Talk:Gospel/Archive 2

Francesco Carotta
... has some interesting ideas about Biblical history ... interesting in a way that I think is the fringe of the fringe. There is thus a vote for deletion here. Those of you who are knowledgable and care about Biblical history, please check it out. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Content fork
Good news (Christianity) is forked from here and should be merged back after being corrected for WP:OR. Objections? Agreement? -- Secisek (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not a contributor to this article, except for the image I added. I do not think it should be merged. The four Gospels are not the same as the "Good News", which is identified by some Protestants in all of the books of the Bible. The message of the Gospel is not the same thing as a book that is a Gospel. If you are going to merge it, perhaps Law and Gospel is a better option?--192.160.64.49 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think these articles are different enough that they should be kept separate. The Gospel article refers to a set of works with religious and historical significance, while the Good news (Christianity) article is about the Christian interpretation of the canonical subset of gospels. Loves  Macs  (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't merge. "Gospel" is a neutral, objective term that can be used descriptively by scholars of any or no faith to refer to a specific collection of books of the Christian Bible. While "Good News" can and should be described objectively in its own article, in actual usage it carries non-neutral POV implications; it refers to a Christian attitude toward the message of Jesus. A non-Christian scholar would not use "Good News" descriptively, and not all Christians use the term. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't merge. I found the article in question by typing "gospel" into the search box. It would never have occurred to me to type "good news." Ctmctm (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur Alice (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree not to merge. I find this article complete and succinct in itself. I think it becomes diffused with the Good news (Christianity) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itchjones (talk • contribs) 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * After many months, it seems that the general agreement is NOT to merge. And I also think no merge, so let us agree that "no merge" was the conclusion. I will remove the flag. History2007 (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Generic term "gospel" in popular culture
Should this article address the use of the term "gospel" as a generic term? Does "gospel" generically mean "opinion", "dogma", "enlightenment", "doctrine" etc.? I suggest this article should include an exploration of the generic concept "gospel" as well as its roots in Christianity.Mrrealtime (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia article comparing the 4 gospels
Is there anybody out there interested in the idea of making a wikipedia article comparing the 4 gospels? Here is the rough draft:

Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It could be added as a table in its own right, but not to this article - too long. (Check also to see that it hasn't already been done) (1) Why do you join Mark with Matthew, and split Luke in two? Looks odd; (2) Might be useful to add the normal names of the various pericopes (e.g., Massacre of the Innocents) - this would help readers link to the relevant articles. PiCo (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it is already there: Gospel harmony. I am going to make it consistent with tables elsewhere within a month. History2007 (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jewish vs Christian views of Creation
There is an article on Creation according to the Book of Genesis that discusses creation. There is a suggestion now to rename it and give it a Biblical name that may overlap with the New Testamant. I think that will mix differing views, but not being an expert on all of the topics, I think clarifications on that will be helpful here: Talk:Creation_according_to_Genesis

Your comments will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves: Gospel → Gospels

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

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Gospel → Gospels — As any look at the subheadings will show, this article is about the gospels (various docuements), not the Gospel— also known as the Good news (such as Paul uses the term in 2 Corinthians 11:4), nor about "gospel" as genre (such as the Epistle article is). User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 02:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article titles are normally singular. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The singular is very well attested: "gospel accounts," "Gospel according to..." etc. StAnselm (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the reasons given above. -- S Masters (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


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

The Gospel is one, in four versions
Gospel means good news, and there is only one good news, so it is more precise to refer to the different versions of the gospel as the gospel according to Mark, according to Matthew, according to Luke and according to John.

Please note that the word "Gospel" is Old English for "Good news" thanks. Alan347 (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Recently came out a female scholar, certain Sara Hermon, that has written a book " The Galileus Gospel" (italian language). She claims to have been a pupil of prof. Morton Smith, maybe by mailing because she lived in Europe and not in USA; anyway, it seems they met sometimes in England many years ago. We don't know if Hermon's book is fiction or reality, but it's amazing how many similarities the novel shows, compared to Smith hypothesis about the missing and secret Mark gospel. (An italian reader of "The Galileus Gospel" by Sara Hermon). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.21.121 (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Gospel Dates
The chronology of the gospels is most often set by references in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 where Jesus foretells the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Most historians, being unwilling to admit to the possibility of true foreknowledge, explain this away by simply dating the gospels to a time after these events. An analysis of the gospels themselves gives an entirely different timeline.

Within the book of Acts, written by Luke, the narration changes from past tense to present tense in the form of a narrative beginning in the 27th chapter. Luke begins telling the story as if he were there using “we” or “us” rather than before when Luke declares that Paul did this or Paul said that. The book of Acts stops suddenly with Paul in prison in Rome and no other details are forthcoming from Luke. This indicates that Luke is with Paul in Rome and writes his account, the book of Acts, up to the present time where the narrative stops. At this point, Paul in prison in Rome, can be no later than 50-55AD. The book of Acts also asserts, in the first chapter, that it is written after the Gospel of Luke, as a second edition or second writing to continue the earlier work.

The Gospel of Luke must have been written some time before the book of Acts. This indicates a date in the 40-50AD range. The beginning of the Gospel of Luke mentions the writings of previous works concerning the life and ministry of Jesus thus indicating the existence of works predating the Gospel of Luke. These would presumably be Matthew and Mark ,and perhaps others such as the lost Gospel of Hebrews. Some passages from Luke and Matthew obviously use Mark as reference text (or they have a common reference) indicating Mark was written around 40AD or earlier. This date is only a decade after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Mark is the name of the “son” of the Apostle Peter and many believe Mark was writing as the scribe of his father’s account – perhaps the first of the Gospel accounts of Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joenitwit (talk • contribs) 22:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.Hellbound Hound (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Harmonies section
Not sure why one recent harmony gets special mention -- there have been many over the years... AnonMoos (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews section renamed Jewish-Christian Gospels

 * I have renamed this section and added the MAIN tag since to cover all 3:


 * And have added the paragraph:
 * Epiphanius, Jerome and other early church fathers preserve in their writings citations from one or more Jewish-Christian Gospels, versions of Matthew used by Ebionites and Nazarenes. Most modern critical scholars consider that the extant citations suggest at least two and probably three distinct Jewish-Christian versions of Matthew, and that the source language of these is probably Greek. A minority of scholars, including Edward Nicholson (1879) and James R. Edwards (2009) have suggested that the surviving citations are all from one Gospel, which is, as Jerome himself records that the Nazarenes claimed, the original, and Hebrew, Gospel of Matthew.

______________________________________________________________________________
 * The existing paragraphs have been Preserved in their entirety:

Origen said the first Gospel was written by Matthew. This Gospel was composed in Hebrew near Jerusalem for Hebrew Christians and translated into Greek, but the Greek copy 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. Matthew's Gospel was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews or sometimes the Gospel of the Apostles

Recent studies of the external evidence, shows that there existed among the Nazarene and Ebionite Communities, a gospel commonly referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews. It was written in Aramaic and its authorship was attributed to St. Matthew. Indeed the Fathers of the Church, while the Gospel of the Hebrews was still being circulated and read, referred to it always with respect, often with reverence. The Early Church Fathers (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus Origen, Jerome etc.) all made reference to this gospel of Matthew. ___________________________________________________

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The first gospels : Duplication / OR / Cut Paste?
I have tagged this section. It appears to be composed of cut and paste and in different forms has appeared on over a dozen other articles. ......................


 * 28 October
 * BEFORE 28 Oct 2010
 * First Gospels It is generally accepted by most scholars that the first gospel to be written was the Gospel according to Mark, although a minority argue in favour of Matthew. The hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first written of the canonical gospels is known as Markan priority. According to the two-source hypothesis the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark among other sources in writing their gospels. Another source held to be used by Matthew and Luke which is evidence in similarly content not found in Mark is known as Q document, which most scholars believe was a written document. The two-gospel hypothesis, in contrast, says that Matthew the Apostle wrote Matthew, and then Luke the Evangelist wrote Luke (with Matthew's gospel being the primary source) which was then followed by the writing of Mark's gospel by Mark the Evangelist. This theory uses both internal evidence (such as sentence structure) and external evidence (such as the testimony of the early church), whereas the two-source hypothesis relies mainly on internal evidence


 * Current
 * AFTER ADDITION OF DUPLICATE MESSIANIC/HEBREW GOSPEL POV MATERIAL Duplicate material added 19-21 January 2011
 * It is generally accepted by most scholars that James was the first leader of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.[4] [5] [6] [7] [7][3] [8][9][10] As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered the written Law and the Oral Tradition (called Torah Shebeal Peh). This Oral Tradition interpreted the written Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.[11] [12]
 * It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Gospel Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God.[13][14] With the diaspora, (or Tefutzot תפוצות, "scattered") the oral tradition was no longer tenable for Jews or Jewish Christians.[15] [16][17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
 * When Peter (one of the Twelve disciples and a Jew) left Jerusalem,[13][14][23] he preached the Gospel orally to the Diaspora (scattered communities of believers, Jews and Hebrew Christians) in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor and Bithynia and eventually went to Rome.[23][24] [25][26] However it was Peter's scribe Mark who first reduced the Oral Tradition of Peter to written form. According to Jerome,[27] Mark set down these teachings of Peter in what is now called the Gospel of Mark
 * Modern scholars agree [28] that Mark composed the first gospel, in Koine Greek. Peter is said to have reviewed this work and given it his blessing, elevating the Gospel of Mark to the level of an eyewitness account.[29][30][31][32] The Gospel of Mark was widely circulated and scholars agree that it was a primary source used in the writing of later gospels.[22][33][34]
 * 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. [35] [36] It was composed in Hebrew and meant for Hebrew Christians.[37] [38][39][40][41][42][43][44]
 * 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.[45][46][47]
 * Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was often called the Authentic Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel according to the Hebrews [48][49] or sometimes the Gospel of the Apostles [50][51][52][53] 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. [54] [55] 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.[56] Almost all critics agree that the Jewish Gospels are just modified editions of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] [68] [69] [70] [71][72]
 * In addition to the Gospel of Mark and the Hebrew Gospel (sometimes referred to as M source) another source held to be used in redacting the Gospels of Matthew and Luke is known as Q source, which most scholars believe was a written document.[3] This forms the basis of Streeter's Four Document Hypothesis. (See also the synoptic gospels and the two-gospel hypothesis)[3] Finally in a recent monograph James R. Edwards has put forward the possibility that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the first gospel to be written. It is further argued that this gospel was the basis for the canonical gospels.[73]
 * END

I propose moving the duplicate/POV material here to Talk. Also, separate problem; anyone any ideas about this REDIRECT to this article turned into fork article 26 Oct 2010 In ictu oculi (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Preserved dup/POV content here
It is generally accepted by most scholars that James was the first leader of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered the written Law and the Oral Tradition (called Torah Shebeal Peh). This Oral Tradition interpreted the written Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.

It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Gospel Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God. With the diaspora, (or Tefutzot תפוצות, "scattered")  the oral tradition was no longer tenable for Jews or Jewish Christians.

When Peter (one of the Twelve disciples and a Jew)  left Jerusalem,  he preached the Gospel orally to the Diaspora (scattered communities of believers, Jews and Hebrew Christians) in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor and Bithynia and eventually went to Rome. However it was Peter's scribe Mark who first reduced the Oral Tradition of Peter to written form. According to Jerome, Mark set down these teachings of Peter in what is now called the Gospel of Mark

Modern scholars agree that Mark composed the first gospel, in Koine Greek. Peter is said to have reviewed this work and given it his blessing, elevating the Gospel of Mark to the level of an eyewitness account. The Gospel of Mark was widely circulated and scholars agree that it was a primary source used in the writing of later gospels.

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. It was composed in Hebrew and meant for Hebrew Christians.

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.

Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was often called the Authentic Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel according to the Hebrews  or sometimes the Gospel of the Apostles    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. 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. Almost all critics agree that the Jewish Gospels are just modified editions of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.

In addition to the Gospel of Mark and the Hebrew Gospel (sometimes referred to as M source) another source held to be used in redacting the Gospels of Matthew and Luke is known as Q source, which most scholars believe was a written document. This forms the basis of Streeter's Four Document Hypothesis. (See also the synoptic gospels and the two-gospel hypothesis) Finally in a recent monograph James R. Edwards has put forward the possibility that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the first gospel to be written. It is further argued that this gospel was the basis for the canonical gospels.

Compromise
I will leave this article entirely up to you. But please bring it up to Wikipedia standards. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It'll be fine, I think there's plenty of mainstream editors there who will do that, it doesn't require me. One thing I will do however is restore the REDIRECTCanonical Gospels back to Gospels where it was. Since there isn't a specific Synoptic gospels + Gospel of John article on Wikipedia. Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Book of Mormon
I added the Book of Mormon to this page. I think it is another gospel and therefore should be on this page.79.209.44.172 (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What verifiable reliable sources consider it a Gospel? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Look at Fullness of the Gospel79.209.48.123 (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Petrine Gospel Tradition
There are some inaccuracies in the new content that was added about the Petrine Gospel Tradition:
 * Modern scholars agree (BEGIN FOOTNOTE  Then too the Gospel according to Mark, who was his disciple and interpreter, is ascribed to (Peter) him. Jerome, Vir.ill. 3. The hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first written of the canonical gospels is known as Markan priority. According to the two-source hypothesis the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark among other sources in writing their gospels. See the   synoptic gospels. END) that Mark composed the first canonical gospel, in Koine Greek. Peter is said to have reviewed this work and given it his blessing, elevating the Gospel of Mark to the level of an eyewitness account.

1. The statement that "Modern scholars agree that Mark composed the first canonical gospel" is not accurate. Most modern scholars agree on Markan Priority - that the Gospel of Mark was the first canonical gospel written. However, most modern scholars also agree that the gospels were composed anonymously. Therefore, it is a misstatement to claim that they agree Mark wrote it.

2. The statement "Peter is said to have reviewed this work and given it his blessing" is simply a false statement. Nowhere in the primary sources or in the secondary literature is this claim made, let alone it being a consensus of most modern scholars.

Whoever added this material should take the opportunity to amend it to conform to what the reliable secondary sources that are cited actually say. Ignocrates (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have raised some good points... Off to the library... If I can't the reliable sources needed I will delete the material. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eusebius states in his Church History that the Gospel of Mark obtained the sanction of Peter's authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Does this help?? See Eusebius, Church History Book II   Chapter 15 v 1-2 Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The key as an editor is to report what reliable secondary sources have to say about Eusebius' commentary on Papius in the Ecclesia. I personally have no problem laying out what the primary sources said for purposes of talk page discussion.  However, an editorial summary of primary sources for purposes of article content is OR, and this looks like OR to me.  The best course, in my opinion, is a summary statement based on reliable secondary sources with citations of the primary sources made by those same secondary sources embedded in the references.  Cheers.  Ignocrates (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right. Does this help? Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, Trinity Press International, 2000. p 205 - 207 - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is better. However, the sourced statement "But because Mark is based on the authority of Peter" is not the same thing as saying Peter reviewed the work and gave it his blessing.  This can be amended later, as it looks like there is now a dispute over whether the content is appropriate to the article.  Cheers.  Ignocrates (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Temporarily removed large Jan 26 addition of "Petrine Gospel" + "Hebrew Gospel" material
RetProf. I thought you were going to not add "Hebrew Gospel" / any more material of this sort. Reverted back to state of article prior to this edit. This is a substantial and in the context of the article title "Gospel" greatly WP:overweight addition/distortion to the article. There may well be a place for material about the pseudepigraphic "Peter" gospels down lower in the article, there may even be a case for a link to the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, but this is massively overweight and undue for a basic subject "Gospel" (as it was 6 months ago the last time this material was to be added to Wikipedia). What this needs is consensus from well informed experienced editors - I'm thinking St Anselm, History2007, Editor2020, John Carter, IanThomson, Esoglou and so on (apologies to others who've slipped my mind) who usually keep these Religion/Christianity pages in good shape. At the very least the additions need noting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about references. Lets us work together to improve this article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ret Prof, I see you've restored the material: Gospel‎; 03:01 . . (+18,806) . . Ret.Prof (talk | contribs)‎ (Undid revision 473613374 by In ictu oculi (talk) No consensus ). I've sorry we've been through all this the last time you tried to add the same theory to various (verbatim same content) to several articles. Wikipedia is not just about refs, it is about WP:Weight WP:Fringe WP:relevance WP:V and WP:PSTS (primary sources tend to original research) as well.
 * Similar concerns apply to your Oral tradition and the historical Jesus article - selfdeleted then restored. This really needs cooperating with the existing framework of historical Jesus articles on WP. Anyway I invite other editors to take a hand. No personal feelings here, but this giant chunk of "Petrine Gospel" + "Hebrew Gospel" material is the tail, or the bell on the tail, wagging the dog for the article Gospel. Sorry, I know you can't see that. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a content RfC would be appropriate here. Btw, moving the disputed material to the talk page might be preferable to deletion in a case like this.  People tend to get defensive when they see all their hard work being atomized.  Just a suggestion.  Cheers.  Ignocrates (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * An Rfc works on general topics, the moment the issues get complicated many of the participants end up being less than familiar with them. But can someone explain the main point of contention here please in 2 sentences? At first glance, it is not clear what the core of the argument is and I do not want to look forever through the edit histories. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Jan 26 additions

 * Hi, this is the added material


 * 1. Status quo version, per St Anselm's edit 7 Dec


 * 2. Version with RetProfs Petrine/Hebrew Gospel material reappearing again and headlink to the deleted restored Oral tradition and the historical Jesus


 * All the above is basically original research from primary sources and 19th C reprints on Googlebooks. It's beyond WP:Fringe in terms of scholarship. And it's all been discussed and removed before 6 months ago. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the high level of emphasis on Petrine and Hebrew items would not be mainstream ideas. If the door opens to that then many other items will just walk in. I think StAnselm who edited here knows that topic too and you could ask him for comment. Esolglou who does not edit here is also pretty familiar with the issues if you want to ask him for comment. If you get those two users to give opinions, you will have pretty knowlegeable input. History2007 (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no trouble with dealing with those concerns. There are lots of sources that support what the material that are mainstream. Thanks for your input. Cheers. - Ret.Prof (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006 gives a balanced and scholarly treatment of the topic. Please read pp 155 and the following - Ret.Prof (talk)
 * Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter, by C. Clifton Black, 2001 also gives a balanced and scholarly treatment of the topic. Please read pp 197 ff. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would heartily endorse those reading recommendations: and note Google Books - Bauckham 2006 Ch.7 "The Petrine Perspective in the Gospel of Mark", and I note that you've used a different page in Bauckham to support one of your sentences: "Peter is said to have reviewed this work and given it his blessing, elevating the Gospel of Mark to the level of an eyewitness account.[verification needed][improper synthesis?]" [19 Bauckham 2006 p24] [20 Primary source] [21 Primary source]. But before we all get pulled into the detail I would hope other editors, not just History2007, would take an overview based on WP:Weight, WP:Relevance and WP:Fringe. There may well be a case for a cut down version of both of these paragraphs - "Petrine" and "Hebrew Gospel" further down in the article. But as they stand they are overweight, overprominent and contain a slant towards a non-mainstream view. Anyway, let's not scare off other editors by talking too much okay. Your 2 new paragraphs are there in the article, we can all see/read/judge them ourselves. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Given these concerns and other concerns I have about this editor's use of sources, I've removed the material again. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Dougwell did right: this article is better without the discussion on "Petrine tradition" and "Hebrew Gospel tradition", which is unrelated to the Gospels in general or even the canonical Gospels in general, but only to the Synoptic Gospels. Esoglou (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My advice would be that unless StAnselm comments here and totally supports the Hebrew/Petrine idea, then Ret. Prof would do well to abandon this avenue (as well as the Oral Tradition article) for it will not go far but will consume time and energy. That energy could be productively used elsewhere, e.g. Expounding of the Law which is an official disaster area with no help in sight. I think the oral tradition article needs to become very brief and just mention that it was there, but not a major item. History2007 (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been wondering whether to comment here, but now I guess I should. I certainly do not "totally support the Hebrew/Petrine idea." I've been torn a bit on the issue. The material didn't seem too bad, but I'm naturally suspicious of a large addition. I made one immediate adjustment, but I didn't feel strongly enough to remove the whole thing. (I also want to mentioned I am also very suspicious of statements backed up by 13 footnotes!) Now, however, I am happy with it being removed. I note that we have already have two mentions in the article of how Peter was an influence on Mark. StAnselm (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I guess that settles it. History2007 (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Gospels as History

Comparing the historical evidence of Julius Caesar to Jesus is ridiculous. In the New Testament gospels it is claimed Jesus was discovered by wise men following a moving star, was born of a virgin, cast out demons that spoke and entered swine, calmed a storm, could see into the future, read minds, walked on water, raised the dead, told Peter where to cast his net in order to catch a fish with money in its belly, [Matt 17:27] and levitated. These examples and many others do not sound like historical evidences. How much of the Jesus Gospel stories is and is not history? Many elements (Supernatural) of these stories are to say in the least suspicious. They sound like ancient miracle and mythology stories. The ancient world was very different. It can only be imagined. In the ancient world predestination, Gods, divine heroes, demons, raised dead, miracles and magic were real. They were the commonly held beliefs of the majority of people. There was little curious inquiry and skepticism and little doubt about one's own experiences. Believing one can emotionally "feel the truth" is difficult to doubt. Even today. Even if Jesus was a living person it is impossible to separate the words he spoke from those the early church placed in his mouth. It is guess work. The historical Jesus is lost until time travel.

Kazuba (talk) User kazubaKazuba (talk)

Islamic influence on a page predominately about the Christian Gospel
The following paragraph;

“In Islam the Injil (Arabic: إنجيل‎ ʾInǧīl) is the Arabic name for the original gospel of Jesus, and one of the four Islamic holy books the Qur'an records as revealed by God. Islam holds that over time it became corrupt and God sent the prophet Muhammad to reveal the last book, according to the Islamic faith.[3]”

...which has been put in repeatedly after being deleted, is appropriate on pages relating to Islam, and not relevant to a page whose main existence stems from Christianity. The context of the paragraph appears to have the intent to invalidate the Gospel. The relevancy of corrupted writings belongs on pages relating to Islam, since the view of corrupted Scriptures stems from Muslims not believing the Gospel.

This is not merely a faith preference, but factual; faith in Muhammad, the Qur'an, and the view of corrupted scriptures are uniquely Islamic in perspective, and their presence has no more place on a page about the Gospel, than historical facts stemming from Christianity belong on pages about Islam or the Qur’an with the intent to discredit Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GadsDad (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for finally explaining your repeated deletions on the talk page instead of continuing to silently edit war.


 * Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a leaflet for distribution in Sunday School classes. That the article is about the Christian Gospel does not mean only the Christian viewpoint (as if there were a single, monolithic Christian viewpoint on anything) must or should be presented. Significant views of historians as well as those of Jews, Muslims, and others are also appropriate. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly understand that entries are not limited to one perspective, but is the definition of a matter free game? Do we get to decide what the law of relativity is by committee, or is it what it is?  I doubt that "significant views" from Christians and Jews are welcome on Muslim pages, neither would I try to insert views contrary to Muslim faith, as I understand the nature of the material relates to informing readers about Islam, not Christianity. As I said before, the belief of corrupted scriptures as stated in the paragraph in question, is unique to the Islamic faith, and belongs in material relating to Islam, not material based on predominately Christian faith. So this begs the question, who has the final say on Wikipedia whether material on a page is relevant or not? Thank you for discussing this matter.GadsDad (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand you are viewing this article as a Christian and would prefer it reflect a purely Christian perspective. However, Wikipedia attempts to give due weight to all significant perspectives on a topic. This article is not reserved for a Christian point of view and it's against policy to permit such bias in any article. I think the Muslim perspective is relevant to this topic and including it offers a more complete understanding of the Gospels' influence in the world. If contributors thought "Muslim pages" would benefit from content on Christian or Jewish perspectives then that content would be there and I suspect it is there.   Joja  lozzo  04:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is Wikipedia's final judgment on the matter than I will respect it, though I disagree with it. I appreciate the opportunity to make these views known. Thank you.GadsDad (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, a) it's just my opinion and silence from the other millions of editors, all but two or three of whom are unaware of this discussion and b) nothing's final around here - we just keep keeping on. In any case, you have grasped the basic process here in that you find others who agree with your position before taking action. Joja  lozzo  18:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear sirs, I have noticed the conversation about the Gospel. The Gospel is a Biblical term that solely used for the Christian faith. I believe when we mix the responses, people reading will be confused as to the perspective from which it is coming. If you will not stop Muslims from placing their thoughts on a subject they really don't know about, why not allow the Gospel message be from the persepct of the Christian and the Gospel message from the perspective of the Muslim. This will help to avoid confusing the person seeking clarity about the subject. If they want to know how the Muslim feels, that is fine. If they want to know what a Christian believes that will work as well. This would make the subject more clearly understood. Thanks for your consideration.Danielrsss (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is very good suggestion to clarify the perspective.GadsDad (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The criticism is right. It is completely in order to mention the ISlamic view of gospel/injil. But the wording here insinuates that there WAS an "original gospel" of Jesus as a "book" - which cannot be confirmed by any historic or scientific standard. So this has to be changed. Kipala (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Decretum Gelasianum
The Decretum Gelasianum is an important piece of historical changes in what is perceived as "the Gospel." In which area should it be added? Twillisjr (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Oral tradition
The section here is currently more bulky than the breakout article Oral gospel traditions. If anyone thinks the content could be moved across, then go for it. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Definition of "gospel"
In scholarship, a gospel is always a written document - it's just a matter of definition. Q was neither oral nor a gospel, and Mark is the only gospel thought to have had oral sources (M and L were both written). The article needs a good source to define the subject - any major bible encyclopedia would do.PiCo (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "In scholarship, a gospel is always a written document" - I'm assuming you have a source that backs that up? That's a pretty sweeping claim. ReformedArsenal (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the problem, the lead has no sources. I don't mind what it says there, but there needs to be a brief definition of the word from a general bible encyclopedia or similar. There's a need also to avoid statements like that in the second sentence of the lead, "However, the term is also used to refer to the apocryphal gospels, the non-canonical gospels, the Jewish gospels and the Gnostic Gospels" - this is just silly.PiCo (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In text-criticism a gospel is usually (inevitably), perhaps almost always, a written document, partly because some text-critical scholars reject the distinction of "oral gospel" as artificial. Usually the distinction will be qualified by "Gospel tradition" as in Henry Wansborough Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition 2004 where Gospel may be being used as the second adjective on tradition. However in NT usage "preach the Gospel" is evidently oral and this more generic usage is also found in scholarly sources which aren't text-focussed. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

New Scholarship and the Oral gospel traditions
(  -tag inserted by User:Rursus — this little essay is written by User:Ret.Prof)

Over the past ten years the thinking of Biblical scholars has undergone a radical transformation. There is now a growing number of historians that believe:
 * 1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher living in a Jewish society (Sitz im Leban).
 * 2) Jesus and later his disciples were active participants in the Oral Tradition of the Second Temple Period.
 * 3) Early Christians, up to the time of the creation of the first Gospels, sustained the Gospel message of Jesus, by sharing the stories of his life and his teachings orally. This Oral Tradition remained vibrant until the destruction of the Temple.
 * 4) These 21st C. scholars generally agree that Mark was the first to write down the Oral Tradition in the form of a Gospel. They also argue that Matthew wrote down the sayings in a Hebrew dialect and that the canonical Gospel of Matthew does not appear to be a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic but was composed in Greek. (ie Matthew's Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew are two distinct Gospels.)

Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman is probably the most formidable Biblical historian of our time. Not only is he required reading at most seminaries, but he has managed to hit New York Times best sellers list. In his most recent work [http://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22The+Oral+Traditions+about+Jesus%22+occupied+%22for+nearly+a+hundred+years.%22+scholars+OR+%22miracle+stories%22+OR+%22controversy+stories%22&btnG= Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 83 - 93 and 98-101] Bart D. Ehrman, explains why the oral traditions about Jesus are an important part of the history of Christianity. Some of these oral traditions "were originally spoken in Aramaic, the language of Palestine. These traditions date at least to the early years of the Christian movement, before it expanded into the Greekspeaking lands elsewhere in the Mediterranean." p 87 Ehrman shows that each of the Gospel texts is based on "oral traditions that had been in circulation for years among communities of Christians in different parts of the world, all of them attesting to the existence of Jesus. And some of these traditions must have originated in Aramaic-speaking communities of Palestine, probably in the 30s CE, within several years at least of the traditional date of the death of Jesus." pp 92-93

Then Ehrman explains why Papias, who was born in 63 CE and was a Bishop in the Early Church is so very important in understanding the Oral Gospel Traditions. Papias had written a flve-volume on the Oral Tradition and more importantly, he had direct access to "the sayings of Jesus. He was personally acquainted with people who had known either the apostles themselves or their companions." p 98 Also it was Matthew who reduced the oral tradition to writing as Papias reports, “And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [or translated] them to the best of his ability.” p 100

Finally although Ehrman takes the position that Matthew reduced the Oral Tradition to a Hebrew dialect (probably Aramaic) he does not believe that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is the same as the Gospel of Matthew in our Bible. Because there is "a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to" what we call Matthew. Ehrman adds, in fact, what Papias "says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels." The Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew is distinct from the Gospel of Matthew that eventually came to be included in Scripture.p 101 Papias then, is "testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves."P 101

Maurice Casey
Maurice Casey is one of Britain's most noted historians. He is Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham, having served there as Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the Department of Theology. His most recent work [http://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=Form+criticism&btnG=#hl=en&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=+Formgeschichte+%22Form+Criticism%22+%22we+may+look+back+from+the+1930s+to+the+social+function+of+a+major+scholarly+movement%22&oq=+Formgeschichte+%22Form+Criticism%22+%22we+may+look+back+from+the+1930s+to+the+social+function+of+a+major+scholarly+movement%22&gs_l=serp.12...4610.5758.12.8450.6.6.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.6...1c.1.8.psy-ab.7ITAScL9Z8E&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44697112,d.aWc&fp=3b0aea343c594bea&biw=1600&bih=737 Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. p 9-12] supports the aforementioned scholarship. There can be little doubt that the language of oral transmission of the Gospel was Aramaic for "Jesus taught in Aramaic, which was also the language spoken by his family and by all his followers" p 108 during the formative tears of Christianity.

Furthermore, he too believes that Matthew collected the oral traditions of Jesus and reduced them to writing. "Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down... There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. p 86 Therefore "it is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language."88 Finally, he agrees with Ehrman that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel has no connection with our Gospel of Matthew. "This tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognized." p 87

James Edwards
Unlike Casey and Ehrman, James Edwards is a Christian scholar. He is a Bruner-Welch Professor of Theology, an Ordained Presbyterian minister, a contributing editor of Christianity Today, and member of the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton. In his most recent work the [http://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22oral+tradition%22++confident+++%22ranks+Papias+along+with%22+%22apostolic+witnesses+and+second+only+to+an+eyewitness+authority+regarding+the+formation+of+the+Gospels.4+That+significance+was+due+to+Papias%27s+proximity+to+the+generation+of+the+apostles+and+his+determination+to+acquaint+himself+with+apostolic%22&btnG=The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 2] he confirms that the Oral Gospel traditions were collected by Matthew and that Matthew wrote them down in the Hebrew Gospel. p3

Then Edwards evaluates the testimony of Papias using the criteria of Casey and Ehrman. Papias is supported by 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Twelve of the Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer, either Christian or Non Christian, challenged these two facts. Google Link

So far this 21st C. scholarship has not been well received at Wikipedia. It has been argued the the material from Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, and James Edwards is 'original research' and has no place at Wikipedia. The result is that we are now in a state of gridlock. We have been unable to get past the Oral gospel traditions stub. What is needed are editors who are willing to review the reliable sources and expand the stub into an article written from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be very interested to see references for the claims of growing consensus on points 1 - 4. StAnselm (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest. I have looked at your edit history and you are a gifted editor whose help will be appreciated. In a general sense I think it would be fair to say that there is now a "consensus that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment." Voorst 2000. p 5 As to the importance of Aramaic, please see Talk at Oral gospel traditions thanks again for your interest. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can accept there is a consensus on #1. I was particularly dubious about #2 and #4. StAnselm (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. One of the main debates here at Wikipedia has been the Sitz im Leben or "situation in life" of Jesus. However if you agree that there is "consensus that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment", Voorst 2000. p 5 that is half the battle. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Bart Ehrman is probably the most formidable Biblical historian of our time." - I lol'd, and then I cried... ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember, formidable is not necessarily a good thing! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Point 1 (Jesus was Jewish) I can take as granted (though I have doubts that he was a rabbi - not impossible, but not proven, either). Points 2 to 4 I'm pretty dubious about. Honestly Ret.Prof, you've misrepresented what Donald Senior says. You use him to support your assertion that "...21st C. scholars generally agree that Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus in Hebrew dialect. Senior says no such thing. What that passage is, is a discussion of various scholarly interpretations of Papias' famous passage about Matthew writing "in Hebrew dialect"; at the end of his discussion Senior says (page 80), "This discussion has to end on an inconclusive note." In other words, no consensus, growing or other. Then he speaks of "[t]he fact (my emphasis) that the Gospel of Matthew as we now have it was evidently written in Greek (my emphasis again)..." Yes, he does say also that "one should be cautious" about dismissing the idea that that the apostle had some association with the Gospel, but that's a long way from saying that Matthew wrote it, in Greek or any other language. (In fact the dominant idea on the composition of Matthew is that one of the three major sources consists of tradition derived from Matthew - the M material - but it's only one of three, along with Mark and Q). I don't accuse you of being dishonest - I think you;re an honest person - but I do think you allow your enthusiasm for your own ideas distort your reading of secondary sources, which is what seems to have happened here. PiCo (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Regarding Jesus being a Rabbi I think that it was a poor choice of words. I am replacing Rabbi with "Jewish teacher" (See Ehrman 2012 p 12, p 171, p 92, p 268). You are also right that Ehrman, Casey and Edwards do not equal a "growing consensus". Therefore I am changing the wording to a "growing number of scholars" and I replaced the Senior link. Finally I would like to thank you for the good will shown in your comments. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Late comment (2015): A general kind-of-agreement: the Wikipedia text development model doesn't quite fit a developing academic "consensus", although I suspect there are many "consensuses" within such an emotionally colored sphere as in religion. The articles in religion tend to reflect the most conservative standing point of the editors (not of scholars), because conservatives are more radical about believing their own conceptions being equal to "the truth". The Wikipedia model isn't a consensus discussion model, it is an anarchic direct-action-model which works well regarding topics that only involve facts, not differing views. Wikipedia consensus is only the preset goal when solving conflicts and for the rest Wikipedia is a bunch of uncoordinated individuals.


 * Personally I think academic consensuses are the starting points for an article, and some deviant opinions ("original research") should be added to reflect the vast flora of opinions among academics. Editors should carefully avoid their own POV:s by examining opposing views before changing a text into what they believe they know about a topic. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 05:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

intro
To me, the examples from Classical culture in the introduction are misleading. In ancient Greek, they may be "good news" using the some variation of eu + angelion, "good message"—but that would belong in the etymology section to explain the relation between euvangelion and the OE "gospel". And the examples would need to have citations to show their relevance (presumably, ancient sources use a form of euvangelion in describing these announcements). It seems a rather extreme case of undue weight in the intro. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, it simply cannot be that In subsequent generations in the Levant and across the Roman empire, "gospel" came to refer to anything, because Old English was not one of the languages of the Roman Empire. The Greek term must be meant. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/ c 19:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

– The topic of this page is a genre of literature (narratives of Jesus' life). That topic is distinct though related to the gospel as the concept of a central message of Christianity, something like Jesus died and is risen, or repent and believe in Christ, etc. The distinction is also made clear by the common Christian belief that the gospel was proclaimed to Adam and Eve and throughout the Old Testament through typology and prophesy. Jesus also uses the term many times. The genre of literature is clearly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "gospel", as demonstrated by the popularity of phrases like "believe the gospel" and "preach the gospel", as well as the derived nature of the meaning of the term as a genre (books are called gospels because they testify to the gospel). I had been favoring Gospel (genre), but that is easily confused with the music genre. JFH (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gospel → Gospel (literature)
 * Gospel (disambiguation) → Gospel


 * Comment. Gospel music does throw a wrench in the gears, doesn't it? On that model, do we need the parentheses? Could it be Gospel literature, per these results? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I do prefer that. --JFH (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I find JFH's rationale for this move to be splitting hairs, running counter WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:DABCONCEPT (this would be, IMO, a broad-concept article), and the general timbre of every dictionary/encyclopaedia entry on the word and is usage. I find the claim that the article isn't WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to be ludicrous...the Gospel article refers at length to the concept and origins, at length to the four canonical gospels, and then referring to the non-canonical contenders adequately summarizes the primary usage of the word--the usage from which any other usage (including the disambiguated ones) derives. Lastly, Gospel (literature) or Gospel literature seems to have a latent POV.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I disagree with you about the scope of the article, but I don't see how "literature" is non-neutral: is the phrase "Christian literature" non-neutral? Is it non-neutral to say that "Christian apologetics is a genre of Christian literature"? Or homily, or sermon? For instance, how does a gospel differ from other canonical Christian scripture such as acts and epistles? The article called "The gospel" is about the Christian message in general, which may be delivered in literary form, or orally. This article describes why certain kinds of Christian texts are called a "gospel". The goal of the move is to state precisely the scope of the article, and to distinguish the title of this article from those listed at Gospel (disambiguation). Where I come from (Appalachia), "gospel music" is most often just called "gospel", as in "he sure knows how to sing the gospel", with the context making clear that you mean music instead of the gospel you preach or read. So what I see here is an effort to distinguish among the kinds of gospel that you read, preach and teach, or sing. As for "primary topic" in its wiki-sense, it doesn't necessarily mean "most important", "original", or even "most fundamental". It means "article that is far and away the most likely to be the target of any given search". I think it's good to direct users to the dab page so they can figure out whether they want to learn about the characteristics of a written gospel, or about the abstract "the gospel" as the Christian message, or perhaps about one of the gospels more narrowly defined that hadn't occurred to them. I agree that topics shouldn't be whittled away into disjointed fragments that lose meaning-enhancing context, but I don't think that's what is happening here. I don't think the proposed retitling affects the very broad scope of the article, which is to describe what makes a text a "gospel" instead of some other kind of Christian literature. But perhaps I'm mistaken about the scope of the article, which is why I've persisted above and now here in asking. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cynwolfe, if you're going to argue that gospel music as "gospel" is a competing primary usage, you'll have to get past the fact that it wouldn't be gospel music without the good news they're singing about. The canonical gospel discussed in Gospel is the primary means of expressing The Gospel which is the source of every other reference...message, music or genre. It's arguable which people are going to search for when thinking of the term, but that's a subjective matter.  Objectively, if I look in the dictionary for Gospel, none of the primary definitions are going to be for the theory of the good news discussed at The Gospel or for some good ole fashioned music to sing for the tent revival next summer. It will, entirely, be defined as the canonical four and other narratives of the life of Jesus. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * as for latent POV...As a Christian, calling the Gospel "literature" rubs me the wrong way, and I'd wager other Christians would feel the same way...qualifying it as literature seems to advocate minimizing its theological role and demoting it from its cultural position to a mere competitor on the shelf next to something peurile and pathetic like Fifty Shades of Grey. It cheapens it--which would be akin to an anti-religion viewpoint that Richard Dawkins would argue or prefer to see. Kierkegaard or N.T. Wright don't talk about "Gospel literature".  Comparatively, we don't refer to the Upanishads as "Upanishad (literature)".--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the "For other uses, see Gospel (disambiguation)" hatnote at the top of the article sufficient here? I'm not really persuaded by the nom's contention that this article's topic is not the primary topic for "gospel" (as opposed to "the gospel"). The only topic at the disambiguation page that might vie with this one for primacy of use of the bare name gospel is Gospel music, and I'd need to see persuasive evidence that other uses of gospel, even including references to the music genre, approach or exceed in number the uses in the sense described in this article. Deor (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be the first to agree that many moves undertaken on grounds of supposed ambiguity result in titles that I find unnatural, unnecessary, cumbersome, or imprecise (sometimes in the sense of overly limited in scope). I do see this proposal as properly concerned with distinguishing the content of the article from The gospel as the Christian message itself, regardless of the form that message takes. I don't know whether the move is necessary, but if it is, this seems like a useful way to go about it, based on the not-inconsiderable scholarly usage of gospel literature to make the distinction. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The "not-inconsiderable scholarly usage" you reference seems to be more en vogue to discussing or analysizing the non-canonical and apocryphal writings that are titled "gospels" as a category--mostly to set them apart from the canonical gospels. Others are analyses by literary theorists (not theologians), and even more are about allusions from the gospels in later literary works. The first link is focused on the non-canonical "Acts of Peter", and most of the first fifty are about the non-canonical works. This is an article aspires to be more a comprehensive discussion of the Gospels in their role over 2,000 years of history, culture and theology--not as a recent concept regarding genre dissected by recent postmodern literary theory since the 1970s. Nevertheless, as a literary genre, perhaps it warrants a sections worth of discussion, but to rebrand the article as "Gospel literature" would be at the expense of its other historical, cultural, and theological role.  Personally, I wouldn't oppose the surgical insertion of paragraph or two of summary CFORKing Gospel and The Gospel to clarify any ambiguity...that would be better than this requested move. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When someone says, to be a Christian you need to believe the gospel or on Sunday the gospel was preached, the meaning of this page is not really where you need to be to understand what the gospel is. As a Christian, I would much prefer someone who wants to know what the gospel is to land in a place that describes it rather than a set of texts, though I think the texts are important. As I've stated, the gospel proceeds the gospels and is considered by many Christian theologians to have been proclaimed throughout history in many ways besides in the gospels. Your statement regarding a dictionary search for "gospel" is incorrect. Not only do most general dictionaries have the idea of the gospel a primary (sometimes the primary) usage for gospel, but these theological dictionaries (the first three I looked in) all use a definition of a central message of Christianity, and they only mention the gospels tangentially. I think I could make the case that the gospel is the PRIMARYTOPIC for "gospel", but I'm not doing that here. I'm just arguing it is likely that someone is looking for something much more expansive than an article on a collection of texts when they search for "gospel". --JFH (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree once again with JFH's reasoning, and don't disagree with ColonelHenry, whose perspective illuminates an ongoing problem with defining "primary topic" as "article that gets the most traffic", which seems to be the MOS trend. However, the gospel deals with the more common lexical meaning, while this article seeks to explain how one can call each of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John a "gospel", while also labeling a set of texts "Gnostic gospels" or "Jewish-Christian gospels". I agree that the gospel is what I would consider the base or foundational topic; both gospel literature and gospel music are ways of preserving, disseminating, or celebrating the gospel as a Christian message. In the closed discussion above, JFH pointed out that the gospel has only recently been moved from Good News (Christianity) (I think it was: that term does strike me as limited to or more common among only certain Christian sects). That move clarifies the distinction between the message, and the medium it which it is conveyed, but it creates strong ambiguity in the two article titles. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose – This is unnecessary disambiguation. The topic of the article is the primary subject for the title. --Article editor (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just looked at the gospel, and I don't understand why it's been separated. I don't think there's enough differentiation to merit two articles. --Article editor (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? I think I've explained that the gospel is something quite different from a "narrative of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus". But even if these were the same thing, we don't merge articles like Peloponnesian War and History of the Peloponnesian War. Texts are distinct from their subjects. --JFH (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My example might be love poetry (equivalent to gospel literature) as distinguishable from love itself (= the gospel). In love poetry (an article that much to my amazement we don't have), we wouldn't seek to describe love itself; we would describe the characteristics of poetry that gets labeled "love poetry". Cynwolfe (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes to JFH. It would be even more confusing if we merged The gospel → Gospel. tahc chat 16:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is the primary topic. PatGallacher (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Of course The Gospel is the primary topic; but if we cannot rename this current article → Gospels, then at least rename → Gospel (literature) or Gospel documents. tahc chat 01:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree that this is the primary topic for Gospel, in the same way that Epistle is the primary topic for that concept. Epistle has a meaning outside of religious literature, unlike Gospel, but in the same way that Epistle is the answer to the obvious question, "What is an epistle?", Gospel should be the answer to "What is a Gospel?". The subsidiary questions, "What are the canonical Gospels?" and "what do Christians mean by The Gospel" should be subsidiary articles, as they are. The gospel, by the way, could do with some serious editing - right now it seems to reflect a very POV religious viewpoint.--Rbreen (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You fail to make any point at all by comparing gospels to epistles. Not only is no there equivalence concept for epistles, gospels take their name from the equivalence concept. A better comparison is the Peloponnesian War and the document called the History of the Peloponnesian War; which of these two articles is primary? The only difference is we do not have so many peoples' accounts of the Peloponnesian war. tahc chat 23:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changes to lead
Seeking comment from other editors re: recent changes to the lead without discussion. The current lead begins with "A gospel is an account describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth," and there is is an alternate view that it should read "A gospel is a written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted as true by that group." While not referenced, the content in the body of the article seems to fit with the current sentence. Can we please have views of editors with a view to reaching consensus, and perhaps an appropriate source? Best wishes ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   10:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Current lede seems correct to me (other than having seven ref's for the second to last sentence is clearly overkill). Ckruschke (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * The current leed is fine. A gospel is an account of Jesus. tahc chat 23:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an account of Jesus in some way. I guess the one issue is that not all of them are describing all of those things (i.e., there are the sayings Gospels), but the next sentence is obviously qualifying the definition anyway, so it's not too confusing.  The other issue I see might be the second sentence in the second paragraph:  Sure, lots of Christians teach this, but surely it is clear that this is not the position of all Christians, as many (most?) of those scholars being cited are Christians themselves. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'm following you on the last point. Are you saying there are Christians who don't think the gospels are an account of Jesus' life? And I'm not sure I see the problem of having the ref's being Christians when the seven ref's support the part that says "but many scholars believe that not everything contained in the gospels is historically reliable" so what is the issue that the citations are Christians themselves? Sorry to be obtuse - just not following... Ckruschke (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I think he's saying that there are many who accept that the gospels are not an "accurate and authoritative" account - hard to gainsay, when there are such basic contradictions between them as the number of times Jesus visited Jerusalem and whether the first post-resurrection appearance was in Jerusalem or Galilee. That sentence is written from an inerrantist perspective, which isn't universal, but it might be a bit hard to find a single sentence that represents all points of view. And I think the 7 refs for the next bit is way unnecessary - one's enough. PiCo (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree - thanks PiCo. Ckruschke (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * With some trepidation, I have tried to edit the start of the second par. I took 'traditionally' out of the first sentence, because I don't think any Christian would deny the importance of the gospels, but then applied it to the inerrantist viewpoint, distinguishing that from liberal churches and academic scholarship. Matruman (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Gospel
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Gospel's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hertzog1": From Historical reliability of the Gospels: Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (Jul 4, 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1-6 From Historicity of Jesus:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Omitting Phrase under Dating
Under the Dating section in the Wikipedia page, the following statement is made about the Gospel of John: "The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition." -- well, there is no such majority view, and there is likewise no source given for this claim. It's really just a mere assertion that seems to have gotten into this page without any citations added to it. Thus, unless objection is made, I will edit the Wikipedia page to omit this unsubstantiated phrase. Korvex (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The statement is accurate. The consensus view is that the gospel of John went through about 3 editions. I suggest you look up one or two of the books in the bibliography on this subject. PiCo (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to know more about the composition of the gospels in a general sense, look up the articles on each of them. The bibliogrpahies there are more useful, too.PiCo (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

PiCo, the matter is not the reliability of the sentence, but its verifiability. It currently has no source. Dimadick (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to encourage Korvex to get involved in editing by looking up sources and checking things out.

"Citation needed"
"Biblical scholars generally agree that early oral traditions about Jesus, along with collections of accounts, preceded the canonical gospels."

A "citation needed" tag has been sitting in this sentence for more than three years now, but to me at least, it is not quite clear what exactly the citation is being requested for:

Are you looking for secondary literature supporting the claim that "early oral traditions about Jesus ... preceded the canonical gospels"? (That should be an easy one.)

Strictly speaking, the tag asks for sources supporting the claim that "Biblical scholars generally agree..." (on this point). Now obviously this can't be supported by simply naming a bunch of Biblical scholars (which would be original research anyway), instead, it would require some sort of meta level source analyzing what the majority of Biblical scholars agree upon. I can't really imagine where one would find that kind of source.

I don't know who put this tag in here, but I am sure it would help to know what is being asked for. --93.212.233.204 (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Missing but referenced sources
I have added/fixed some sourcing issues. However I could not immediately resolve the following, so any help is welcome: — Paleo Neonate  - 15:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ehrman 2004
 * Theissen & Merz 1996