching generalizations is exactly the problem I was going to address in a RFC/U. Ignocrates (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

I have carefully read through all the above comments. We now have unanimous agreement that Ehrman pp 83-93 is reliable source material! Thanks to Smeat75 for putting things into proper perspective and to Ignocrates. It should also be noted that John Carter's good faith toward me is especially appreciated! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ehrman, "popular books", and RS

Starting a new section rather than insert a comment up the page where this discussion originally appeared - on 25 March John Carter wrote in general popular sources, such as much of Ehrman's work, are not the most reliable of sources, but rather academic works are, as per WP:RS, which you might actually want to read. I have read WP:RS numerous times and it does not say anything about "popular books." One thing the page does say (and it is only a guideline anyway, not a policy) is "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, (italics added) or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." Looking at Bart D. Ehrman is a good way to see that he is regarded as authoritative on the subject of New Testament textual criticism and early Christianity as he holds a Distinguished Professorship in the area, teaches and lectures on it, has written textbooks used in seminaries to teach the subject to train other professionals , has had fifteen books on the subject, including his latest one last year, published by the Oxford University Press, two by Harvard University Press, numerous others by Harper Collins, and four New York Times bestsellers. Whatever he writes on the subject, no matter where it appears, is a WP:RS according to those guidelines.Smeat75 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Ehrman is a serious scholar and whatever he writes on our subject, no matter where it appears, is a WP:RS according to those guidelines. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Time to back up

Before this train leaves the station, and falls into the same chasm... I have a few thoughts about how to organize the material:

From the perspective of the average reader, think about what you would want to know about this topic. I would begin with a simple definition of what oral gospel tradition means, and then cite specific examples from the literature as illustrations. Eusebius is our major source for these oral traditions. Every major author cites him, and most probably quote from him. Give specific examples based on Eusebius' reporting of early Church Fathers such as Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, Pantaenus, Papias, or anyone else with first-hand knowledge of specific gospel sayings that were transmitted orally. Ignocrates (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good stuff. I will let you do the honours as you are a gifted editor. I am going to be busy over the next couple of weeks. Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I was trying to give you some suggestions for how to proceed. My plate is rather full with other priorities. Ignocrates (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I want to know if there is anything here worth writing about. Is there not one single concrete example from Church history of an oral tradition? If not, this article is about the theoretical musings of modern scholars, e.g., the discussion of form criticism in Ehrman's book. The word "traditions" in the title implies there are some actual traditions. Otherwise, the title should be "Oral gospel hypotheses". Ignocrates (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I am at the Seminary Library. I can't find any reliable sources that refer to our topic as the Oral gospel hypothesis. The most common title for our topic seems to be the Oral Tradition. My Google search also showed little for the Oral gospel hypotheses. There were quite a few hits for the Christian Oral Tradition and the Oral gospel tradition. Also, the reliable source's answer yes to your question "I want to know if there is anything here worth writing about?" Thanks for fixing my spelling of "Leben" ... OMG... Bye for now!- Ret.Prof (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with keeping the title, as long as the lead makes it clear that tradition = conjecture for purposes of this article. I'm just stunned that there isn't a single concrete example of an oral tradition. Ignocrates (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Good points worthy of a section! (see below) - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitz im Leben: Were Jesus and his followers Jewish?

Now we have completed the easy part of our article. Here is where we run into conflict. The issue to be resolved "Is whether or not Jesus was a Jew living Jew living in a Jewish environment?

Bultman believed the answer was no. Many 20th C. scholars argued that Jesus was a non-Jewish Galilean, spoke a European language (ie Greek) and was indeed anti-Jewish as can be shown by his attacks on the Jews in the Gospels. Such notable scholars as Bultmann, Fiebig, Grundmann, Kittel, and others have accepted this position in varying degrees...Jesus was not a Jewish man. They removed "an indelibly Jewish aspect of Jesus, an effect of working in a German environment in which Jewishness was so unwelcome." Casey 2010 p 11 Indeed, the effect of their radical form criticism was to ensure that "out from under the synoptic Gospels there could never crawl a Jewish man." Casey 2010 p 13 The position that "Jesus was not a Jew" is based on spurious intellectual arguments. See Casey's section on Form Criticism 9-12

Today the reliable sources on the Sitz im Leben of Jesus and his followers are in total agreement. There is now consensus that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment. Voorst 2000. p 5 Bart Ehrman has been stressing this for the past ten years! Ehrman 2005 p 96 Jesus was a Jew. Ehrman 2005 p 96 And so "Jesus was Jewish from start to last. His disciples were as well: born and bred Jews." Not long after his death, some or all of them came to understand Jesus as something "more than a Jewish teacher". Ehrman 2005 p 96

Finally, Jesus should not be seen as anti-Jewish as "shown by his attacks on the Jews". Jesus just debated the Law as would any rabbi in Second Temple period. Keeping the Law was the main thing. The Pharisees developed a number of interpretations of the Law that were intended to make sure that Jews followed what Moses commanded. These interpretations came to be known as the "oral law” Ehrman 2012 p 296 (for example, by not walking through your grain fields on the Sabbath). Ehrman 2012 p 296 It is important to remember that when Jesus opposed Pharisaic interpretations of the Law—for example, over what could and could not be done on the Sabbath—"he was not opposing Judaism. He was simply opposing one interpretation of Judaism", as did other Jewish rabbis. Ehrman 2012 p 297 - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is what I was afraid of, the umpteen times deleted "Sitz im Leben: Were Jesus and his followers Jewish?" stuff will come back yet again. WP is not a blog for OR. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Where is the WP:OR? Please provide specific examples, so that the content can be improved. Generalized accusations of using Wikipedia as a "blog for OR" without backing them up with facts are WP:TE and will be dealt with accordingly. Ignocrates (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone doubt that Jesus was Jewish? I'm open to argument, but it seems to me that this is so obvious it can be taken for granted. PiCo (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Fwiw, I agree with PiCo that this entire section is about form criticism, of which the sitz im leben can be considered a subset. Ignocrates (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I too agree that this entire section is about form criticism, of which the sitz im leben can be considered a subset. Form criticism and biblical genres works for me! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jerome's preface in a letter to Pope Damasus in the year 383.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oral_gospel_traditions/Archive_1&oldid=591804085"