Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews/Archive 2

Reset?
I suggest resetting the article to the Feb 18, 2009 version, and adding any later (minor, constructive) changes. -- Alvanx (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Contents Section
I was unsure of this statement in the "Contents" section of the article:


 * Ironically, we know just how long the lost Gospel of the Hebrews was: 2200 lines, just 300 lines shorter than the canonical Greek Matthew. So it is an odd claim that the Hebrew Matthew is taken to be an 'embellishment' is some ways, since it is shorter than the canonical version.

The fact it is spoken of as an "odd claim" sounds like POV pushing. An equally valid scenario, if such were allowed, would be that the Gospel of Hebrews is shorter than Matthew because the author of GOH edited out certain key sections of Matthew he disagreed with. Of course, such a claim wouldn't be allowed in the article text itself, I am just stating how this claim seems (to me) to be fallacious.

BTW, 300 lines isn't much. :\ And I understand the arguments from the paragraph before this, as I have heard them applied to the canonical New Testament in Bart D. Ehrmann's book, "Misquoting Jesus", but I still think it needs to be cited. Drumpler 09:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Original Research
This article is poorly written, contains original research, lacks footnotes and sources. What I have done is merge the POV essay called Authentic Matthew with the stub class Gospel of the Hebrews and added citations. 216.249.58.67 (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Hebrew letters" (and "Aramaic dialect")
"written in Aramaic dialect but with Hebrew letters" is AFAIK a completely incoherent statement, and has been corrected. Aramaic wasn't/isn't a dialect of anything, and there's no such thing as "Hebrew letters"--the alphabet used both now and then to write Hebrew is in fact borrowed from Aramaic. (Hebrew was originally written with the Phoenician alphabet.) Adavies42 (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Both this article and Gospel according to the Hebrews seem to be talking about the same thing. I proposed that they be merged into this article (Gospel of the Hebrews), largely because this article has the Christianity Portal box (and pretty graphics, too). But I'm just a lay person :), so I'm not likely to be involved in the actual merge process. Merry Christmas! --Robertb-dc (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are absolutely correct. The Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Hebrews are the same topic. The shortened name "Gospel of the Hebrews" is much more commonly used today. Actually, I had already started this merge, therefore I will be bold and finish it off. If I leave anything out, feel free edit. I do suggest because of the volatile nature of this subject that we take extra care to reference all material. 216.249.58.67 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

the article seems biased
In several respects I found the article biased, i.e. holding views unsubstantiated and contrary to those held in historic Christendom. Also, it is very poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzvi44 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is pretty much the most biased article I've ever read, and also for a minority view... I'm not sure where to start with this one. You'd almost expect it to be written in first person... -Hrugnir, 00:31, 8 April 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.156.38 (talk)

Appendix should be transwiki'd to Wikisource
Raw content like this is not appropriate for Wikipedia; that is what Wikisource is for. It should be transwiki'd. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
Far too often, this article degenerates into actual advocacy in favor of the view of Jesus supposed by certain editors to be expressed in this Gospel. It needs an extensive rewrite. 192.31.106.35 (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific about what is disputed? It's bad form to tag an entire article without comments and then leave.  Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Completed work and removed tag. - 205.210.143.51 (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It still needs NPOV editing96.22.215.70 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Views?
The section on modern scholarship is in bad shape and gives excessive weight to Edwards (2009). I cannot find a single scholarly review of this work, although it may be still early. Nonetheless, the absence of any scholarly review means it should not be given prominence here, especially since it contravenes well-established scholarship (on Q, etc...). I will remove it. Eusebeus (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting... But is this a valid reason to delete a published source? He is a respected scholar who has published other works. Wouldn't this go against Wikipedia's NPOV policy? Also do you have authority that deems him a "fringe"? 96.22.215.70 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, per WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. We reflect the state of the literature and if a position has received no scholarly attention or approbation it should not be included in a Wikipedia article. You can find more information at the WP:RS pages. If / when scholarly reviews appear that sanction his work within the larger body of scholarship, then his conclusions can certainly be considered for this article. A final point, WP:FRINGE is a guideline and WP:RS is a policy and as such are central to the standards we maintain (and in the case of RS, non-negotiable). It is not for any single editor to "decide" what is fringe, but rather to follow the standards laid out those pages in determining the validity for inclusion. Reviews in established journals provide an incontestable measure for evaluating scholarship per that process. Eusebeus (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have misread WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Edwards falls clearly within their scope.96.22.215.70 (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's bad form to simply delete citations and material. Let's first try to see if we can fix the problem. If we fail then we delete.96.22.215.70 (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC) - -  Post Script - - Can you be more specific about what is disputed? Citing specifically what in WP:RS needs to be dealt with, will help your fellow editors meet your concerns.
 * Two points. First, a procedural point. You made substantial changes to a stable article that were reverted per WP:BRD. You have repeatedly reverted back now, which places you at risk of sanction per WP:3RR. It is good to add material to articles, but if you are reverted (as in this case, by me), you need to discuss, not revert (note that 3RR can lead to a short-term editing block). Second, content. You are adding material from a book that has received no mainstream academic reviews, and that as best as I can tell (haven't read it obviously) inter alia refutes the Q theory (and hence the two source theory) and makes an argument for Matthean over Marcan priority. Now, that may indeed be true, but in the context of larger biblical criticism, it borders on WP:FRINGE. This article does not get a lot of eyeballs it seems, so I will seek assistance from some other regular editors and revert you again pending further discussion. Basically, you just need to make a case for why this material should be included with reference to larger body of scholarly consensus. Remember Wikipedia reflects the consensus views of its topics, not promotes individual theories. So if we can agree on that, I look forward to hearing why you feel this theory should be granted space in the article. Needless to say, if you can find a favourable review from a mainstream academic journal, that will make the case for you and obviate my objections. Note that I said I couldn't find any, not that they don't exist. (So maybe start there.) Eusebeus (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * PLEASE CHECK YOUR FACTS -   The material and citations you keep deleting were introduced  by "" last year. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that; the diffs are complex. At any event I have asked that some folks from the Christianity project to contribute their views. Let's hold off until further commentary is forthcoming. Eusebeus (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, more eyes would be helpful. Let's first try to see if we can fix the problem. If we fail, then we delete. NPOV must be our priority. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I am with Eusebeus on the use of Edwards. WP articles are meant to be sober Encyclopaedic articles on the verifiable mainstream. Edwards' monograph goes against the verifiable mainstream, so it should be used in a way that reflects its place within contemporary scholarship. --Ari (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Eusebeus, you are now in breach of WP:3RR. This is a serious policy infraction. If you continue you will be blocked. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC) - - PLEASE NOTE - - Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus as to the right way to improve the encyclopedia. Please try to work with your fellow editors.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned editor, Eusebeus does have some valid points. Edwards dominates the section on ModernBiblicalScholarship. The section ignores the scholarly reviews that contest Edwards book. It needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Let's work together in good faith to improve this section of the article.96.22.215.70 (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)96.22.215.70 (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right that since you did not initiate those edits, I am at risk of 3RR. Now, I simply don't have time to review your changes at the moment, but I will note that this article must reflect scholarly consensus, which still rejects Griesbachian (or neo-Griesbachian) readings of Matthew and holds to Marcan priority, the Two-Source Theory, and Q. I am not saying that other views shouldn't be mentioned but it must be explicitly clear that they are not the scholarly consensus at the moment. Imagine if an uninformed reader were to wade through this page - what would you want them to know about this document as it is reflected in the scholarly literature? That the Hebrew Gospel has displaced Mark? That's absurd, of course, and would just bring the page into disrepute. Please note that you misunderstand what NPOV means. It means not promoting one view over another, yes, but that does not mean giving equal weight (WP:UNDUE) to a theory that is contrary to longstanding consensus. Your appeal to NPOV here is idiosyncratic. Eusebeus (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Behavior by Eusebeus: WP:3RR
Eusebeus, Please do not delete my comments on the talk page. This section has to do with your mass-reverting which is disruptive. It is impossible to edit an article or discuss on the talk page when my material keeps being deleted as I am working.

Your behavior goes beyond bad form. You are now in breach of WP:3RR. This is a serious policy infraction. If you continue you will be blocked. Edit warring is not constructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus as to the right way to improve the encyclopedia.'' I have reviewed your edits. It seems you have been blocked for disruptive mass-reverting. Please try to work with your fellow editors. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have observeed on your talk page, including section headings every time you make a comment (as you have done again) disrupts the flow for other editors, making it difficult to follow. Say what you wish, but please remain courteous and considerate in how you factor your discussion. I have not changed a single word you wrote, I merely restructured your four or so section headings into a single grouping as a courtesy to other editors. Throwing around charges like rude and reckless over a minor formatting change is needlessly provocative and rude. Eusebeus (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a point. Let's put this behind us and upgrade this article. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would ask the anonymous IP to please refactor or remove some of his rather unfortunate comments directed against me. I don't think, in reviewing the tenor of my comments or the substance of my edits, you can find anything that remotely justifies the outpouring of accusation - I have shown very good faith by not soliciting rebuke for these attacks and smears. I acknowledged quite sincerely where I was wrong. In return, you have overreacted to what was a minor refactoring of the talk page to make navigation simpler. I ask, therefore, that you also show the same sincerity, and that you delete the more aggressive of your comments, including the unjustified assault on my editing record, which is as offensive as it is repugnant. Address the content, do not attack the editor. Eusebeus (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! I was a bit harsh in the way I described your "reverting" behavior. NB I did not request that you be blocked. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite & Revision Issues
This is pretty much the most biased article I've ever read, and also form a minority view. In several respects I found the article biased, i.e. holding views unsubstantiated and contrary to those held in historic Christendom and modern Biblical scholarship. Also, it is very poorly written. Far too often, this article degenerates into actual advocacy in favour of the view of Jesus supposed by certain editors to be expressed in this Gospel. Notwithstanding the bad form, Eusebeus does have some valid points. What I had hoped to do is move this article beyond a "stub" as I believe the "Gospel of the Hebrews" to be an important topic. Ari (and yes you too Eusebius), let us work together to upgrade this article. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Issue of language
I removed the issue of language from the Lead, and dealt with in the body of the article. I did a lot of reading and came to the conclusion we can never know for certain in what language it was composed without a copy of the text. I tried to be fair to the Church Fathers as well as Edwards and Ehrman. Ari, thanks for the good work you are doing and feel free to "adjust" the language issue re NPOV. Also Eusebeus, thanks for the good will you are showing. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Section Review (Former Summary)
Thus the most recent scholarship now points to the fact that the Gospel of the Hebrews is not a compilation from the canonical Matthew, but is at least as old as, and probably older than, our synoptic gospels, and this is now maintained by Nicholson, Edwards, Hilgenfeld, Zahn, Harnack, Handmann, Kruger, McGiffert and Ropes. It is quite clear that the Hebrew Gospel in its earliest form contained a tradition independent of both Matthew and Luke, and represented a primitive stage of the collected evangelic narrative. This gospel is at least as old as, and probably older than, the synoptic gospels of our canon; that it issued from the common early gospel tradition, and so may be a source of, or at least a concomitant of, our canonical Matthew and Luke.

This passage (most recent scholarship) is supported by a reference to Schoemaker!! Enough said. I also like the idea that this conclusion is "now maintained" by people like Harnack. I didn't realise he had aged that well. Anyway, I assume inclusion of this material was a subtle hoax, given the language. Eusebeus (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I must say I see your point. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Extensive ReWrite
I think this article needs extensive work to accurately reflect the the state of modern scholarship from a NPOV.96.22.215.70 (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Base edition
Let's be respectful to those editors who have done a great deal of work on this article over the past six years. The problem is not Wikipedia editors, but a very controversial topic with strong differences in scholarly opinion. The official Catholic position is the Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible was written by Matthew, but many liberal scholars have called this into question. Then to have scholars like Edwards say that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the true gospel of Matthew is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Lets build upon the base edition deleting only where necessary.96.22.215.70 (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Lead Section

 * This has to be the worst Lead I Have ever read . . . Boring Boring Boring! Are we trying to drive people away from Wikipedia?


 * A good Lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.


 * Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article. The lead in this article should be about four paragraphs, be carefully sourced, and be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.


 * The Lead is the most important section of any article, yet can be the most challenging to compose.96.22.215.70 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We cannot have a great lead until the article becomes great as the lead reflects the article. The article is lacking in many regards. --Ari (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific in your concerns about the lead, particularly sources. I have a whole pile more to support my ReWrite.96.22.215.70 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

After working towards an imperfect yet appropriate lead, it has been flooded with non-NPOV statements and advocacy. Articles are meant to be impartial and reflect mainstream scholarship. Sadly, this lead does not reflect it. Please work on it here to fix some of the issues. "The Gospel according to the Hebrews, commonly shortened to the Gospel of the Hebrews, is a lost gospel preserved in fragments within the writings of the Church Fathers. The Gospel of the the Hebrews was by far the most important gospel in Early Christianity, aside from the canonical four and the Early Church Fathers believed this Gospel to have been written by the Apostle Matthew (Matthaei Authenticum).   Presently, some scholars are going so far as to argue that the Gospel of the Hebrews  (along with Mark) formed the basis of later gospels

This ancient gospel, often referred to and quoted by the church fathers of the third and fourth century has become an object of renewed and painstaking study. This fact is due in large part to the light which the Gospel of the Hebrews sheds upon the question of the origin and development of our canonical gospels.

As there is no text or a copy of a text, Biblical Scholars have been unable to agree on important issues such as authenticity, composition or even its proper name. Scholars even argue that the Hebrew Gospel may not be Hebrew, holding that it was probably composed in Egypt in the second century and originally in Greek although others maintain it was composed in Hebrew and/or Aramaic."

--Ari (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also something to note, as the lead is meant to reflect the article, that is meant to reflect mainstream verifiable sources it doesn't need to be extensively referenced. --Ari (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I will look at your concerns, do some reading and get back to you.96.22.215.70 (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let it reflect that anon did not discuss the many issues here and restored the contentious lead. This was reverted by another user. --Ari (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical background
One of the better sections of this article. Barrie Wilson, How Jesus Became Christian & B. Pick, The Talmud: What it is and What it Knows About Jesus and his Followers are fantastic and should be read in their entirety. I added Ehrman for balance 96.22.215.70 (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "It is has been suggested that Matthew belonged to this group on the basis of the Gospels and later Jewish Talmud. "

Please read the sources cited96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Composition
Contested96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

M source
M source: Verified Sources - all were good - - more would be better. I liked the EazyLink citations. I did not find them cumbersome. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Patristic testimony
The name change is good96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Modern biblical scholarship
Maybe somebody should summarize the scholarship in this area over the past 100 years? 96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "In "the place of honor" that should be given "the phantom Q" we find a Hebrew usurper. [42][dubious – discuss][non-primary source needed][43][non-primary source needed]" I checked this out and it was from Edwards.96.22.215.70 (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Language of the Gospel
This is a section was written by me to deal with the language concerns that have been raised.96.22.215.70 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Selected Bibliography
I have restored the selected bibliography back to its original form in accordance with WP policy. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to tell you, but there is no policy behind your attempted bibliography. --Ari (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So, instead of attacking other editors - discuss why we should remove an impartial bibliography and replace it with one arbitrarily rated by some editor (you??) Maybe you could point to the policy that personal rated lists are in accordance with. Do tell. --Ari (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Tidying of bibliography to reflect works actually used. Those being removed will be placed here as I am sure they have potential for article expansion or as further reading. (Feel free to update list):
 * Barnes, A.S. (1905) The Gospel According to the Hebrews, JTS 6.
 * Dunkerley, Roderic, (1927-28) The Gospel According to the Hebrews, ExpT 39, pp. 437-42, 490-95.
 * Trimm, J.S. (2009) Gospel according to the Hebrews, Lulu Publishing. [Self published so it shouldn't be here anyway]
 * Dodd, J. (1933) The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Search publishing company.
 * Crump, F.C. (1939) The Gospel according to the Hebrews, Catholic University of America.

--Ari (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference Sources
I cleaned up the bibliography a few days ago. This included removing the arbitrary ranking of sources (not sure who did that, but since when were idiosyncratic recently published monographs that go against the mainstream 1 of 2 of the most important works?), some generally obsolete works and a self-published work.

The article is meant to reflect the mainstream opinion of scholarship. This is reflected in authoritative contemporary scholarly works. We are not here to push a specific point of view we have picked out as our favourite. Some authoritative works I have brought/will bring into the article are:
 * Hans-Josef Klauck, Apocryphal gospels: an introduction.
 * Philipp Vielhauer and George Strecker, "Jewish-Christian Gospels" in New Testament Apocrypha. (Vol 1: Gospels and Related Writings) ed. Wilhelm Scheemelcher and R. Mcl. Wilson
 * Ron Cameron, "Gospel of the Hebrews" in Anchor Bible Dictionary.

We include non-mainstream theories, but we do not let out favour for them dictate the article. --Ari (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS
Non-"mainstream" theories, must not dictate this article. We must carefully follow WP:RS. This policy takes priority in the event of a contradiction with other Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views have been covered. (Mainstream source is a POV misnomer) The statement that there is Academic consensus or most scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor!

Substantive scholarly books that are secondary sources and focus on the on the topic should be used whenever possible. They should be published by reputable publishing houses with high academic standards. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used. If a book has been published by a reputable publishing house, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars. Nicholson and Edwards fall into this category and should form the basis of this article.

Other sources such as small books, pamphlets, articles, papers etc can be very helpful if reputable.

However care must be used if the source is not on topic. Often looking at the title will give you a clue. Klauck's Apocryphal gospels: an introduction is not as helpful as Lillie's Gospel According to the Hebrews. However Klauck would be an excellent basis for the Apocryphal gospels. However, material from either Kluck or Lillie is acceptable and should never be deleted from the article.

Questionable sources should be avoided. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not quite sure what you are talking about here, as you seem to contradict the policy quoted and my earlier statements. We use mainstream verifiable sources. Klauck's source is verifiable, mainstream and authoritative. We do not let idiosyncratic views, such as Edwards for example, dictate the focus of the article. --Ari (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The real question here is what prominence to give that scholarship which uses the Hebrew Gospel to displace Marcan priority and the two-source theory (using Q). Absent scholarly reviews that assess its credibility, it is not our place to provide space in the article, since until confirmed by scholarly attention, such views must be seen as wel outside the mainstream and hence verging on fringe. In this instance, RS and NPOV are perfectly consistent, and indeed easily applied given the maturity of the scholarly discourse surrounding the synoptic tradition in general, and this gospel in particular. Ari and I are likely to continue to remove any content that places undue weight on such idiosyncratic hypotheses that fall well outside the mainstream academic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read sources more carefully. Edwards does not "use the Hebrew Gospel to displace Marcan priority". Indeed Marcan priority is affirmed by Edwards. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style
There seems to be some confusion in this article. Although we italicise The Gospel of the Hebrews and other apocrypha such as the Gospel of Thomas we do not italicise canonical books. --Ari (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Gospel of Matthew = correct
 * Gospel of Matthew = incorrect.

Extremely Disruptive Behavior: Wikipedia the Game
I have taken the time to look though your edit history and found you actually surpass Eusebeus in regard to disruptive behavior. You seem to see Wikipedia as some sort of game and your block log shows you have blocked many times for Edit warring,   violation of the three-revert rule,   personal attacks, and reposting possibly copyrighted material. I will continue my edits in good faith, and try to ignore the fact that you delete just about everything... 96.22.215.70 (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No one cares about your ad hominems. Grow up and deal with the article at hand. --Ari (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to stop this churlish and adolescent name-calling now. Nothing that Ari or I have done warrants in any way these baseless and scabrous personal attacks. Eusebeus (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * NB I do not make personal attacks and nothing I say should be construed as such.96.22.215.70 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken the time to look through your edit history and you appear to be a sockpuppet, who's gaming the system? Spigot  Who?  14:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
My concern is about Edit warring and how that has been extremely disruptive to my editing. I had planned to take a day or two to check the references of this article and make some important changes and then move on. You have made this impossible for you deleted my work even before I have completed what I have started. Today, after I had been editing for exactly three minutes, I looked up and everything was gone! (and you guys call me "churlish" and "adolescent", then tell me to "grow up")

I your checked your edits and block logs! And this is business as usual! Indeed your next move will be to say I must stop editing and move things to the talk page, effectively shutting me out. Edit warring is not constructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus as to the right way to improve the encyclopedia. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned from editing. In your case, because you have Edit warring down to fine art, and have ignored previous warnings, you actually risk being banned from Wikipedia. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When you are editing in the context of active discussion, you should first seek consensus for your edits, then introduce them to the article. Everything you added is available in the article history, but please show courtesy and respect to your fellow editors in the way that you proceed. Instead of resurrecting material that has been excised after discussion, try collaboration. As it is, you are flaunting the editing process and then bandying around empty accusations when you are reverted. No-one wants to prevent you from making improvements to the article. But discuss your intended changes specifically if they are subject to active discussion (in this case about scholarly consensus). Eusebeus (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, keep banging the conspiracy theory drum.
 * Where you almost bring up something relevant to the article (yes, talk pages are not discussion forums) - this is not your article (wp:ownership). If someone disrupts your personal edits, do not take it personally. You seem to object to everyone who disagrees with you. This attitude may on many occasions be justified as Wikipedia lets in many POV editors, but frankly in this case you are the editor who is not maintaining a neutral point of view. You are overtly preoccupied in forwarding a wp:fringe theory which goes against the purpose of WP articles. We are to reflect the mainstream verifiable opinions of works as I have many times explained to you. Not whatever comes up in google books to support a preconceived point, not to include reflections or first person prose, etc. --Ari (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Modern biblical scholarship
The first section I think we should work on is Modern biblical scholarship. I do agree with your concerns. I do not think Edwards should be totally illuminated, but there is a need for balance. Let's both work on a draft, the see if we can blend it. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I got played! I should have known better after reviewing your block log! I actually trusted you guys. Merde!96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Scholars agree that there is a connection between the Gospel of the Hebrews and Matthew. [Do they? Cite, to what extent has to be classified. For this reason, and the general POV push on Edwards and other fringe theorists I added the qualifier here:] Although, as Hans-Josef Klauck writes, "the Gospel of the Hebrews is not to be equated with an 'Ur-Matthew'." [Here, Klauck said that scholarship is agreed on the fact that the Gospel of Hebrews is not ur-Matthew (or the 'authentic Matt'), although ur-Matt may be unclear language. It is an important point as the article spends so much time repeating the patristic evidence.] A study of the external evidence regarding this gospel shows that among the Nazarenes and Ebionites existed a gospel commonly called the Gospel of the Hebrews. It was written in Aramaic with Hebrew letters.[Yet modern scholarship doesn't seem to believe it?] Its authorship was attributed to St. Matthew. Indeed the Fathers of the Church, while the Gospel of the Hebrews was still being circulated and read, referred to it always  with respect, often with reverence: They accepted it as being the work of Matthew. [We are looking at MODERN SCHOLARSHIP and not again repeating the partistic arguments]''

[Notice, here we jump from patristic evidence straight into the fringe theory]

Although scholarly consensus still holds to Marcan priority, ie (Mark is the first source) some modern scholars now believe Matthew's Gospel of the Hebrews was the second source used in the Gospel of Luke and helped form the basis for the Synoptic Tradition. They point out that in the first section of De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), we find the Gospel of Mark where it should be as it was the first gospel written and was the basis of later gospels. Following it should be Q. But not only is Q not where it should be at the top of Jerome's list, this treasured work recording the Logia of Christ is mentioned nowhere by Jerome. Rather, the first seminal document is not Q but the Gospel of the Hebrews. In "the place of honor" that should be given "the phantom Q" we find a Hebrew usurper.

However, scholarly consensus remains overwhelmingly in favour of Marcan priority and this consensus has not been seriously challenged by speculations surrounding the origins of the Hebrew Gospel. That no copy of either Q or the Hebrew Gospel exists makes the determination of their early role in the development of the Synoptic gospels highly conjectural. Nonetheless, arguments in favour of Q as a primary source for Matthew and Luke remain compelling." --Ari (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So, anon, are you going to join the discussion at any stage? --Ari (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed
Are you being reasonable? I must hang my head in shame. I truly believed that your next move was an invasion of Meat Puppets. I am sorry I did not assume good faith. I totally agree that we must we should first seek consensus for out edits, then introduce them to the article. Restored article to beginning of May before Edit warring as per agreement. I agree only make changes after reaching consensus on talk page.96.22.215.70 (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring - 1 to 0 for the Nefarious Dudes. I must admit that I was taken in by your apparent show of good faith. I must say, I feel a little stupid...  And very very disappointed. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on discussion. No one cares about personal attacks. If you cannot backup your POV edits that have been objected to by multiple editors then work on it. I have carried over content and discussion waiting for you to respond but you refuse in favour of personal pointless and childish attacks. --Ari (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not make personal attacks. It is your edit history and particularly your block log that shows that you have been guilty of wrongful behavior,  ie you have been blocked many times for Edit warring, violation of the three-revert rule,   personal attacks, and reposting possibly copyrighted material.

Setting the record straight (Revised)
During this edit war Ari and Eusebeus have introduced a substantial amount of disinformation to the discussion and have even gone so far as to "refactor" my comments. Don't get me wrong, I am not accusing them of actual lying, rather that they have been taking liberties with the truth. Therefore I have decided to set the record straight.

Personal attacks
I do not make personal attacks. Nor am I rude and condescending. I never call people "childish", "immature", "idiosyncratic" or "churlish". Nor do I mock my fellow editors telling them, "No one cares" or "to grow up" "If you do finally calm down" or "go rant on your userspace or something". However if their edit history and their block log that shows that they have been guilty of wrongful behavior, I have no difficulty pointing out that a problem editor has been blocked for Edit warring,   violation of the three-revert rule,   personal attacks, and reposting possibly copyrighted material.''

Meat puppets
I must admit I was not surprised at being accused of being a sock puppet. (I had looked at your edit histories). I have carefully read Sock puppetry and can thankfully say I am not guilty of any infraction. I did notice that Spigot was also a problem editor who had been blocked for edit warring, violation of the three-revert rule, uncivil edits and disrupting the editing process for others. Also it should be noted that we are not to bias discussions by asking for supporters from other places. Using or recruiting  meat puppets to dominate an article is a serious offense

Oh dear
Oh Dear! I have been checking edit hists for what comes next? Not good! There will be a request for semi-protection. Since I am the only anon actively editing, that means me!! I will be effectively blocked without doing anything wrong!

POV pushing and Edwards
The material and citations that they claim is POV pushing was actually introduced to the article by "" last year. (NOT BY ME)

They took umbrage at this reference citing WP:FRINGE and WP:RS.

I checked WP:FRINGE & WP:RS and found that they were totally wrong.

First, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views have been covered. ("Mainstream" source is a POV misnomer) The statement that there is Academic consensus or most scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor!

Secondly, substantive scholarly books that are secondary sources and focus on the topic should be used whenever possible. If, (like Edward's The Hebrew Gospel) the book has been published by a reputable publishing house with high academic standards Ipso Facto it has been vetted by one or more other scholars and is a RS.

I further pointed out that care must be used if the source is not on topic. Often looking at the title will be helpful. Klauck's Apocryphal gospels: an introduction is not as helpful as Lillie's Gospel According to the Hebrews. However Klauck would be an excellent basis for the Apocryphal gospels. However, material from either Klauck or Lillie is acceptable and should never be deleted from the article. NB - There is now a mass deletion of the Bibliography & a mass doctoring of the citations!

Well, from there we took a stable article that needed some scholarly input and turned it into an absolute mess. I can honestly say I have been acting in good faith. However, I must admit at times I allowed them to get to me, and for this I apologize.

Reset to the beginning of May
For several years now, this has been a stable article. . . at least until this month. I suggest we reset this article to before the edit warring began, and that all of us take some time to cool down. Then we should work by consensus. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC) * * Postscript * * *  Don't you think referring to me as anon/sockpuppet is rude and condescending. I believe you are guilty of sock offenses but I don't address you as the Three Meatpuppets!
 * No, I think it is quite reasonable, actually, given the points Spigot has raised. As for me, you can also believe the earth is flat, but your assertions are simply unsustainable and without any evidentiary basis. You are obviously familiar with Wikipedia procedures, but are editing under an anon IP. That's grounds for thinking something is amiss. Also, you seem to have little specialist knowledge of this topic and your edits are rather uninformed - mostly the product of searches on google books without apparent knowledge of the field or awareness of the literature. So your participation here is a regrettable mixture of fractiousness and randomness. You spend a lot of time making accusations, but have not been able to provide any substantive rejoinder to the comments that have been made regarding Marcan priority or Q. In fact, you don't even seem to understand what Ari or I are even talking about. Instead you keep adding material (repeatedly) that is demonstrably false. This verges on vandalism and, at this point, you should probably be blocked for the pattern of your behaviour. Eusebeus (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are destroying the structure of this talk page, making it very hard to comprehend for new editors wishing to review the questions at hand. Please read WP:TALKPAGE to understand how to properly use this page. Thanks! On the topic of you being a sock puppet, it has been brought up as to why you have jumped in to this article and discussion with this being the only article you have edited and have begun to edit war with obvious previous knowledge of editing Wikipedia. Your edits reflect the edits of several other POV pushers. The question is, which one? Spigot  Map  12:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Active effort has been made to bring this article into line with WP requirements. From the basic manual of style, to the refocus of the article on the verifiable mainstream. I don't quite understand why you are suggesting people cool down when it appears that you are the only one going off at everyone. If you do finally calm down please join the useful discussions that are waiting for you above. Ignoring the issues in order to attack other editors is quite useless in achieving consensus. --Ari (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Echoing the above, I would note that giving prominence to a theory that displaces Marcan priority and maintains that Q did not exist via neo-Griesbachian hypothesising is demonstrably contrary to the mainstream academic literature. That the article persisted as long as it did before these problems were addressed simply reflects the larger problems that persist in an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and highlights the importance of having vigilant and knowledgeable editors to redress this kind of misinformation. As for the overall contributions of our friendly anon, what can I say? He has not engaged the substance of the problem nor provided any substantive basis to justify why this article should be a platform for proclaiming backdoor Matthean priority. I fear that User:SpigotMap may be right. Eusebeus
 * I have reverted the recent anon/sockpuppet version since it inexplicably restored information which I have indicated above is likely a hoax as well as the fringe Griesbachian theories. There may be some stuff in there that is well worth retaining - but it doesn't say much for the overall contribution if obviously false information is being included. Eusebeus (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And anon has restored willy nilly these inaccuracies - unbelievable. Per WP:BRD, please do not introduce your changes as they have been contested (viz, by me). Instead, let's discuss them individually here on the talk page. Thanks. Eusebeus (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You add new comments to the bottom of the appropriate section that you wish to converse in. How hard is that to understand? Spigot  Map  14:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strange!? I wrote a comment here and it has been refactored away? Why?? 96.22.215.70 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ari now blocked for ‎Edit-warring
Now that Ari has been blocked, hopefully we can get back to editing this article. I have no desire to dominate this article, nor do I like edit warring. I am going to post my draft. I will not delete anything you add to it! All I ask is that we work toward consensus when deleting references. People should allowed to know the books that have been published on this topic. Believe it or not I am generally a reasonable person. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Eusebius, I got snippy because I thought DustForWorms was you. Please let's work together! 96.22.215.70 (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have already apologized to Eusebeus. It was an honest mistake. NB I made three edits and was going to make more, some of which I hoped would win over Eusebius. But I don't think I made 3 reverts. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * DustFormsWords, I checked you edit hist. and block log and it is clear you are a good faith editor. Your advice is sound. The problem I have is that the bibliography is being stripped important books. What to do?? 96.22.215.70 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have expertise in this area, or frankly much interest in this article. Just in passing through, a quick look at the version you're reverting to shows it's got many of the danger signs of a POV article - subjective language ("the most important"), passive voice ("it is thought"), subjective summarisation ("scholars agree"), and synthesis of published sources ("if this be so").  I'd defer, and advise you to defer, to the opinions of experts in this area, but in short the best way forward is to stick to active voice, verifiable facts.  Which scholars agree? Who thinks?  If the scholars don't agree, or if there's a minority opinion, don't struggle to get it in the main article text - make a "dissenting opinions" section, say exactly who is making the opinion, and just say what they say, don't comment on it or its implications.  Anyway, that's only on a quick read of the article with, as I say, no prior experience with the subject matter. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again and sorry for thinking you were Eusebeus. I have carefully reread your words on my talk page:

Please note the following items of Wikipedia policy:
 * 1) Controversial major edits should first be proposed at the relevant talk page, where consensus should be obtained.
 * 2) A neutral point of view is required for all articles, regardless of their topic or the sources underlying them.

Of course you are absolutely correct I will comply as follows I hope this will solve our problems. . .  NB  Eusebeus and Ari you have my consent,  1) to add any material you deem is important 2) to remove subjective language ("the most important"), passive voice ("it is thought"), subjective summarisation ("scholars agree"), and synthesis of published sources ("if this be so"). 96.22.215.70 (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC) NB  until consensus is reached on the talk page.
 * 1) I will remove all controversial major edits made by myself, Ari and Eusebius, restoring it to the version before the Edit warring began.
 * 2) All controversial major edits will first be proposed on the talk page, where consensus should be obtained.
 * 3) I will work together with Eusebeus and Ari in good faith, to write this article from a neutral point of view. I will also request admin oversight for this page.
 * No one needs your consent to edit anything on Wikipedia. Spigot  Map  16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Magnanimous in victory and gracious in Defeat
Well I must admit I was taken a back when Tim deleted all my edits and restored all Ari's. But I checked out Tim and he is a respected Admin. Therefore I will simply accept his judgement and wish you all the best in your editing. Cheers 96.22.215.70 (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)