Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 4

Serious breach of Wikipedia Ethics
Ictu, please respond at the Gospel of the Hebrews talk page immediately. Thank you. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Ret Prof.
 * You should not be removing POV tags, the tag specifically states that it should not be removed. Likewise and OR tags should be addressed not deleted. Please restore the POV, OR and  tags next to your contributions.In ictu oculi (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See Gospel of the Hebrews talk page for my reply. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplication/POV across several articles
Regarding the duplication across several articles of the same POV material, you took a simple and natural #redirect Gospel and inserted an essay style article pushing the oral/Talmudic content James R. Edwards (2009) "controversial" (his own website) theory Canonical Gospels (but greatly overweight to lost Hebrew Gospel theory) which was picked up by other editors as being POV, proposed for deletion and survived, but retains a lot of duplicate material you have been adding at Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels Talk:Gospel of the Nazarenes and the essay-like pages Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament Talk:Criteria of authenticity and the historical Jesus Talk:Jesus in the Talmud, cf. Talk:Historicity of Jesus and so on.In ictu oculi (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that it is not just I who has been requesting that you include original publication years when using these reprint editions such as "Bernhard Pick, 2007 The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, LLC. p. 116." This should be "Bernhard Pick 1890, reprint 2007" (though since some of these books are print-on-demand they will actually be 2011 and rolling). Rather than deleting attempts by other editors to add original publication years you should as a matter of urgency return to all articles where you have used Kessinger Publishing Nabu Press BiblioBazaar etc. sources and add the original publication years and, where possible, link the authors to their corresponding wikipedia entry (which many 19thC authors will have). Also "Chicago" "New York" "Berlin" where place of publication is known. Likewise where a Kessinger Publishing edition has taken a chapter out of a book and reprinted it with a new title, such as Arthur Lillie, please include the original book title in the ref. Thank you.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Greek translation of Matthew" was "lost"?
Ret Prof. As regards your proposed work tasks, I honestly think that the place for developing James R. Edwards' theory is on the article about the author, not on a major item like the main Gospel of Matthew page.

Regarding this sentence which I edited (since the citations don't support the content) you reverted:
 * Pantaenus, Origen and other Early Church Fathers [74] believed Matthew [23] [75] wrote the very first Gospel in Hebrew near Jerusalem for Hebrew Christians and it was translated into Greek, but the Greek copy was lost. [76] [77] [78] [79]

Which one of these sources claims that the "Greek translation of Matthew" was "lost"? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 76 # ^ Peter Schäfer, 2007 Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press. p. 75.
 * 77 # ^ Bernhard Pick, 2007 The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, LLC. p. 116.
 * 78 # ^ Talmud Bavli, Tractate Sotah 48b
 * 79 # ^ Paul Carus, The sayings of Jesus in the Talmud, The Monist, Volume 20, Open Court for the Hegeler Institute p 414
 * Good work. It is implied that it was lost but not stated. Consensus reached - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I now see that in your revert of my edit back to Andrew Cs version you also deleted "but the Greek copy was lost" and "(and the Greek copy was lost)", which is something, but would have been helpful if you'd indicated that you'd done this. I note at the same time you also added back in a reference from Butz supporting your POV.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof deletions of sourced material

 * "Temporarily reverted edits by Ictu - no consenus - See talk page"
 * Deleted: The first of the synoptic Gospels is anonymous.
 * ref Holman Concise Bible Commentary ed. David S. Dockery -2011 p402 "Strictly speaking, the Gospel of Matthew is anonymous. The titles ofthe Gospels were not added until the second century. But early church tradition unanimously ascribes this Gospel to Matthew." /ref
 * Deleted: Medieval scholia ascribe the translation to James or John.
 * ref Pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis Scriptura Sacra (miscited as Athanasius by Albert Barnes /ref . ref Theophylact Scholia on Matthew in Critical and exegetical hand-book to the Gospel of Matthew ed. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Frederick Crombie, George Richard Crooks - 1884 /ref
 * Ret Prof. please explain your reasons for these deletions of sourced material.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted: The place of composition is commonly assumed to be Palestine or Syria.
 * ref> Daniel J. Harrington S.J. The Gospel of Matthew 1991 Liturgical Press 9780814659649 p10 "While it is plausible and now customary to place the composition of Matthew in Syria, a good case can also be made for Palestine as the place of origin. What stands in the way of this location is the old and poorly founded distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism. This distinction assumed that Palestine was a cultural backwater separated from the Hellenistic world, one in which the Greek language was seldom used. But recent discoveries and reflection on the literary sources indicate that Palestine was integrated into the economic, administrative, military and cultural life of the Hellenistic world. And the population of Palestine was not entirely Jewish. So there is no objection to some place in Palestine such as Caesarea Maritime or one of the cities of Galilee as the place for Matthew's composition. The chief argument for a Palestinian origin is the presence there of the opposing Jewish movement..." ref:
 * Ret Prof, Incidentally, while we're waiting for an explanation about why those three sentences/refs were removed. I notice that among the duplicate material in your article Canonical Gospels which was expanded from the original redirect Gospel includes material from http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php This does not appear to me to be anything more than a self-published webpage and shouldn't be replicated on Wikipedia.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted because we had not reached consensus.

Proposed compromise:
 * Traditionally, Matthew was seen as the first Gospel written, then Luke expanded on Matthew, and Mark is the conflation of both Matthew and Luke (see Augustinian hypothesis).

Although anonymous, it was believed that the Gospel of Matthew was composed by Matthew, a disciple of Jesus. Papias of Hierapolis (Bishop of Hierapolis) in Asia Minor wrote concerning Matthew, "Matthew put together the Logia (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." Does this move us closer to consensus? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The (+2,258) here do not explain why you first deleted two sentences which have ref material. However I think this the first time you have actually explained the reason for one of your deletions, which in itself is something. If you want to edit as above, leaving a clear paragraph gap between the statement on order of the Gospels, and then the paragraph on authorship, then okay. But you should not have deleted the sentences in the first place if (as above) you then find them acceptable. So why did you delete them in the first place? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I also think that you need to look at Consensus and see whether it gives the justification for this practice you have adopted for deleting first and discussing (or not discussing) second. We normally only revert edits which are uncited, vandalism, non-notable or where the claim is not matched by citation. The practice you have adopted of deleting anything you do not like, or which conflicts with your views on lost Hebrew Gospels etc. is not the meaning of Consensus. Particularly since where multiple viewpoints exist then more than one can be aired, and ref/sourced. The issue of Consensus allows to reflects the diversity that exists.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not get me wrong. I am not deleting your Material but only temporarily reverting it because we had not reached consensus. Let's work together to deal with the issues on the talk page and the edit the article after consensus is reached. Edit Warring should be avoided. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof, you also need to to read up Edit Warring: "Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making ..." So, are you going to undelete?In ictu oculi (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When you delete first then demand agreement with yourself before other editors can be restored that is a form of Edit warring.
 * When another editor asks you on the Talk page for an explanation of your deletion, that is not "Edit warring" that is "talk"
 * Likewise WP:PRESERVE, since the three sentences you deleted meet the requirements of WP:BURDEN In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You also deleted this sentence and ref:
 * Deleted The place of composition is commonly assumed to be Palestine or Syria.
 * ref Daniel J. Harrington S.J. The Gospel of Matthew 1991 Liturgical Press 9780814659649 p10 "While it is plausible and now customary to place the composition of Matthew in Syria, a good case can also be made for Palestine as the place of origin. What stands in the way of this location is the old and poorly founded distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism. This distinction assumed that Palestine was a cultural backwater separated from the Hellenistic world, one in which the Greek language was seldom used. But recent discoveries and reflection on the literary sources indicate that Palestine was integrated into the economic, administrative, military and cultural life of the Hellenistic world. And the population of Palestine was not entirely Jewish. So there is no objection to some place in Palestine such as Caesarea Maritime or one of the cities of Galilee as the place for Matthew's composition. The chief argument for a Palestinian origin is the presence there of the opposing Jewish movement..." ref
 * What is wrong with sentence or ref? Is it that Daniel J. Harrington S.J. is a Jesuit? Or is it because his view that "Palestine was integrated into the economic, administrative, military and cultural life of the Hellenistic world" (which is generally taken as a verifiable fact not a view) contradicts your own?
 * Please explain why you have deleted these 3 sentences contrary to WP:PRESERVE and their references WP:BURDEN, or maybe I will get tired of waiting for an explanation and permit myself a single revert.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

More Duplication of same POV/OR material
I've just found the same section again under Nazarene (sect), complete with the "Greek Matthew was lost" sentence. Just how many times do the same POV/OR claims have to be repeated on Wikipedia? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Please see my talk page - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ret Prof, you currently have added duplicate material broadly along the lines of the theory that a lost Hebrew original of GMatthew is preserved in Ebionite materials to somewhere between 12 and 16 articles (I have lost count). Regarding your sources:

But this is okay, you can have these minority hypotheses represented. What is not okay is seeking to supress mainstream scholarship by deleting references to majority "critical" views. And the reason the "standard" (called "standard" in verifiable sources already given, you seem to have forgotten) scholarly edition of NTA only has short sections (intro, composition, extant text, bibliography) on each of the 3 Jewish-Christian Gospels is because it is a reference work. The sections on these Jewish Christian Gospels in other reference works, such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary, etc. are also shorter than Nicholson or Edwards' books. This is all by the by, since Consensus does not mean that you have to be convinced of the majority "critical" views before the article can contain sentences (with clear references) mentioning them.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * James R. Edwards (2009) own website describes his theory as "controversial" Yes/No?
 * Celticist Edward Nicholson (librarian)'s (1899) similar theory "cannot be said .. have carried conviction to the minds of New Testament scholars." IBD 1912. Yes/No?
 * Pierson Parker "A Proto-Lukan Basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews," JBL, 59 (1940), 471-478 does not argue for Nicholson/Edward's theory.
 * My reaction to Jeffrey J. Bütz The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings That Passed from James the Just to the Founding Father Paperback $13.57 as bestseller pulp, does no doubt reflect my own prejudices, but it also reflects the blurb on the jacket and the lack of scholarly footnotes.

Concerns
Ictu, I addressed these concerns (see above) and used references. It is not that you are wrong, it is just that you are not right. In other words your references don't support your position. In any event, I will go to the library and attempt to supply you with other reliable sources. Please let us step back from an edit war. Also have you been canvassing other editors? Is a great crowd about to appear?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC) - PS > See Canvassing
 * I saw on Talk:Canonical gospels that two editors has proposed deletion of your essay-style article Canonical gospels which was expanded from a REDIRECT to Gospels, and asked them if they still supported deletion (return to a REDIRECT), since I do too. If that counts as canvassing then yes I'm canvassing, and incidentally, since you've raised it here, anyone here on Talk:Gospel of Matthew please take a look at Canonical gospels and also the similar duplicate material on Gospels itself under "first Gospels" section. This duplicate POV material is on up to 12 different articles, as it is here too.In ictu oculi (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Re Canvassing: In all (including email) how editors have you contacted? - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Place of composition
The reference I have restored I chose in that it recognises both views: ^32 ''Daniel J. Harrington S.J. The Gospel of Matthew 1991 Liturgical Press 9780814659649 p10 "While it is plausible and now customary to place the composition of Matthew in Syria, a good case can also be made for Palestine as the place of origin. What stands in the way of this location is the old and poorly founded distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism. This distinction assumed that Palestine was a cultural backwater separated from the Hellenistic world, one in which the Greek language was seldom used. But recent discoveries and reflection on the literary sources indicate that Palestine was integrated into the economic, administrative, military and cultural life of the Hellenistic world. And the population of Palestine was not entirely Jewish. So there is no objection to some place in Palestine such as Caesarea Maritime or one of the cities of Galilee as the place for Matthew's composition. The chief argument for a Palestinian origin is the presence there of the opposing Jewish movement..."'' In ictu oculi (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually this is some good stuff. It should go in the article. I also have similar material that supports this. Is it possible for us to work together and create a "draft edit". I would propose a new section in the article titled "Place of composition" I also have other changes I would like to propose but we have been sidetracked from editing. - Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ret Prof. You do realise I hope that you do not actually own every page on Wikipedia that touches upon your pet subject about a lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. I do not need your permission to add sourced mainstream academic material.In ictu oculi (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood. I was hoping to work with you. Consensus does not imply ownership. Mutual respect is what is of important. You are a gifted editor. Let's work together in good faith to write an article from a NPOV. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Apart from all else, the Composition section could be reduced to about a quarter its current length. You only need to state cases, not prove them. Begin with the majority position, then state any significant other views. (Problem with Herrington is that he's arguing a case - that's fine in his own context, but it's not what an encyclopedia is for). PiCo (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct if logic prevails . . . - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the Herrington note to the sentence giving two alternative main places of composition, the ref supports that both cases exist and states Syria is the majority view. i.e. Begin with the majority position, then state any significant other views. If someone can find a similar ref that does the same then please provide. More importantly the Composition section could be reduced to about a quarter its current length; The article needs pruning, not adding more content, even though some basic subjects are missing.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A better source would be the Blackwell Companion to the New Testament - better because (a) it's a mainstream tertiary source, and (b) it goes into some detail. See pp.302-303. On the other point, I take it you're agreeing with me that this section could be a lot shorter? PiCo (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PiCo, excellent choice; I withdraw Herrington ref for Aune's Blackwell Companion which as you say is (a) more mainstream to most readers, (though the Sacra Pagina series is mainstream too), (b) better because more detailed. And yes absolutely I'm agreeing with you that this section could be a lot shorter. Please lead away, I will support a clean up.In ictu oculi (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Matthew the Evangelist linked to main article
This section is a major area of cut and paste POV from other articles. I have reworded intro lede to be shorter and neutral, and blanked in this section DUPLICATE cut and paste content about "...Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh etc. blanked." etc. etc. etc. etc. If someone wants to restore for example Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh to view please explain first here why it is necessary to have this. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof immediately blanked the neutral lede and made visible again all the duplicate content on ... Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh etc. .... I undid, but then reverted myself. What is the point? Without mainstream editors taking an interest in the article all this POV duplication remains. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I've placed POV OR and DUPLICATION tags on the duplicate material section with the Messianic(or whatever it is?) content.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the oral tradition is mentioned elsewhere but it is important to the Gospel of Matthew therefore should be included pursuant to WP policy. See Google Link Please let us work things out on the talk page. I too have material I would like to add but I am waiting until we get consensus. Also it is against WP policy to delete large number of references without really good reasons and sources to back up your reasons. Edit warring should be avoided. Also please provide sources or Google Links for what you do. Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof. 1. You deleted the sources. 2. Blanking in brackets per Preserve of duplicate cut and paste content in brackets is not against Wikipedia policy if the blanking of duplicate cut and paste content is noted on the Talk page. Okay, I wish to remove the duplicate cut paste "Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh" as OR, you wish to preserve it.
 * Let's see if a 3rd Wikipedia editor has a view. is the duplication from elsewhere "Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh" etc. OR?In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing
There is no problem with restoring brackets. Re Canvassing: In all (including email) how editors have you contacted? - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet sent an email to anyone about this problem. You can see the comments to other editors on 5 or 6 of the Talk pages of the 15 or 16 articles where you have placed duplicate POV material. I have also written under your own comment on two mainstream editors you contacted (I welcome you contacting them), and I notified the 2 who requested deletion per Talk:Canonical gospels to see Talk page there, though neither seem to be active. The cut and pasting of duplicate POV material inevitably duplicates Talk pages. If you do not want duplicate discussion on duplicate Talk pages, it wouldn be advisable not to duplicate POV content in the first place.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will assume good faith. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks but without wishing to seem churlish I frankly am not that interested on whether anyone assumes good faith on my part or not, I am more interested in seeing the cut and paste duplication being thinned out. I note that "Appropriate notification" says "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:....On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)," but phhh... if someone has a page on their Watchlist they'll see the Talk anyway.In ictu oculi (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Was your remark about my assuming good faith an insult? Anyway your own admissions make it appear you have infringed upon Canvassing. In any event it will become clearer in the coming days. I hope I am wrong and I will continue to assume good faith. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Matthew the Evangelist
I moved the subsection Matthew the Evangelist to the article on the evangelist. This is because the majority position among scholars is that Matthew didn't write the gospel (which should be enough reason in itself for nat having this material here).PiCo (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct. But if you move it the article makes no sense. Scholars believe Matthew wrote a gospel. Catholics believe it was the Gospel of Matthew while critical scholars such as Edwards believe he wrote the Hebrew Gospel. We must present both from a NPOV. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Scholars believe that Matthew wrote a gospel? I don't think so. The mainstream view is that the Gospel of Matthew was written by an unknown person, not Matthew the companion of Jesus. NPOV is fine, but undue weight is also important. PiCo (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm rather surprised by this observation too; John Mackinnon Robertson recorded back in 1917 in The Jesus problem that "The hypothesis of Nicholson is "that Matthew wrote at different times the canonical gospel and the gospel according to the Hebrews" but Edward Nicholson (librarian) died in 1912 so is only "modern" compared to Grotius etc. Wheras the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis of Parker and Edwards is not that Matthew wrote anything, simply that a Hebrew "Ur-Matthew" existed and was a source for GLuke. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate material on Matthew moved to Matthew
That seems to me to be a sensible move, so reversion undone. Might be helpful to see Consensus. Secondary as an issue is that what was moved was loaded with POV, but it's possible that editors at Matthew will clean it up. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 13:32, 24 March 2011 In ictu oculi (talk | contribs) (64,176 bytes) (Undid revision 420258694 by Ret.Prof (talk) sensible NPOV edit by PiCo restored) (undo)
 * 1) (cur | prev) 02:41, 23 March 2011 Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) (73,066 bytes) (Temporarily restored reference until we reach consensus. Please see talk page.) (undo)
 * 2) (cur | prev) 02:12, 23 March 2011 PiCo (talk | contribs) (64,100 bytes) (→Matthew the Evangelist: Moving to article Saint Matthew - see Talk) (undo)
 * Ret Prof
 * Please stop posting large chunks of OR/Primary Sources (i.e. Jerome and Papias) on Talk.
 * Constant reversions/deletions/editing warring, the cut and pasting of duplicate content, proliferation of new duplicate pages with pet theories is unlikely to create "Consensus". You have to accept that majority critical scholarship is allowed on articles.

Re. the Matthew content This bit isn't too bad for POV
 * - needs inserting
 * Matthew, a Galilean and the son of Alpheus [28] collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas. [29] [30] [31]
 * Matthew was "called" by a Jewish rabbi named Jesus to be one of the Twelve Disciples. [28] [30] [32] [33] [34]
 * As a disciple, Matthew followed Christ, and was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension.

This bit is POV/OR/duplicate
 * It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish. [35] [36] [37] [38]
 * They remained in and about Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jesus son of Joseph was the promised Messiah.
 * These early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes. [39] [40]
 * It is near certain that Matthew belonged to this sect, as both the New Testament and the early Talmud affirm this to be true.[41] [31][42] [43] [44] [45]
 * As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh.
 * This Oral Tradition interpreted the Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. [46] [47] [48]
 * It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Oral Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" or Logia to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God.[49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]
 * This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the consequent upheaval of Jewish/Christian social and legal norms.
 * Jewish Christians were required to face a new reality— without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study), the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained.
 * It is during this period of upheaval, that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing. [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]
 * The resulting diaspora, (or Tefutzot תפוצות, "scattered") after the defeat in the Great Jewish Revolt meant Jews were scattered throughout the Empire.
 * Matthew (one of the Twelve disciples and a Jew) was part of the Diaspora. [65]
 * The Church Fathers recognized this and Matthew was said to have written the first Gospel out of necessity. [66] [67]

That whole list of statements, largely with primary sources (Jerome etc.) or no sources. "It is important that.." (who says?) is clearly POV/OR written from some kind of Messianic/HebrewChristianity perspective. Which doesn't make it wrong, but is still POV/OR. I suggest that PiCo's edit is restored except for the first 3 lines which can be saved, though "a Jewish rabbi named Jesus" is POV and "and was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension." needs "According to Acts" inserted. Otherwise Wikipedia is now a fundamentalist Christianpedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Two views on hypotheses of a Hebrew Gospel
Added under Jerome quote box:
 * According to James R. Edwards' development of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis of Pierson Parker and others Jerome here refers to a "fountainhead" of a lost Hebrew Matthew behind the 4th Century Nazarene and Ebionite Jewish-Christian Gospels.[86] The majority of modern critical scholars however consider that Jerome was mistaken and was simply engaged in translating a variant Hebrew text based on Greek Matthew back into Greek.[87]

In ictu oculi (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Both views deleted by Ret Prof. Can we please have a concise answer why both views were deleted? Is it a concern that readers will be made aware that mainstream scholarship does not consider the hypothesis of a Hebrew Gospel a proven fact? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. My argument, or point, is, that the majority of modern scholars don't think the traditional ascription to Matthew is correct (Papias was wrong), and therefore a hundred words or more on him is undue.
 * 2. The section should lead off with a paragraph setting out the traditional ascription, but just describing it, not giving all the "proofs". Our job is to describe positions, not prove them. Who Matthew was can be described in a single sentence, and the interested reader can go to the Evangelist article to learn more (that's what hyperlinks are for).
 * 3. I'm not sure that 2 out of 3 constitutes a very convincing consensus, especially as RetProf is sure to feel that he's the victim of a mugging. Here's Wiki's policy on consensus. It suggests a couple of ways of getting out of impasses like this. But before we go down that route, can I suggest we approach an admin to ask for guidance on my interpretation of the dispute, as set out in my first point? To restate: If the majority of modern scholars feel that Matthew did not write Matthew, then it's undue weight to have so much about him in the article? PiCo (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I take that as agreement to seek an admin to mediate. I'll start making inquiries.PiCo (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Little later: I've left a note with dougweller asking if he thinks we should do this via ANI. I'm not asking doug himself to be the one. PiCo (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi PiCo
 * Doug would be a good person to ask, not that I know him, but from having seen past edits. But really any disinterested editor would do. I'm timewise not able to take part in mediation in this case, not for the next week at least, but more importantly not really inclined, I'd simply be happy to see that 2 or 3 Wikipedia editors with general sympathy towards modern critical scholarship and not taking everything a 4thC source says as "Gospel" (no pun intended) take an interest in these pages and chop out the worst of OR/POV/duplication.
 * As for your Q.1, I'm not totally sure. As per what I've tried to untangle in article Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (following the model of Two-gospel hypothesis article etc.) is what the hypotheses built on [a] Papias/Jerome [b] the "3" Jewish-Christian Gospels are? It seems to me that there are several Hebrew Gospel hypotheses with the most salient common feature being that the 4th Century Nazarene materials preserve something from Hebrew that contributes to either GMatt or Special Luke. Mixed in with this here in Wikipedia content preserved from 2004-06ish is some element of philosemitism and antihellenism. Which isn't right/wrong in itself, but doesn't tend to promote a dictionary/encyclopedia type entry. As 90% of the section you rightly removed demonstrates. Not least
 * It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish
 * How on earth does a line like that stay in a mainstream article for so long? It's important to remember that Rembrandt was Dutch...? The above of course relates to just part of your Q1.
 * Also the concern remains about duplication - for example the expansion of the redirect to Gospel of [Canonical Gospels] redirect Gospel to this new article. and half a dozen, or a full dozen, others.In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

=User:Ret.Prof - Comprehensive Reply = Having studied your concerns the issues that divide us are as follows:


 * [1]Google Link [2]Google Link


 * [3]Google Link [4]Google Link


 * If I understand your position correctly, since Matthew, the Hebrew gospel and the Oral tradition are mentioned in other articles it represents "duplication" and therefore all the above scholarship must be deleted from this article.


 * My position is that this is a false reading. This scholarship is essential to understanding the topic and therefore is allowed. I further believe that Ictu is using this as a cover for POV pushing.


 * If Ictu prevails on this issue, then the above mentioned scholarship should remain in this article but removed from other articles.


 * See Matthaei authenticum


 * If I understand your position correctly all material from the Church Fathers, as well as all the scholarship of Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, should be deleted and the article should be written from the narrow point of view of Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.


 * My position is that is serious POV pushing, particularly since these works are not even about Matthew or the Gospel of Matthew (see below)


 * See Aramaic original


 * If I understand your position, because some scholars have argued that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew should be deleted from the article. Also since Matthew is mentioned in other parts of Wikipedia it is duplication to mention him in this article.


 * Here I most strongly disagree. Can a "ham sandwich" be a "ham sandwich" without the ham? Removing Matthew from the Gospel of Matthew seems a little counterintuitive. I did a quick Google search and found almost all articles on the Gospel of Matthew had a section on Matthew. Even those sources that believe Matthew did not write "his" gospel had a section on Matthew. Google Link

We must work out these three issues. If we cannot, then we must seek outside help. We, as editors, must work together to blend all the sources into a NPOV article. (See Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof)

List of Secondary Sources

 * 1) ^ Gospel text

List of SECONDARY Sources

 * 1) ^ Justin, Dialogue,
 * 2) ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies
 * 3) ^ Tertullian, On Prayer 26
 * 4) ^ Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
 * 5) ^ Origen,
 * 6) ^ Eusebius, Theophany on Matthew
 * 7) ^ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
 * 8) ^ Didymus, Commentary on Psalm
 * 9) ^ Epiphanius, Panarion
 * 10) ^ Jerome, On Psalm 135
 * 11) ^ Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah
 * 12) ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel
 * 13) ^ Jerome, Commentary on Micah
 * 14) ^ Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
 * 15) ^ Jerome’s Letter to Damascus 20 on Matthew 21.9
 * 16) ^ Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia
 * 17) ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians
 * 18) ^ Jerome, Against Pelagius
 * 19) ^ Jerome, On Illustrious Men,

There is remarkable agreement among the secondary sources. The following are representative of the early secondary source material.

Among the secondary sources to the time of Jerome, by both Christians and Non-Christians, no writer ever asserts either directly or indirectly that the Hebrew Gospel (aka the Gospel of the Hebrews) was ever composed in Greek. Jerome clarifies this on several different occasions.

Finally, it must be stated that among the sources to the time of Jerome there is no mention of a Gospel of the Ebionites or a Gospel of the Nazarenes nor is there any mention of either the Ebionites or the Nazarenes ever composing their own Gospel. The sources are in agreement that these Jewish groups used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.

Other sources
This is where we run into trouble. Modern scholars do not have the Hebrew text, as it has been lost. There are also substantial differences of opinion. Also an enormous quantity has been written on the topic over the years.

List of more modern sources

 * 1) ^ Pick Bernhard, Paralipomena: Remains of Gospels and Sayings of Christ BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009
 * 2) ^ Sabine Baring-gould, The Lost And Hostile Gospels, Nabu Press, 2010.
 * 3) ^ Waite Burlingame, History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred, BiblioBazaarPub, 2009. p 278
 * 4) ^ Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005.
 * 5) ^ "Artifact Record Details: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932: Letter, Thaius to Tigrius (Fragment)". Spurlock Museum at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2001. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/search/details.php?a=1914.21.0010. Retrieved 30 May 2007.  "Artifact of the Month: Letter from Thaius to Tirius, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932". Spurlock Museum. 2002. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/collections/artifact/oxyrhynchus.html. Retrieved 30 May 2007.
 * 6) ^ S. Kent Brown comments on the text of Oxyrhynchus 840 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5,
 * 7) ^ Grabe, Johann Ernst - Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Seculi Post Christum natum
 * 8) ^ Kitto, John - A cyclopædia of Biblical literature.
 * 9) ^ von Harnack, Adolf - Texte und untersuchungen zur geschichte der
 * 10) ^ Weber, Christian Friedrich - Neue Untersuchung über das Alter und Ansehen des Evangeliums.
 * 11) ^ Boyce, William Binnington - The higher criticism and the Bible.
 * 12) ^ Archibald Hamilton Charteris, Johannes Kirchhofer - Canonicity: a collection of early testimonies :to the canonical books of the New Testament.
 * 13) ^ Handmann, Rudolf - Das Hebräer-Evangelium.
 * 14) ^ Pick, Bernhard. The Gospel According to the Hebrews,  Kessinger Publishing 2005
 * 15) ^ Farmer, William - The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
 * 16) ^ Pierson Parker, Ancient citations of the gospel according to the Hebrews.
 * 17) ^ Pierson Parker, A partial reconstruction of the Gospel according to the Hebrews
 * 18) ^ Pierson Parker,  The Gospel Before Mark.
 * 19) ^ Pierson Parker, A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
 * 20) ^ W. R. Schoemaker,  The Gospel According to the Hebrews.
 * 21) ^ Walter Richard Cassels, Supernatural Religion.

====[http://books.google.com/books?id=A60GAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR3&dq=%22nicholson,+m.a.%22+%22The+Gospel+According+to+the+Hebrews.%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false 22. ^The Gospel According to the Hebrews - by Edward Byron Nicholson 1879 (POD 2009)]==== "The Gospel according to the Hebrews: its fragments translated and annotated, first published 1879, is a highly creditable work. The list of fragments and of references has never been so completely made as by Nicholson" - Review of The Gospel according to the Hebrews 1879 by Robert Vaughan, The British quarterly review, Volume 71-72, Hodder and Stoughton, 1880. p 277 Google Link

==== [http://books.google.com/books?id=Vs9YXAB_axYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=James+Edwards+%22hebrew+gospel%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false 23. ^The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition - by James R Edwards, 2009]====
 * Dr. James R. Edwards, Bruner-Welch Professor of Theology, is an Ordained Presbyterian minister, contributing editor of Christianity Today, member of the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton, and recipient of  Outstanding Teaching awards at Jamestown College and Whitworth University. He is a published scholar and  joined the Whitworth Faculty in  1997. His scholarly works include The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (Eerdmans, 2009); Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Eerdmans, 2005); The Divine Intruder (NavPress, 2000), Commentary on Hebrews in Renovare Study Bible (Harper, 2005); Commentary on Romans in New Interpreter's Study Bible (Abingdon, 2003); Commentary on The Gospel of Mark, PNTC (Eerdmans, 2002); Commentary on Romans, NIBC (Hendrickson's 1992) and is currently writing a Commentary on the Gospel of Luke for the Pillar New Testament Commentary Series (Eerdmans). Google Link


 * The Hebrew Gospel: "This landmark study, a decade in the making, advances a bold and fresh interpretation of gospel origins that seems sure to generate interest, debate and controversy for some time to come. This is an important and exciting work that offers students an excellent introduction to early Christian views of the gospel tradition – and it gives synoptic scholars much to chew on." - Markus Bockmuehl, Professor of Biblical and Early Christian studies at Oxford. "This book is a real contribution that will be studied and discussed for years to come!" - Loren T Stuckenbruck, Princeton. This scholarly work is the most extensive and up-to-date study on the Gospel of the Hebrews ever written Google Link and may even surpass Nicholson. It can be divided into three major sections.
 * 1) References to the Hebrew Gospel in early Christianity: This is an extraordinary piece of scholarship. It meticulously evaluates the historical evidence and is objective in nature. He searches out and finds material previously unknown. "Edwards revives an older scholarly fascination with the mysterious 'Hebrew Gospel' that was held in high regard by many church fathers and attributed to Matthew the apostle. Drawing on patient study of patristic quotations . . ." Markus Bockmuehl, Oxford.
 * 2) Adieu to Q: This section is a bit more controversial. Edwards joins the growing number of scholars who have difficulty with the Q hypothesis and "not only form a vital part of the correct solution to the synoptic problem, but also enable one to dispense with the hypothetical sayings source, Q. There is much New Testament scholarship that is built on the so-called two-source theory, and if correct Edwards' alternative would necessitate a radical rethinking of many critical positions." - P Foster, The Expository Times, 2010.
 * 3) Semitisms in the Gospel of Luke: This is by far the most controversial aspect of the scholarly tome. Historians have long related the Gospel of the Hebrews in varying degrees to Matthew but to say the Hebrew Gospel is the basis of the Gospel of Luke is novel to say the least. "Drawing upon patient study of patristic quotations and on Semitisms in the Gospel of Luke, Edwards proposes that the Third Evangelist used a single Gospel document in Hebrew both for his special material and for his overall narrative outline." - Markus Bockmuehl, Oxford.

===='''[http://books.google.com/books?id=b7bnvXrC47AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Secret+Legacy+of+Jesus:+The+Judaic+Teachings+-+by+Jeffrey+J.+B%C3%BCtz+%26+James+Tabor&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false 24. ^The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings - by Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, 2010]'''====

Print on demand
Kessinger Publishing Nabu Press BiblioBazaar If you have access to a major Biblical library, at a seminary or theological college then by all means use the material there. However, if you do not, then POD presses provide affordable access to the notable works on the topic. I am a great believer in POD, but I do agree that it is a good idea to have the first edition date along with the POD date.

Mainline or fringe
It has been asserted that Nicholson, Edwards, Butz, etc., are "fringe" and "pulp", while Vielhauer, Schneemelcher are main line. I have carefully checked the material and found no references or sources to support this position. Indeed the reliable sources say quite the opposite (see above).
 * All these so called "mainline sources" are not even on topic. They do not address the issue at hand. Schneemelcher's work, which is often cited as a mainline authority, is actually about New Testament Apocrypha, not the Gospel of Matthew or Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. Indeed, the closest Schneemelcher comes to the topic is 6 pages devoted to the Gospel of the Hebrews (page 172-178) Google Link


 * Nicholson, Parker, Edwards, Butz, etc have been said to be "pulp" in that their theories are based on sensationalist speculation rather than solid historical evidence. Again you have presented no reliable sources to support your position. Edwards supports his scholarship on the Gospel of the Hebrews with substantial historical evidence. When he points out it was composed in Hebrew, he cites 75 ancient sources that testify to the fact that there was such a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link  When, in scholarly fashion, he asserts it was written by the Apostle Matthew he cites 12 different ancient sources from before 385 C.E. Google Link Then he meticulously evaluates all the surviving material from the time of Christ to Jerome and shows in scholarly fashion that their is no ancient historical source, either Christian or Non-Christian, that disputes that Matthew composed the Gospel of the Hebrews in Hebrew.Google Link The same cannot be said for Vielhauer, Schneemelcher etc. When dealing with the language issue they fail to cite any ancient historical evidence and certainly fail to make a case that the Gospel of the Hebrews was composed in Greek by someone other than Matthew. Google Link

Consensus
WP:CONS I promise not to edit this article either. If we do not follow Wikipedia guidelines we will waste our time edit-warring. If we can work out the three issues above, then your other concern I can live with. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Discuss on the talk page
 * 2) Reach consensus based on reliable sources, not POV
 * 3) Then post edit on article.

Ret Prof reformat of Talk Page
NB: Ret Prof Talk Page edit 17:46, 25 March 2011 Please note how Talk Pages are used:

Ret Prof, don't get me wrong, occasionally it can be helpful to pull scattered talk topics together, I'm just highlighting that the "comprehensive reply" above is not totally a "comprehensive reply" but is a comprehensive repeat of posting of original sources under the request "Please stop posting large chunks of OR/Primary Sources (i.e. Jerome and Papias) on Talk.

The effect has been to push the current discussion back up the page. This is how the page was:

Please explain your latest temporary reversion pending consensus on the talk page
Ret Prof, The last section on Talk addressed to you (here) was asking you to please explain your latest deletion:
 * Deleted text
 * According to the James R. Edwards' development of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis of Pierson Parker and others Jerome here refers to a "fountainhead" of a lost Hebrew Matthew behind the 4th Century Nazarene and Ebionite Jewish-Christian Gospels.<>ref Edwards. Hebrew Gospel 2009 /ref<> The majority of modern critical scholars however consider that Jerome was mistaken and was simply engaged in translating a variant Hebrew text based on Greek Matthew back into Greek.<>ref Vielhauer in Schneemelcher NTA Vol.1.; Klijn, Ehrmann etc. /ref<>
 * I asked:
 * Both views deleted by Ret Prof. Can we please have a concise answer why both views were deleted? Is it a concern that readers will be made aware that mainstream scholarship does not consider the hypothesis of a Hebrew Gospel a proven fact? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So, can we please have a concise answer why both views were deleted? (Please do not post more primary sources (Jerome), This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject., please focus on the edit. Can you please explain the deletions for 1. and 2.)

Deletion line 1. According to the James R. Edwards' development of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis of Pierson Parker and others Jerome here refers to a "fountainhead" of a lost Hebrew Matthew behind the 4th Century Nazarene and Ebionite Jewish-Christian Gospels.ref Edwards. Hebrew Gospel 2009 /ref
 * Reason_______________________________ Could not verify reference. Page# or Google Link is needed. See above User:Ret.Prof - Comprehensive Reply

Deletion line 2. The majority of modern critical scholars however consider that Jerome was mistaken and was simply engaged in translating a variant Hebrew text based on Greek Matthew back into Greek. ref Vielhauer in Schneemelcher NTA Vol.1.; Klijn, Ehrmann etc. /ref
 * Reason_______________________________Could not verify reference. Page # or Google Link is needed. See above User:Ret.Prof - Comprehensive Reply

01:08, 26 March 2011 In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)


 * You deleted them because they didn't have a page number? You've deleted so many references in the past with page numbers. But fair enough, the page numbers are Edwards p123 Vielhauer p87 if I add page numbers will you delete them again?In ictu oculi (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see PiCo (below) as the way out of this mess. Ret.Prof (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Problems with format
I have tried to fix the problems with the format. Ictu's formatting made your comments invisible. Please see "Refactor the talk page" on my talk page. I was beginning to suspect you were another account of banned User:CheeseDreams. I am sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RetProf,
 * Hello. Given the giant reformat of the Talk Page you just accomplished I myself cannot keep track of what is happening here. If any change I made in the talk page made PiCo's comments invisible then 'please link here the specific edit of the Talk Page where that happened. As it stands I think (as above) your reformat of the Talk Page was beyond helpful.
 * Now, again, could you please explain your deletions?In ictu oculi (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No Problem. No consensus. Now could you expain what happened with the format??? - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with the formatting had to do with the inclusion of reference-links (ref/closeref brackets) without a Notes section where they could show up. If you type in pointy-bracket-< word "ref" -close-pointy-bracket-> you'll get a number followed by nothing - try it and see. PiCo (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I see what Ictu did. It was probably accidental? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely accidental. He was trying to add refs to his post - it won't work unless you also add a Notes section at the bottom of the page. That creates problems of its own on Talk pages, and the best option is to use square brackets - like:"opening square bracket-[ put url here add space give brief description/title - close square brackets-]". PiCo (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that the ref tags were there in the content RetProf deleted?
 * Ret Prof "No consensus" = "I RetProf don't agree", is not an explanation, an explanation would

be "the statement is factually incorrect because _________ "
 * CheersIn ictu oculi (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A bit harsh and not true. Please read my Comprehensive Reply above and discuss. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Ret Prof
 * Your Comprehensive Reply above does not give reasons for repeated deletion:
 * DELETION No.1 * According to the James R. Edwards' development of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis of Pierson Parker and others Jerome here refers to a "fountainhead" of a lost Hebrew Matthew behind the 4th Century Nazarene and Ebionite Jewish-Christian Gospels. REF Edwards. Hebrew Gospel 2009 p123
 * Reason for deletion ___________________________
 * DELETION No.2 * The majority of modern critical scholars however consider that Jerome was mistaken and was simply engaged in translating a variant Hebrew text based on Greek Matthew back into Greek. REF Vielhauer in Schneemelcher NTA Vol.1. p87; cf. Klijn, Ehrmann etc.
 * Reason for deletion ___________________________
 * I've restored again per Preserve, as you refuse address the specific texts you are deleting. Please give specific reasons for your deletion which relate to what you are deleting In ictu oculi (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew Gospel hypothesis
Your Hebrew Gospel hypothesis edit states According to the James R. Edwards' development of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis of Pierson Parker and others Jerome here refers to a "fountainhead" of a lost Hebrew Matthew behind the 4th Century Nazarene and Ebionite Jewish-Christian Gospels. - - It did not check out on p 123. Did you get the page wrong?? Please read my Comprehensive Reply above and discuss. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RetProf
 * 1. What you have deleted is correct "fountainhead" p123
 * 2. Your latest deletion takes you over 3RR. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3. The above isn't an explanation for the second deletion. What was your reason for the second deletion:
 * Reason for deletion ___________________________

In ictu oculi (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks PiCo
I actually agree with what you say. The reliable sources generally: Many other sources go into the I suggest we proceed as follows: How does this sound? Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For reading my reply;
 * For your pleasant attitude
 * 1) have a section which puts forward the traditional view of how the Gospel of Matthew was composed based on the scholarship of Church Fathers;
 * 2) then have a second section of why the majority of Modern Scholars disagree and believe the Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew.
 * 1) Oral Tradition;
 * 2) the Jewishness of the Gospel;
 * 3) and the scholarly debate.
 * 1) I will compose a "draft" edit on the talk page where I will try to address your concerns;
 * 2) you will revise the draft, carefully explaining your changes;
 * 3) then Ictu and others will do likewise;
 * 4) then after consensus is reached we will post our well referenced NPOV edit.


 * Feel free to draft something. PiCo (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, editing is better than arguing. Do I have a green light from Ictu. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am busy working on the draft edit, but is Ictu on board? - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RetProf, you can draft away, but be sure to use modern academic sources and not cite primary sources such as Jerome. I have added page numbers to the content refs you deleted since you requested page numbers and you deleted again with no explanation. Therefore I have restored. You cannot keep deleting sourced content Preserve without reason, that is vandalism.In ictu oculi (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In Please read my Comprehensive Reply above and discuss I explained why the writings of Jerome on Matthew's Gospel were considered secondary sources. Please explain why you disagree. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well your explanation is wrong. A 4th Century father would generally be considered a primary source, no different from quoting a Bible verse, which makes a statement based on interpretation of that original research. A suitable source is an academic stating that Jerome thought that and why.In ictu oculi (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting Jerome is no different than quoting the Bible??? That may need a rethink! In any event can you supply me a source backing up you position. Please read my Comprehensive Reply above and explain why you disagree. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * InIctu is correct, we should rely on contemporary (i.e., modern) academic sources - using Jerome etc equates to original research. The more recent the better. It's also a good idea to go first to tertiary sources - bible dictionaries/encyclopedias etc from major sources (e.g. Eerdmans, Oxford, Anchor) as these will be reflecting general opinion rather than the personal argument of an individual (one hopes). PiCo (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That said, the first para (on the tradition) will naturally mention Papias and Jerome - but it should do so via a secondary or tertiary source, not quote direct.PiCo (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof's Comprehensive Reply
The following relates to the section "Having studied your concerns the issues that divide us are as follows:" above. # is the original, REPLY the reply:
 * First Issue - Duplication or Back to the Fountainhead
 * Your use of "back to the fountainhead" is a quote from Jerome, would you please stop citing it.

Ans: No. It is a reliable source - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Jerome explained "The New Testament, was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who was the first in Judea to produce a Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead. [1] [2]
 * This is OR

Ans: No. You are in error. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Cassels, Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker, Butz, etc., are agreed, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, under various names, such as the Gospel according to Peter, according to the Apostles,the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians, etc., with modifications certainly, but substantially the same work, was circulated very widely throughout the early Church. [3] [4]
 * A Buddhist British solder in Victorian India who wrote a croquet manual is not a mainstream SBL scholar. Their views can be listed, but the mainstream scholarship should be allowed. You are deleting all mainstream SBL type material.

Ans:  Arthur Lillie should be banned because he was Buddhist and British soldier but Vielhauer, and Schneemelcher are OK because they were soldiers who fought for Hitler and Nazi Germany?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If I understand your position correctly, since Matthew, the Hebrew gospel and the Oral tradition are mentioned in other articles it represents "duplication" and therefore all the above scholarship must be deleted from this article.
 * No, duplication is the cut and paste of the same material over half a dozen pages.


 * My position is that this is a false reading. This scholarship is essential to understanding the topic and therefore is allowed. I further believe that Ictu is using this as a cover for POV pushing.
 * I merely want the articles to resemble what you'd find in a standard Dictionary rather than fringe.

Ans:  Wrong, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Second Issue -  Matthaei authenticum
 * OR, there is no "Matthaei authenticum" in any SBL source, it's Wikipedia-only reality based on a chunk of a sentence of Jerome.

Ans:  Wrong Wrong - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Close to 75 ancient historical writings from the time of Jesus to the time of Jerome (c.385 C.E.), state Matthew wrote an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus called the Hebrew Gospel or sometimes the Gospel of the Hebrews. No ancient source either Christian or non-Christian disputes this.
 * OR, primary sources.

Ans:  Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many scholars such a Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, who agree with the historical sources and explain why. Then there those who disagree such as Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.
 * Great, so list them second as minority views.

Ans:  Agreed Vielhauer and Schneemelcher will included as minority views. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If I understand your position correctly all material from the Church Fathers, as well as all the scholarship of Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, should be deleted and the article should be written from the narrow point of view of Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.
 * No, 1st majority/mainstream scholarship, then 2nd one-person views like Edward Nicholson (librarian). And yes, OR material from Church fathers should be deleted and replaced with academic sources.

Ans:  Again you have trouble with Nicholson because he was a distinguished Oxford librarian , but Vielhauer, and Schneemelcher are OK because they were soldiers who fought for Hitler and Nazi Germany??? - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If I understand your position, because some scholars have argued that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew should be deleted from the article. Also since Matthew is mentioned in other parts of Wikipedia it is duplication to mention him in this article.
 * I don't have a position. But anyone can see that 80% of the Matthew section is NPOV Messianic material.

Ans:  Agreed - NPOV is a good thing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here I most strongly disagree. Can a "ham sandwich" be a "ham sandwich" without the ham? Removing Matthew from the Gospel of Matthew seems a little counterintuitive. I did a quick Google search and found almost all articles on the Gospel of Matthew had a section on Matthew. Even those sources that believe Matthew did not write "his" gospel had a section on Matthew. Google Link
 * A small section on Saint Matthew, the first three lines which aren't OR/NPOV, should remain under a wikilink MAIN|Matthew

Ans:  Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC) We must work out these three issues. If we cannot, then we must seek outside help. We, as editors, must work together to blend all the sources into a NPOV article. (See Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof)
 * You have been told again and again that it is not Wikipedia's job to "blend all the sources into a NPOV article", that is synthesis. State majority views + refs, state minority views + refs.

Ans:  Strongly disagree. In areas of scholarly disagreement we must balance the sources and write an article from a NPOV - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Finish. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Finish.In ictu oculi (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

POV tag removed, 3RR, persistent deletion contrary to Preserve
RetProf. Therefore please self-revert. And address item 3. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. This is now the 5th and 6th time I know of that you've deleted the POV tag on an article, despite the tag saying it is not to be removed: POV tag removed 1st time, 2nd time
 * 2. Your deletions take you over the 3RR limit.
 * 3. You have repeatedly been given opportunity to explain your deletions of sourced/ref material contrary to Preserve, to give a reason. You have again not done so.
 * I just checked the policy, and it appears that you are "mistaken." Lets not edit war but rather first arrive at consensus - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Deceit dishonesty and deception
There is much deceit, dishonesty and deception on this talk page. Saying I have gone over the 3RR is just one example. Of greater concern is the issue of reliable sources. You both know the policy:

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
see PRIMARY

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary source material by Wikipedia editors.

List of Secondary Sources to be excluded?

 * 1) ^ Eusebius, Theophany on Matthew
 * 2) ^ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
 * 3) ^ Didymus, Commentary on Psalm
 * 4) ^ Epiphanius, Panarion
 * 5) ^ Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
 * 6) ^ Jerome’s Letter to Damascus 20 on Matthew 21.9
 * 7) ^ Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia
 * 8) ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians
 * 9) ^ Jerome, Against Pelagius
 * 10) ^ Jerome, On Illustrious Men,

However, you have been told by other editors that your argument is foolish because all the information you are trying to repress is also in 21stC. sources. These modern references explain that during the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non-Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link Jerome and Epiphanius note Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was sometimes called the Gospel of the Hebrews. However, they clarify that in their time there was only one Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Link

Among the secondary sources to the time of Jerome, by both Christians and Non-Christians, no writer ever asserts either directly or indirectly that the Hebrew Gospel (aka the Gospel of the Hebrews) was ever composed in Greek. Jerome clarifies this on several different occasions.

Finally, it must be stated that among the sources to the time of Jerome there is no mention of a Gospel of the Ebionites or a Gospel of the Nazarenes nor is there any mention of either the Ebionites or the Nazarenes ever composing their own Gospel. The sources are in agreement that these Jewish groups used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.

All this is in modern English Secondary sources.

But my question remains. . . Why are editors intentionally keep our readers ignorant of the scholarship in this area? Something feels very very wrong. See Reflections of an Old Geezer on my talk page. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Meditiation needed?
(Ckruschke, I've taken the liberty of turning your posting into a new thread, as I think it's important) At the risk of getting flamed, I'm wondering if you two are going to mediation some time...? I have read every single post and counter-post for the last 2 wks and you are no closer to resolving this. And yes, I will butt out now... Ckruschke (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Ckruschke, you are a wise person - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This article sure is going noplace fast. There seems to be a total breakdown of trust between two editors. Ckruschke is suggesting going to mediation (ANI I guess). It might be the only way forward. Retprof, you'll probably say you want to resolve it here through discussion, but discussion has been tried and has now reached the stage of a war of attrition (first one to get tired and go home loses). InOc, you say you want to attract other informed editors, but frankly most people will want to stay out of this flypaper. So what do you both say to listing on ANI and asking for mediation? You'll be given the chance to agree on the admin who mediates. PiCo (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like a plan. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

PiCo, the problem with "mediation" to be honest is that I do not feel like going cap in hand to admins for permission to not be deleted for posting mainstream tertiary academic material, against Lost Original Gospels, Loch Ness Monster, Thomas in India, bits of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat. etc.etc.

Back to the original problem with this article there is evidently a duplication/POV/OR problem in the Matthew section. For example:

As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh.
 * Saint Matthew

As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh.
 * Gospel of the Hebrews

As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh.
 * Gospel of Matthew

As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh.
 * Canonical gospels


 * Gospel

Someone has been busy... It's really up to mainstream editors who don't actually know much about the subject to clean it up. And if those editors don't exist, then fine, let Wikipedia get populated with Authentic Matthew, Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus, Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament etc. etc.

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here, I actually agree with you. The above material needs to be reworked and possibly deleted from some articles. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The main difficulty seems to be over references

 * subsection title changed to "The main difficulty seems to be over references" since it is.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have read though your comments and although I often do not like your tone, we are not that far apart. The main difficulty seems to be over references. I do not like Schneemelcher and Vielhauer because I believe their scholarship shows Deutsche Christen tendencies and as I explained in "my reply" they are off topic. I made a serious effort to answer your questions:
 * 1) The sources I found seem to confirm both Vielhauer, and Schneemelcher fought for Nazi Germany.
 * 2) Does the fact that they fought valiantly for Hitler and Nazi Germany make them Nazis? After all, they were conscripted, and had no choice but to follow orders?
 * 3) My position is that they renounced Hitler and Nazi Germany, therefore we should accept what they say at face value. Not that easy for me as I have Jewish ancestors.
 * 4) I am willing to compromise, concede - they are in.

You have expressed concern over:
 * Pierson Parker,
 * W. R. Schoemaker,
 * Edward Byron Nicholson
 * James R Edwards,
 * James Tabor and
 * Butz.

Can you meet me half way and concede they are in?

Finally, as I explained above, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.

However, PRIMARY sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyzes, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary source material by Wikipedia editors. Primary sources include original philosophical works, religious scripture, etc. In our case the primary source is Matthew's Gospel. It can be used but only with care.

Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed. They rely on the primary source for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about it. Our policy is that Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources, regardless of the date they were published. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source. Nor does the fact that a Commentary on Matthew was written by Jerome a long time ago, transform it into a primary source. Therefore the following should be included.
 * 1) ^ Papias,
 * 2) ^ Eusebius, Theophany on Matthew
 * 3) ^ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
 * 4) ^ Didymus, Commentary on Psalm
 * 5) ^ Epiphanius, Panarion
 * 6) ^ Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
 * 7) ^ Jerome’s Letter to Damascus 20 on Matthew 21.9
 * 8) ^ Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia
 * 9) ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians
 * 10) ^ Jerome, Against Pelagius
 * 11) ^ Jerome, On Illustrious Men,

Also, I have been told by other editors that the information you are trying to repress is also in 21stC. sources. Thus all the disputed material is found in modern English Secondary sources. If you look at any article on the Gospel of Matthew, they generally include material from Papias, Jerome, Eusebius, etc. Google Link

The reliable sources generally: Many other sources go into the I suggest we proceed as follows: How does this sound? If we can agree on this, then we are on our way to consensus. If not, then we are on our way to arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) have a section which puts forward the traditional view of how the Gospel of Matthew was composed based on the scholarship of Church Fathers;
 * 2) then have a second section of why the majority of Modern Scholars disagree and believe the Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew.
 * 1) Oral Tradition;
 * 2) the Jewishness of the Gospel;
 * 3) and the scholarly debate.
 * 1) I will compose a "draft" edit on the talk page where I will try to address your concerns;
 * 2) you will revise the draft, carefully explaining your changes;
 * 3) then others will do likewise;
 * 4) then after consensus is reached we will post our well referenced NPOV edit.


 * Hello RetProf
 * 1.Please restore POV tags. They specifically say they are not to be removed.


 * Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2.Please explain the specific reason _____________________ for the 2 sentences I have asked repeatedly for you to explain deletion.


 * You posted the edit without first getting consensus on the talk page. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3.I do not wish to go arbitration with you. If there are no other Wikipedia users who support the following changes then there is no need to arbitrate.


 * Agreed if we reach consensus - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (a) Gospel_of_Matthew removal of the duplicate (above) and Messianic(? below) material
 * "It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish"
 * "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh."
 * (b) Gospel_of_Matthew addition of scholarly majority mainstream secondary sources. curtailment of use of primary sources. Addition of 2 views of Jerome's quote box.


 * I agree to work on these issues - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4. I have repeatedly said you can use the scholars who support the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis in various forms. All I have been doing is (a) changing dates from Bibliobazaar 2011 to real publication years, (see Bernhard Pick ref in article), (b) stating that mainstream/majority/traditional scholarship should also be allowed so both views are represented.
 * You have made clear your feelings re Germans before, but Philip Vielhauer and Wilhelm Schneemelcher were not "Deutsche Christen," on the contrary they both lost their jobs in the Lutheran church for their opposition to Nazi regime. As to your comments to the effect that their scholarship should not be included because they were later conscripted to fight at the Russian front, if you have been in front of a military tribunal as a conscientious objector (?) then maybe you have the right to make that comment, otherwise you do not. In any case the majority scholarly view can be presented using only non-German scholars.


 * I agree to not to exclude those scholars. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 5. re your offer >"I will compose a "draft" edit on the talk page where.."< There are already 2 large chunks of POV-Messianic/HebrewPrimacy material in the actual article itself. There is no need to create a duplicate "draft" edit of more POV-Messianic/HebrewPrimacy material on the Talk Page. Also by Preserve we should be discussing what previous editors have submitted to Gospel_of_Matthew (which is 70% POV OR, needs pruning and directing to main) and Gospel_of_Matthew (which is not too bad, just needs a clean up).


 * See below - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 6. Secondly anyone who wants to review your draft on the subject can go to Canonical gospels where you have already created an essay style article out of a REDIRECT to a Gospel. The article you have created from where the REDIRECT was also contains the same POV-Messianic/HebrewPrimacy material:
 * "As a disciple, Matthew followed Jesus, and would have been an eye witness to the rabbinical midrashic discourse of the "Rabbi from Nazareth". Matthew may have even participated in the development of the Torah Shebeal Peh as the Talmud mentions him as a follower of Jesus the Nazarene.[11][12][13] Matthew reduced this Logia into a written form in what would become known as the first Gospel.[14][15][16]"
 * etc.
 * But this is for other generalist Wikipedia editors to attempt to edit (or in the case of the REDIRECT nominate for deletion).
 * I hope that at some point the Gospel of Matthew and related articles will return to a state resembling a standard tertiary reference work. But it won't happen without mainstream/generalist Wikipedia editors editing.
 * Finally, someone, anyone, please support Wikipedia norms and restore the POV tags RetProf has twice deleted. If 2 Wikipedia editors support Wikipedia policy in this way then at least the POV tags will be visible to users to alert that there is a problem.


 * Agreed - Tags can be kept. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Ret.Prof (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

=Do we have an agreement= Do we have an agreement? - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC) 1.Please restore POV tags. They specifically say they are not to be removed.
 * Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed - Then please do it.In ictu oculi (talk)
 * Well you didn't, so I did In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

2.Please explain the specific reason _____________________ for the 2 sentences I have asked repeatedly for you to explain deletion.
 * You posted the edit without first getting consensus on the talk page. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors do not have to obtain your permission before editing Wikipedia. Please explain the specific reason for deletion _________________________________ In ictu oculi (talk)

3.I do not wish to go arbitration with you. If there are no other Wikipedia users who support the following changes then there is no need to arbitrate.
 * Agreed if we reach consensus - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Other editors do not need to reach consensus with you to remove this:
 * (a) Gospel_of_Matthew#Matthew_the_Evangelist removal of the duplicate (above) and Messianic(? below) material
 * "It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish"
 * "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh."

(b) Gospel_of_Matthew#Church_Fathers addition of scholarly majority mainstream secondary sources. curtailment of use of primary sources. Addition of 2 views of Jerome's quote box.
 * I agree to work on these issues - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then please do so:  Stop blocking all attempts to remove the duplication and OR.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

4. I have repeatedly said you can use the scholars who support the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis in various forms. All I have been doing is (a) changing dates from Bibliobazaar 2011 to real publication years, (see Bernhard Pick ref in article), (b) stating that mainstream/majority/traditional scholarship should also be allowed so both views are represented.
 * I agree to not to exclude those scholars. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then please do so. Please restore those scholars where you have deleted them.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

6. Secondly anyone who wants to review your draft on the subject can go to Canonical gospels where you have already created an essay style article out of a REDIRECT to a Gospel. The article you have created from where the REDIRECT was also contains the same POV-Messianic/HebrewPrimacy material: "As a disciple, Matthew followed Jesus, and would have been an eye witness to the rabbinical midrashic discourse of the "Rabbi from Nazareth". Matthew may have even participated in the development of the Torah Shebeal Peh as the Talmud mentions him as a follower of Jesus the Nazarene.[11][12][13] Matthew reduced this Logia into a written form in what would become known as the first Gospel.[14][15][16]"
 * See above
 * See above what? Torah Shebeal Peh etc? This is Messianic POV. It doesn't belong in a mainstream article as the only view.
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)