Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 12

Why is Matthean Priority not allowed to be stated here?
Dear friends,

The Gospel of St. Matthew the Apostle is of great importance to Christians in particular as a Sacred Book, and to all people generally, as a historical biography of the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, by one of His close Apostles. The Church Fathers are unanimous in telling us St. Matthew the Apostle wrote it.

We understand some modern liberal scholars favor Markan Priority. Ok, fine. But why is Matthean Priority at least not allowed as a legitimate alternative alongside it?

Peace and God Bless. Nishant Xavier NishantXavier (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:RNPOV and WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi George. Are the beliefs of 2.5 billion Christians today, and of many Christians throughout history, "fringe" to you? By definition, they are not. There are more Christians than Atheists and Agnostics combined. Therefore, if anything is fringe, relatively speaking, it is Atheism and Agnosticism.

Matthean Priority is a Legitimate Scholarly Hypothesis. Would you disagree with that? If it is not, why does Wikipedia have a page on the Augustinian Hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_hypothesis which is a form of Matthean Priority? St. Irenaeus' testimony has historical value.

Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NishantXavier (talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * We also have an article on flat Earth&mdash;it does not mean that Wikipedia endorses flat earthism. A rule of thumb explanation for fringe is WP:CHOPSY. We do not hold opinion polls in order to establish fringeness, we only discuss reliable sources, i.e. sources written by WP:MAINSTREAM Bible professors and such. So, yeah, if it cannot be taught as true fact at Ivy Plus, we do not teach it either. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Just from curiosity, why can't Christians believe that Mark was the first gospel?Achar Sva (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi George and Achar. I respect Wikipedia's work. It's been a treasure trove of important information at so many. But I feel legitimate hypotheses should be allowed for academic discussion.

I stress, there are two competing theories, and both are respected and serious. (1) Two Gospel Hypothesis with Matthean Priority. (2) Two Source Hypothesis with Markan Priority.

Just look at the language in which Wikipedia itself refers to each of these ideas respectively, it clearly treats it as serious and respectable, not at all like "flat earth" ideas.

(I) Two Gospel Hypothesis: "The hypothesis, following an original proposal by Augustine of Hippo and expanded by Johann Jakob Griesbach (it was once called the Griesbach hypothesis), was introduced in its current form by William Farmer in 1964.[2] This hypothesis is the most serious alternative to the two-source hypothesis.[3] Its main advantages over the two-source hypothesis include the fact that it relies not just on internal evidence, that it does not require lost sources like the Q document, and that it is supported by the view of the early Church. Unlike the two-source hypothesis, the two-gospel hypothesis concludes that the traditional accounts of the gospels (order and date of publication, as well as authorship) are accurate.[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-gospel_hypothesis and

(II) the Augustinian Hypothesis in particular: "Unlike some competing hypotheses, this hypothesis does not rely on, nor does it argue for, the existence of any document that is not explicitly mentioned in historical testimony. Instead, the hypothesis draws primarily upon historical testimony, rather than textual criticism, as the central line of evidence. The foundation of evidence for the hypothesis is the writings of the Church Fathers: historical sources dating back to as early as the first half of the 2nd century, which have been held as authoritative by most Christians for nearly two millennia. Adherents to the Augustinian hypothesis view it as a simple, coherent solution to the synoptic problem." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_hypothesis

Have both of you read the historical testimony of St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, France, on the Gospels and their Priority? Isn't that acceptable history?

Peace. Nishant Xavier NishantXavier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Everything published by mainstream Bible scholars in the past 100 years is severely slanted against Matthean priority. We have to abide by WP:DUE. Also note that the Church Fathers aren't in any sense modern scholars, and Wikipedia sides with modern scholars, not with the Ancients and definitely not with the large popular masses. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi George. The Church Fathers were acquainted with the Apostles and their first disciples. St. Irenaeus for e.g. knew St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. This is what St. Irenaeus wrote: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm This is a historical testimony. The historical method requires taking historical sources seriously. This second century testimony says St. Matthew wrote when Ss. Peter and Paul were in Rome.

Here's a source with historical analysis. Is it inadmissible? "Robert Thomas and F. David Farnell concur with this view that the early church fathers taught that Matthew wrote both a Hebrew and Greek version of his Gospel when they write, “Without exception they held that the apostle Matthew wrote the canonical Matthew and that he wrote it first in a Semitic language.”1 ... Irenaeus (c.120–c.202) was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Apostle so his testimony concerning the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew, both in Hebrew and Greek is extremely important." http://hebrewgospel.com/Matthew%20Two%20Gospels%20Main%20Evidence.php

Otto Van Bismarck, mainly for political reasons, did a lot to popularize the theory of Markan priority. http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/farmer.pdf In a fair debate, Markan priority would lose; because there is not one single historical source, from someone who knew the Apostles or their first disciples, that supports it in the slightest. It was universally rejected for nearly 1900 years. Even today, many scholars reject Markan Priority altogether. Please see A.T. Robinson's work on the "tyranny of unexamined assumptions": "Although Robinson was considered a liberal theologian, he challenged the work of like-minded colleagues in the field of exegetical criticism. Specifically, Robinson examined the reliability of the New Testament as he believed that it had been the subject of very little original research during the 20th century. He also wrote that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost wilful blindness".[30] Robinson concluded that much of the New Testament was written before AD 64 ... Robinson placed Matthew as being written sometime between AD 40 and the AD 60s" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robinson_(bishop_of_Woolwich)#Redating_the_New_Testament_(1976)

Nishant Xavier. 28 March 1:44 IST NishantXavier (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RGW. And read WP:FRINGE if you didn't.




 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * NishantXavier, instead of debating theology, you can help your case with providing Reliable sources which either support of discuss Matthean Priority. It is a minority view at best, but if there are modern scholars maintaining the view, we could use their arguments on the topic. Dimadick (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No, the proper place for discussing Matthean priority is the article on the synoptic problem, it would be overweight here considering that Markan priority is the almost-consensus. Or perhaps there's a Matthean priority article. But the sources NishantXavier is using wouldn't be regarded as reliable.Achar Sva (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source to demonstrate "consensus" Ephemerance (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:GEVAL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Jews or Judeans

 * 4) "The source is Georg Strecker" You have misquoted Strecker. Everyone can view this in the preview of the source. He says the Greek term but does not state "Jew" beside the Greek, but in an early page he references a Judean King becoming Israelite (in the context that a Judean isn't necessarily an Israelite / "God's chosen" Ephemerance (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)). Judean is the more appropriate addition, but if you want to follow true to the source, no term should be provided at all. (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC) The Greek term translates to either "Jew" or "Judean", with an understanding that Jews are Israelites through the tribe of Judah, and a Judean is resident of Judea. The author is expressing that the Greek term was used as attempt to strip the context of "God's chosen" from Jewish Israelites to express disinheritance. Judean is more fitting for the passage, given the context from the source. Ephemerance (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Ephemerance objects to the use of the word "Jews" in this ghalf-sentence and wishes to replace it with something else (presumably he objects to the anti-Semitism inherent in the phrase, but Matthew is notoriously anti-Semitic):


 * [P]rior to the Crucifixion they are referred to as Israelites, the honorific title of God's chosen people; after it, they are called simply Ioudaioi ("Jews"), a sign that through their rejection of the Christ the "Kingdom of Heaven" has been taken away from them and given instead to the church.[3] // <- this is from the Wikipedia Article, not Strecker

The source Georg Strecker, "Theology of the New Testament", this is on page 370: "After the crucifixion he (Matthew) replaces it ("Israel" as a title for the Jewish people) with the word "Ioudaioi", a term used elsewhere by gentiles to designate the Jewish people..." (There's a little more to the sentence, but it's not substantial to the meaning). This is what the source says, and we can't change it, much as Ephemerance would like to. Achar Sva (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"Ioudaioi" = יהודים = Judeans etymologically; "Jews", which inexplicably drops the radical "D", is an English synonym that does not appear in the Old or the New Testament sources. A Georgian (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @ A Georgian. Incorrect. See: page 97-98 (viewable in preview) of Cohen, Shaye (1999). "Ioudaios, Iudaeus, Judaean, Jew". The Beginnings of Jewishness. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520211414. Also, debating the meaning of Ioudaioi belongs on the Ioudaioi page, the portion in question is specifically about how Strecker 2000 uses the term. Strecker only lists the Greek in the portion that is being cited. Strecker discusses in other parts of his work that the term Ioudaioi was used in contrast to Israelite to emphasise disinheritance of God's promise. "Jew" usually has an implied context of "God's chosen" of which Matthew removed. If we being true to the sourced Strecker work, "Judean" is the more fitting term as an aspect of 'just another group of people that happen to be from Judea' and not to be confused with the context of "Jew" meaning 'adherent of the God whose temple is in Jerusalem' (as the people were considered no longer adherent). The passage that Strecker is referring is Matthew 28:15, and the Aramaic Bible in Plain English does indeed translate Ioudaioi as "Judeans". We can either amend the Wikipedia Article to note "Jews or Judeans" with an additional scholarly source if so desired, or completely remove the dependent clause and let the "Ioudaioi" article speak for itself. You cannot read the Strecker pages in isolation. You must read his work in context.


 * @ Achar Sva we have had great discussions in the past that led to good negotiated edits. Your recent libel and "presumptiveness" are unwelcome. Focus on the facts. Don't make it personal. You will have my gratitude.


 * Ephemerance (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Beginning a dispute process
Ephemerance, it's clear that you intend to keep pushing for your preferred edit, and as I'm not convinced by your arguments this will lead only to an edit war if we don't head it off. I therefore suggest that you, as the one trying to introduce the edit, begin a dispute process. What form of process is up to you, but request for comment seems the best option. I can offer advice/help if you wish.Achar Sva (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, please address the threads in the talk section that you have abandoned. Ephemerance (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Issues brought up in the recent edit dispute:

(1) Resurrection is a significant component of the Gospel of Matthew. (2) There are errors in the current phrasing that contradict primary and secondary sources (3) The argument: "becomes the salvation of the gentiles" is identical with "instructs all of his followers to make disciples of all nations" seems to have more to do with your expressed personal contempt for the Gospel of Matthew (Achar Sva, 25 April 2020: "Matthew is notoriously anti-Semitic") rather than a genuine scholarly observation based on sources. Primary and secondary sources agree (including the originally cited source) that the Great Commission is in reference to all nations, Jewish ones included. (4) Biblegateway is a host for different scholarly material that have been physically published. If the objection is that the physical publication must be referenced, this can easily be done. The Passions Translation bible led by Dr. Simmons is an annotated interpretation between the Greek and Aramaic primary sources (TPT is a secondary source in itself). The Original Aramaic New Testament is a translation by Rev. David Bauscher which demonstrates that "Ioudaioi" has been translated as "Judeans" by some sources. If Rev. David Bauscher's work is considered a primary source (is it?), this is still an appropriate use of a primary source. Even the originally cited source makes reference to "Ioudaioi" and later discusses "Jews" but does not state that "Ioudaioi" is exclusively translated as "Jews". Your objection to this was that you felt "Judeans" makes Matthew seem less "anti-semitic" <-- this makes no sense, it is not a scholarly approach, and brings to question an inappropriate editor's bias on your part. (5) Multiple source have different scholarly interpretations. Even if that source said "Ioudaioi = Jews; Ioudaioi =/= Judeans" (which it doesn't) it is appropriate and in good form to show the other scholarly sources that show "Ioudaioi = Jews OR Judeans". Ephemerance (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * We've been through this, and I don't see the point of going for one more spin of the hamster wheel: quite simply, we disagree profoundly, and the logjam can only be broken by the dispute resolution process (which this link will take you to). There are several sections to that page: the first is about resolving conflict without outside help, and we've been through that without success; so we move to the second section, which is about seeking outside help. There are six subsections there, each dealing with a different means of seeking such help. They don't have to be followed in order, we can pick one we like best, and I'm inviting you to do that. If you wish, I can help with advice. Achar Sva (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Irenaeus
He had about a gospel of a man called Matthew, his statement has nothing to do with the Gospel of Matthew from the New Testament, according to mainstream Bible scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide any sources regarding your statement? Edion Petriti (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * E.g. the Gospel of Matthew was written directly in Greek, it isn't a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic. And it is not just a collection of Jesus's sayings. We are not here to undo or re-litigate the consensus of 300 years of mainstream Bible scholarship. UTFS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And where in my citation, which you deleted, I state that Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Edion Petriti (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. Ireneaus did. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So you are turning attention away from my edit... I am going to revert the material, since it has nothing to do with consensus regarding the Aramaic primacy of the Gospel of Matthew. Please refrain from undoing my edits, just because you don't like another quote from Irenaeus, which happen to be in the same paragraph of Adversus Haereses. Edion Petriti (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're pushing a WP:FRINGE view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am stating my view regarding the insertion of Irenaeus' testimony tomorrow. I hope we can come to an agreement. Meanwhile, you bring your sources regarding Irenaeus' statement on the time of composition of the Matthew gospel and I will bring mine. Edion Petriti (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're still pushing a WP:FRINGE view. This has been discussed to death. Search the talk page archives. I'm not paid to educate you.
 * Just type Irenaeus in the archives search box, this has been discussed in full detail and has been found wanting.
 * So, yeah, the inclusion of Papias, Hippolytus and Ireneaus has already been discussed and already been rejected. Their statements are simply not germane to the gospel from the New Testament. They speak, if they can be trusted, about another book, which has been lost. The heavier charge about Papias and those who got the information from him is that he is totally unreliable. And the lesser charge is that he spoke of another book. In so far as the surviving statements of Papias can be checked, they are all wrong. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"In any event, Papias does not seem to provide us with the kind of information we can place a lot of confidence in. I should point out, in this connection, that scholars have almost uniformly rejected just about everything else that Papias is recorded to have said in the surviving references to his work.

...

If scholars are inclined to discount what Papias says in virtually every other instance, why is it that they sometimes appeal to his witness in order to show that we have an early tradition that links Matthew to one of our Gospels, and Mark to another? Why do these scholars accept some of what Papias said but not all of what he said? I suspect it is because they want to have support for their own points of view (Matthew really wrote Matthew) and have decided to trust Papias when he confirms their views, and not trust him when he does not.

The result of this quick examination of Papias is, I think, that he passes on stories that he has heard, and he attributes them to people who knew other people who said so. But when he can be checked, he appears to be wrong. Can he be trusted in the places that he cannot be checked? If you have a friend who is consistently wrong when he gives directions to places you are familiar with, do you trust him when he gives directions for someplace you’ve never been?

Papias is not recorded as having said anything about either Luke or John. I’m not sure why. But the bottom line is this: we do not have any solid reference to the authors of our four Gospels in which we can trust (for example, that the author is actually referring to our Matthew and our Mark) until closer to the end of the second century—nearly a full hundred years after these books had been anonymously placed in circulation."

- Bart Ehrman


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The article already has this: "The early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars." That's sourced to Burkett and Duling, and you can follow up with those two. Essentially, modern scholars have concluded that Irenaeus was wrong.Achar Sva (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Internal evidence for a Hebrew original
There are evidences pointing to a Hebrew original. http://markhaughwout.com/Bible/Matthew_Hebrew.pdf Edion Petriti (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We reflect hte consensus of scholarship, we do not give space to those who argue against it - unless, of course, they convince the scholarly community, but the community at this point remains unconvinced. Read Duling for background. Achar Sva (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually I'd urge you to read arrington's book, starting at page 3 - this is the consensus. Please learn the consensus before you attempt to go beyond. Achar Sva (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the internal evidence, which tell-tales the underlying Hebrew original. For example Jairus' (?) daughter... she died or was already dead? In Hebrew (not Aramaic) /מתה/ depending on the vocalization, means both dead and dying. - I'm citing from memory. Mt. 9:18 ff compared to Mk. 5:22/Lk. 8:41 Edion Petriti (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These are not mine to WP:OR, but Mark Haughwout's contributions to biblical criticism. Don't tell me he too is fringe.  Edion Petriti (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These are the important facts: (1) Wikipedia seeks to present the opinions of experts; (2) it presents the opinions of the majority of experts first, and then of any significant minority; (3) therefore Wikipedia presents the opinions of bodies of scholars, not individuals; (4) the opinion of the majority of scholars is that the gospel of Matthew was written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic, and we have sources for this; (5) Haughwout is an individual, not a body of scholars, and his opinion is not that of the majority or of a significant minority. To which I add (6): if you believe that Haughwout's opinion is held by a significant minority of scholars, you need to produce evidence. Achar Sva (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is, of course, a persistent tradition in antiquity that Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in “the Hebrew dialect”. On the Independence of Matthew and Mark By John M. Rist and this fact must be included in the page. There are scholars who believe the original Matthew to depend on an Aramaic version. On the Independence of Matthew and Mark By John M. Rist Edion Petriti (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you say that "Matthew" (the anonymous author) had some written sources, of course, nobody has denied that. But the WP:RS/AC is firmly that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course when I use Matthew, I refer to the writer of the Gospel of Matthew, just like when talking about Shakespeare we refer to the author who wrote Shakespeare's plays. The thing is that the above paragraph is mildly phrased and well sourced, and not biased. I won't go as deep as to address Matthew as "the writer formerly known as Matthew". There is:
 * * 1. a persistent written tradition in antiquity that Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in “the Hebrew dialect”; and
 * * 2. there are scholars who believe the original Matthew depends on an Aramaic version. Which of the above does your paragraph address? That the WP:RS/AC is firmly that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek? Which of the above does it address, 1 or 2? Edion Petriti (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia by design does not render the views of tiny minorities of scholars, see WP:FRINGE. IMHO, mainstream Bible scholars have dropped the hypothesis of a Hebrew/Aramaic original of the Gospel of Matthew as unfruitful. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So by default you agree with the 1st point? Edion Petriti (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, there was such a tradition. And the WP:RS/AC of mainstream Bible scholars is that such tradition got it wrong. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And what is the reason we can't put this in the article? Edion Petriti (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as we say upfront that it is an erroneous tradition, it is fine by me. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll revert it to my last revision, and you can add that the tradition is faulty, erroneous, or whatever you like. The gospels do not claim to have been written by any of the apostles, but only to have been transmitted orally as tradition emanating from them. Thus Luke 1:1-3 refers to the existence of many Gospels resting upon the report of "eye-witnesses and disciples," and Papias relates that Mark wrote down what he, in a rather disconnected way, heard from Peter, and that Matthew had made a collection of the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew (Aramaic) without the historical framework, which was given differently by each commentator (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iii. 39, § 16). Edion Petriti (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll revert it to my last revision, and you can add that the tradition is faulty, erroneous, or whatever you like. The gospels do not claim to have been written by any of the apostles, but only to have been transmitted orally as tradition emanating from them. Thus Luke 1:1-3 refers to the existence of many Gospels resting upon the report of "eye-witnesses and disciples," and Papias relates that Mark wrote down what he, in a rather disconnected way, heard from Peter, and that Matthew had made a collection of the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew (Aramaic) without the historical framework, which was given differently by each commentator (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iii. 39, § 16). Edion Petriti (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the "compromise" is simply bad editing. The idea of an Aramaic Matthew is held only by a tiny handful of scholars, and the suggested text is way overweight. If you want to mention AM as a viable contemporary position you need some very apposite sourcing.Achar Sva (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, I was just tired of my role as party pooper. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The gospel of Matthew uses the gospel of Mark and the Q source as its sources, sometimes paraphrasing them, sometimes copying them word for word. Those two account for 80% of Matthew, and they were in Greek. Achar Sva (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Warning for disruptive editing
Edion Petriti, this is to warn you, in a way which I hope is both civil and clear, that you are engaged in a pattern of disruptive editing, and that the consequence is likely to be a topic ban. This page explains disruptive editing. I think you don't understand why your editing is disruptive, so I'll explain: you're trying, over and over, to insert into the article a view regarding the composition of the gospel which has been dismissed by mainstream scholarship - i.e., that the Greek Matthew is a translation of an original Aramaic (or Hebrew) version. In the threads above I gave you a link to an excellent brief survey of this theory (Harrington's book), but I see no sign that you've read it. I also see no sign that you're even aware that Wikipedia has an article on the Hebrew gospel hypothesis, although it's linked in the See Also section. So this is what I want you to do: read Harrington; read the Hebrew gospel article; and then, if you sincerely feel this topic is inadequately covered by the existing sentence ("Early Christian tradition attributes the gospel to the apostle Matthew, but this is rejected by modern scholars)", come here and argue your case. Achar Sva (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your last reverts seem to imply a lack of good faith, as in the Gospel of John. I have opened a thread here . We can discuss it there. Edion Petriti (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, ok, if that's what you think you need to do. You need to add a summary of the dispute, and you need to notify TGeorge.Achar Sva (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC) (Oh yes, you need to formally notify me, too. It means you need to go to the Talk pages of each involved user and tell them of the dispute, with a link.Achar Sva (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC) Actually, looking in a little more detail at the notice as you left it, I think you'd better ask a volunteer to help you through the process - you'll find a link at the top of the page, under "if you need help". Achar Sva (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Edion Petriti, I just wonder if you understand what the dispute resolution noticeboard is intended for. It doesn't lead to "discrete measures against" users (which is the outcome you say you want); instead, it's a request for a volunteer to help us continue the existing discussion. Anyway, you need to set out clearly on the DNR page what the problem is. Your first step is to go to the "Summary of dispute by" section and describe what you believe the problem to be. Put a star * at the beginning to indent it. Then I'll add my version, and then, and only then, a volunteer might come along to help with the discussion. And you need to involve TGeorge. Achar Sva (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "if you sincerely feel this topic is inadequately covered by the existing sentence ("Early Christian tradition attributes the gospel to the apostle Matthew, but this is rejected by modern scholars)" I would considered it inadequate. It concerns only authorship and not any disputes over language or composition date. If explaining the case is undue, shouldn't we at least mention the Hebrew gospel hypothesis in the main text instead of a see also section? Dimadick (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with, but I have no hard feelings against one or the other. I tried my best to find a compromise solution and see the point in both having and in not having such edit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The idea that the gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic so fringe it doesn't rate a mention in the main scholarly literature, which is why I don't think we should mention it in the article. But if the feeling is that we need to I'll add something.Achar Sva (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * page to watch: Draft:Authorship and Dating of the Gospel According to Matthew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Replacement of sentence in the lead
As a note, I have replaced the sentence from the lead that describes Jesus being "rejected and executed in Israel", as it is an exact copy of the sentence from the source. I am passing no editorial judgement on the content; I don't have a horse in that race, but we cannot swipe phrasing from sources. (If you respond please ping me; I'm not watchlisting). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Most important
Hi, I have removed an assertion which is unsourced and just completely false, about the church favoring this Gospel over the other three in her formulation of who Jesus is. I also modified the remaining statement to conform to the source: Matthew became regarded as earliest, and most reliable, because it was placed first in the canon, not the other way around! Elizium23 (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentence is from Edwards and was once part of the preceding sentence (which is sourced to him); someone must have edited it this way for some reason in the distant past. Achar Sva (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What you wrote simply isn't in the source. I couldn't find it there. Could you quote the source exactly please? Elizium23 (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Mark was placed second (and sometimes fourth) in the canon as a rather inferior abridgement of Matthew." Not exactly supporting Elizium23's statement "Because the Gospel of Matthew was placed first in the New Testament canon, it has been regarded as the earliest and most reliable Gospel." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Edwards, 2002, p.2: Because Matthew appears first in the NT canon, and because it emphasizes Jesus' fulfillment of OT promises, for seventeen centuries the church regarded Matthew as the earliest and most reliable Gospel. Elizium23 (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would humbly request to know why a singular scholar has authority to declare what the whole of Christianity has based our knowledge of Jesus on. I would counter that we don't base our knowledge of Jesus on the Bible, but we based the Bible on our knowledge of Jesus. Elizium23 (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , your recent edit is a slight improvement, but I don't know where you found "John" in p.2 of Edwards 2002. Elizium23 (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just read that too; you're both right, though Achar Sva's sentence needed some correction. Looks like there's too much info in half a page of Edwards; the two of you may determine where to add it in the article, and how to summarize it in the lead. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , claims this is "almost verbatim from Edwards" but it's certainly not on page 2 and it's certainly not anything I will buy as a single scholar speaking for the historical derivation of all of Christianity's Christology. Elizium23 (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that this sentence in our article could be so contentious. Anyway, Edwards says: "... the general consensus of the church fathers [] ascribed the earliest gospel to Matthew" (page 1). In other words, Matthew was placed first in the canon because it was regarded as the earliest, not because it was regarded as more reliable. As for its superiority to Mark in terms of reliability, he says: "Mark was placed second (and sometimes fourth) in the canon as a rather inferior abridgement of Matthew" (page 2, top of page). As for the comparative influences of the four gospels on the Church's understanding of Christ, he says: "As a consequence of this view [the view that Mark imitated Matthew 'like a lackey'] the Christian church has historically derived its picture of Jesus primarily from the Gospel of Matthew" (page 2, middle of first paragraph). He also says: "Throughout the patristic period quotations from the Gospels were cited from Matthew and John, in that order; from Luke as a distant third; and from Mark last and only rarely ... [F]or seventeen centuries the Church regarded Matthew as the earliest and most reliable Gospel. Readings ... were taken from Matthew, the other Gospels being utilized generally only when Matthew was thought deficient." All this seems to me to be adequate support for the statement that "[t]he early patristic scholars regarded Matthew as the earliest of the gospels and placed it first in the canon, and the Church has consequently derived its view of Jesus primarily from Matthew, secondarily from John, and only distantly from Mark." Achar Sva (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Edwards is incapable of speaking for the whole Christian church as "historically derived [her] picture of Jesus" from Matthew. I reject his assertion and demand WP:EXTRAORDINARY evidence. Elizium23 (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the info to a new subsection, which can be expanded, and subsequently summarized in the lead. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joshua Jonathan  for your attempt to intermediate, but I have better things to do with my time than argue over these things. Wikipedia should be a pleasure and a pass-time, not a battle. I'll take this article off my watch list. Achar Sva (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Plot synopsis
If this summary is the best that can be done with a single secondary source, then we need better sources. Although I would contend that a concise summary without analysis can be accomplished with reference directly to the primary source material, and I would support reverting to the more comprehensive synopsis. Elizium23 (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The shorter synopsis seems most appropriate to the lead, and it also brings out the essential message of Matthew - Jesus came to the Jews, was rejected, and sent his followers to the gentiles. Achar Sva (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

"Of Saint Matthew" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Of_Saint_Matthew&redirect=no Of Saint Matthew] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)