Talk:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis

Title of article
There are lots of sources that refer to the Hebrew Gospel (see Google Link) but there is no source that refers to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (see Google Link) Is this a spoof? - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof, as you are the main recent advocate of the hypothesis of a Hebrew Gospel on Wikipedia, are you saying that the hypothesis doesn't exist but is it a fact? The following show that it is generally considered a hypothesis: In ictu oculi (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Abbott E. The Son of Man or Contributions to the Study of the Thoughts of Jesus. Great Britain, Cambridge at the University Press, 1910. Section The hypothesis of a Hebrew Gospel
 * Richard C. H. Lenski section in The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel 1-14 1937 p11 "THE HYPOTHESIS OF AN ORIGINAL HEBREW MATTHEW Another prominent form of this 'hypothesis is that the logia of Papias really formed an entire Hebrew Gospel, originating from Matthew's pen in the years 64-67 and being translated into Greek by an unknown writer in the year 90.."
 * See article for Nicholson; Edwards 2009 describes his hypothesis as a hypothesis

- "It originates with the early Christian writer Papias, and was then repeated by later Church Fathers including Jerome. It survives into the modern period, but studies have shown it to be untenable."

Wow - a good example of a biased & misleading statement. I understand that these articles pertaining to religion tend to bring out the worst in uncompromising mentalities, but come on. Yes, the earliest surviving evidence that the earliest gospel was a Hebrew version of Matthew comes from Papias (& perhaps Ignatius). But to imply that that position is only a theory that "originated" with Papias is misleading. And to state that that was then "repeated" Jerome (implying that Jerome merely repeated what Papias had claimed) is simply not true. As you yourself (sort of) acknowledge, Jerome claimed to have known of at least a couple of copies in existence at the time, and he even claimed to have personally translated a copy.

But you then repeat the view (assumption) of Koster (& Cameron) that Jerome couldn't possibly have translated anything from that gospel - he must have just copied some earlier quotes by Origen. But did Jerome copy from Origen? Is there any evidence to that effect? Wouldn't both of those writers have independently come up with the same translations if Jerome's claims were true? And even if Jerome copied from Origen, where did Origen come up with those quotes?

In truth, to deny the existence of an original Hebrew version of Matthew requires that we ignore a lot of historical evidence; and also that we ignore what practically every passage that the synoptics have in common actually say. Alan B25 (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

POV Fork
I now see that this is a serious attempt to solve the issue before us.

Your solution is to divide the article into two. This article would reflect the position of the Historical writings from the time of Jesus to the time of Jerome c.385 C.E., which state Matthew wrote an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus called the Hebrew Gospel or sometimes the Gospel of the Hebrews. Scholars such a Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz who support this position would also be included in this article.

The other article, the Gospel of the Hebrews would reflect the point of view of those who disagree such as such as Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.

I have carefully read WP:POVFORK and believe this solution goes against WP Policy. 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 and Talk:Gospel of Matthew) Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * No, I'm not suggesting that majority SBL type reference works have to be the only view on any of the 3 Jewish-Christian Gospel pages. But majority scholarship should be stated first, with refs, then other views, with refs.
 * Content forking does allow the distinction between a text and a hypothesis about a text or theory (the distinction being as James R. Edwards states about wishing to develop his hypothesis into a theory) and the content of that hypothesis or theory.


 * So for example a Germanic substrate hypothesis article is a justifiable fork from Germanic languages, Indo-European language family and Proto-Germanic.
 * In the same way the hypothesis of a lost Hebrew Ur-Matthew is a justifiable fork from Jewish-Christian Gospels (which exist and therefore are texts not a hypothesis) and Gospel of Matthew and New Testament Apocrypha (again which exist and therefore are texts not a hypothesis). It seems to me also that Parker is a mainstream enough serious academic for his hypothesis in particular to be given the same Wikiairtime as Griesbach hypothesis (which note redirects to Two-gospel hypothesis) or Augustinian hypothesis. In listing Parker it would also be possible to trace back the hypothesis via Grotius etc. to primary sources, primarily Jerome. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What you say equals a POV fork. We as editors must work together to blend all the sources into a NPOV article(s). (See Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof and Talk:Gospel of Matthew)  Cheers - - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral page deletion by Ret Prof
Ret Prof. Well now you're really edit warring with all guns blazing. You've now deleted an article on the hypotheses of Nicholson/Parker/Edwards simply because it includes a detached view and restored old attempts to have the same hypothesis given a page Talk:Authentic Matthew and Talk:Authentic Gospel of Matthew.
 * "The Authentic Gospel of Matthew, (Latin Matthaei Authenticum) is the hypothesis or belief that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the true gospel of Matthew."

Why not Authentic Gospel of Matthew hypothesis per Two-gospel hypothesis Two-source hypothesis? Because the phrase "Authentic Gospel of Matthew" is more loaded than "Hebrew Gospel". My personal opinion is that this is a fringe view which is borderline as to whether it deserves its own page. But that what I can only describe as enthusiasts for the view (of which you are only the latest) will populate main articles with the subject unless it has its own nest.

Note that this is the second unilateral page delete: In ictu oculi (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) (cur | prev) 17:39, 24 March 2011 Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) (35 bytes) (Merged POV Fork into Gospel of the Hebrews) (undo)
 * 2) (cur | prev) 09:06, 24 March 2011 Eusebeus (talk | contribs) (5,556 bytes) (Undid revision 420437053 by Ret.Prof (talk) rv per WP:BRD - let's keep the discussion at the main Hebrew Gospel page) (undo)
 * 3) (cur | prev) 04:04, 24 March 2011 Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) (35 bytes) (Merged POV Fork Gospel of the Hebrews) (undo)

AfD
I was going to nominate for deletion, but you are doing a good job. I am actually enjoying it. I still think it is a POV fork, but I will take no action. Good work - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I wouldn't have been concerned if it had been nominated, anyone who wants to, go ahead. Or better still contribute. But out of interest, what article did you think it was a POV fork from? Both views are represented here and the topic of Lessing/Parker/Edwards hypothesis didn't have an article on 22 March.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If this get nominated, it would be for forking the scholarship of Edwards, Tabor etc view with Deutsche Christen scholarship. But since we so far have consensus (or at least no edit warring) indeed, I am enjoying your stuff, feel to edit the article without first getting consensus on the talk page. I will do the same. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that which page is the POV of the non-Edwards view? I cannot see a Deutsche Christen hypothesis on the Jewish-Christian Gospels POV page from which this is a fork. I don't think there is an anti-hypothesis as such since majority scholarship has not integrated the JG in any significant form into Augustinian hypothesis, Griesbach hypothesis, etc.
 * May I ask by Deutsche Christen which mainstream scholars specifically are Nazis? All of them because they don't believe in an original lost genuine Hebrew Ur-Matthew? The last time you intimated that Schneemelcher fought for the Nazis I pointed out that he actually suffered mild persecution under the Third Reich, and was conscripted, so clearly not Schneemelcher. Nor can I see evidence that Vielhauer, Strecker, Hans Waitz etc.etc.etc. were Nazis. I wouldn't deny that there was a strong anti-semitic vein in German scholarship from Luther through to Friedrich Delitzsch (nothing whatsoever to do with GHeb) which led ultimately to Alfred Rosenberg's Mythus, but still the reason that majority scholarship rejects some of the various Hebrew Gospel hypotheses seems to me to be on the same text-critical and linguistic criteria applied to any other 3rd-4th Century set of primary source texts. I don't think Ron Cameron and the living scholars even have German blood. :(In ictu oculi (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally since many of the mainstream scholars who question the Hebrew Gospel view, such as Klijn, are very much Living people, please be careful about throwing Deutsche Christen around even on Talk pages In ictu oculi (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I found your comments confusing and a little off topic. I made a serious effort to answers your questions: Now back to topic. I think you are doing a good job. I am enjoying what you write. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The souces I found seem to confirm 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.

Overlap with Gospel of Matthew
Thanks, In ictu oculi, for creating and developing this article. One question jumps out: what is the degree of overlap with the canonical GoM? The article talks about this reconstucted gospel without ever saying what its contents are. It would be helpful if the differences between, and similarities with, the other gospels was explicated. (The Gospel of Matthew article, for example, sets out the structure of the Gospel.) (I see that this is set out more at Hebrew Gospel, in which case the above point is redundant, but the following is still relevant.) Perhaps the sentence that ends
 * and that fragments of this work survive in the quotations of Jewish-Christian Gospels found in the works of Jerome and other authors.

should be changed to
 * and that fragments of this work survive in the quotations of Jewish-Christian Gospels found in the works of Jerome and other authors, along with the canonical Gospels.

? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 08:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

From Talk:Aramaic Matthew REDIRECT
That's fine. I have now (belatedly) added "or Aramaic" to Gospel of Matthew but you are right Hebrew Gospel hypothesis may well be a better REDIRECT. The making of the New Testament documents Edward Earle Ellis - 2002 speaks of "the Aramaic Matthew Hypothesis" and it looks like the Independence of Matthew and Mark  John M. Rist  and Aramaic sources of Mark's Gospel Maurice Casey - 1998 may have useful source material. And yes, you're correct it isn't a povfork, just a content fork not to overload the main Matthew article with a subset of Aramaic/Hebrew related hypotheses. Cheers. (btw please consider the benefits of registering, cheers!): In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I made some changes to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, hopefully useful. Maybe that article should be retitled to "Aramaic or Hebrew Gospel hypothesis"? Most scholars think Aramaic is more likely, as in Aramaic of Jesus, but Hebrew is possible and closely related. Even the Jewish Bible has some Biblical Aramaic. 75.0.11.75 (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That might not be a bad idea later on, but it would probably be best to build up at least a paragraph on "Aramaic Matthew hypothesis" as distinct from Lessing's Proto-Gospel hypothesis and Howard's Hebrew Gospel hypothesis first before making a page title change. Please feel free to add in sourced content. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion
It has been suggested on this talk page that portions of the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article that will improve the Gospel of the Hebrews article be moved there, and that other parts of the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel be merged into this Hebrew Gospel hypothesis article. Please discuss the merge into this article below. – Paine ( Climax !) 06:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge. While some portions of the "Merge from" article are useful to the Gospel of the Hebrews article, other more speculative parts are more appropriate for this article. Another pertinent discussion of this can be found at this talk page section. – Paine ( Climax !)  06:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

PiCo and I both concur that the content merge to the GH article is complete. Essentially, none of the content from the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article was useful there. I copied a small section about Jerome to the talk page of the GN article. Nothing else was useful there, so we can spare the effort of yet another merge proposal to that article. Ignocrates (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to searching for content that might be useful in the GH and GN articles, I went through the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article section by section and made a reasonable effort to eliminate OR/POV/Duplication and content supported only by marginal sources. All of that process is described on the H(A)G talk page. The remaining material should be considered a stub at this point. The next step is to go through the stub and evaluate the remaining material for merging into this article. Someone else needs to step up and do that. I have had all the fun I can stand. Ignocrates (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge: per Paine Ellsworth. Ignocrates (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First identify any sourced/non-OR content - as above "other more speculative parts are more appropriate for this article" yes, but the problem is what. This article is already a "merge" of Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel from when that article had previous lives as Authentic Matthew before being re-created. Just as Jewish-Christian Gospels and Gospel of the Hebrews Gospel of the Nazarenes even Gospel of the Ebionites have all had previous "merged" content from Authentic Matthew heading their way repeatedly since 2005. My concern is that James R. Edwards is fringe and already overweight in this article, loading up with primary sources about Papias won't improve article either. If there is sourced relevant content, then by all means, what specifically is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds as if you concur with Ignocrates and PiCo that there is no more text in the (Aramaic) article that needs to be moved to the Gospel of the Hebrews article. If that is so, then the Move portions templates can be removed.  As for the merge into this article, I get the impression that you don't think there is any material there in the Aramaic article that can be justifiably merged here.  On that issue I "check" to the opinions of Ignocrates, PiCo and yourself.  In spite of the humility all three of you have displayed, you are all far more knowledgable in this area than I am.  Thank you for inviting me to this ongoing saga.  It seems that it will only be fully resolved when the involved scholars resolve the major controversies as regards the various authenticities.  I hope I've been of some small help. – Paine ( Climax !)  15:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is my reality check. It is a nonsense argument to conclude that none of the remaining material is useful.  PiCo has stated that he intends to use that material as a starting point to rewrite the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article from scratch. Ignocrates (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That confuses me a bit. It was my understanding that the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) was the same as the Gospel of the Hebrews.  The Ledes were essentially the same, etc.  Now you and PiCo appear to say that there is an Aramaic version of the  Hebrew Gospel that is separate and distinct from the Gospel of the Hebrews.  The question arises why the merge and partial move was even considered in the first place.  I understand that there are believed to be more than one possible rendition of Matthew's gospel that are being protected by the Church.  Was the Aramaic version so different from the one at Gospel of the Hebrews?  If so, is it notable enough to be in its own article?  Why not just mention it at GofH and delete this page?


 * Please keep in mind that I am less interested in the context of these articles and more concerned with following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Notability seems to be a major issue here.  If the Aramaic version isn't notable enough to warrant its own article (if it's mostly OR then it's decidedly not notable enough), then is it the right thing to do to rewrite it rather than scrap it?  – Paine ( Climax !)  19:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. Shouldn't the disambiguator be at the end? as in Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic)? A parenthetical disambiguator looks cumbersome if it's slap in the middle of an article title.  Please see WP:NATURAL.  Note that Aramaic isn't even mentioned in the Lede.
 * Indeed. That is because the whole point of re-applying the merge tag was to delete the article by redirect with a minimum of discussion, which was a concern I expressed here, as well as here, here, and here.  It was obvious from the beginning that the duplicate content was a single sentence in the lead, which could have easily been fixed with a simple deletion of that sentence. Ignocrates (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps it is the wise choice to see how PiCo's analysis and rewrite unfolds. I shall rename the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article, though, so that it conforms to policy.  Also, I just created a much needed Dab page at Aramaic (disambiguation).  Feel free to improve it as needed. – <b style="font-variant:small-caps; color:darkblue; font-family:Arial;">Paine</b> (<b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial;"> Climax !</b>)  02:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignocrates, the point of the merge tag (which was added by a passing non-involved editor remember) was to remove a duplicate article. The fact that the deleted-restored article in fact duplicates sections from several other articles Jewish-Christian Gospels, Proto-Gospel hypothesis, Gospel of the Hebrews doesn't change the fact that it is a duplicate article.
 * The underlying issue remains however sources sources sources. If there's valuable sourced NPOV content it won't be lost and will be placed where appropriate on Jewish-Christian Gospels, Proto-Gospel hypothesis, Gospel of the Hebrews.
 * Now at this point having agreed that, let's identify some specific content in the duplicate article which passes WP:NOR WP:IRS, then we can work out where of the 3 articles it should go. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi PiCo - clarification please. See Paine Ellsworth's question: "Now you and PiCo appear to say that there is an Aramaic version of the Hebrew Gospel that is separate and distinct from the Gospel of the Hebrews." I didn't see you say this. As far as I know there are only:
 * Jewish-Christian Gospels the umbrella topic for
 * Gospel of the Nazarenes fragments
 * Gospel of the Ebionites fragments
 * Gospel of the Hebrews fragments
 * Aramaic New Testament - i.e. the section of the Peshitta translated from Greek, and the new UBS modern Aramaic
 * Proto-Gospel hypothesis - Lessing and others synoptic problem solution of a lost Aramaic gospel.
 * Is there another? Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is my understanding, formed from a few days of research for the articles Gospel of the Hebrews and Jewish-Christian gospels. But first, an excellent guide is chapter 7 of Ehrman and Plese's recent (2011) book, The Apocryphal Gospels:Texts and Translations It's written in very readable English, but is by recognised scholars. And of course, it's recent, therefore up to date regarding scholarly arguments.
 * My understanding is essentially as you've outlined above: there is no such thing as an Aramaic/Hebrew version of the Gospel of the Hebrews, which got its name from being used by the Hebrews (Jews), not from the language it was written in (Greek).
 * That gospel is one of the reconstructed Jewish Christian gospels, usually seen as three, although possibly only two.
 * There was a great deal of confusion among the early Church fathers about these Jewish Christian gospels, even though they quoted from them. They were mostly unaware how many Jewish Christian communities there were, or how many gospels there were among them, or what languages they used. So the vast majority of modern scholars are not willing to take their testimony at face value. (Ehrman explains).
 * There was a tradition in the early Church that Matthew had been written originally in Aramaic/Hebrew. Matthew is, of course, distinct from the Gospel of the Hebrews, which was written in Greek for the Greek-speaking Jewish Christians of Egypt and bears no resemblance to Matthew (you can read the fragments in the Gospel of the Hebrews article). This hypothetical original Matthew is an element of the proto-gospel hypothesis (ideas about the sources behind the gospels), and presumably would be the subject of a re-written Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article - but as it stands, that article is special pleading for the Aramaic Matthew idea, not a presentation of the hypothesis.PiCo (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct In ictu oculi (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ERK! I've just found that proto-gospel hypothesis takes you to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. This is potentially highly confusing - that title has to be changed! The article itself seems pretty good, though, and maybe after renaming should be the target of the merge with Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel.PiCo (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi PiCo, sorry I should have linked above with the article title rather than academic name REDIRECT. Unfortunately "Hebrew Gospel hypothesis" (or some variation on that) is undeniably the WP:COMMONNAME, and much more likely to be searched for, thanks to Edwards, Tabor and co. Academic sources are 50/50 between "proto-Gospel hypothesis" and "original-Gospel hypothesis" so there isn't an agreed common name for the 19th Century hypotheses either. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, seems we can't change the title then. We need to explain in the lead, just a line about "not to be confused with". PiCo (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the very first sentence of the lead to this article:
 * The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis or proto-Gospel hypothesis or original Gospel hypothesis[1] is a group of related theories commonly taking as their starting point the testimony of some early church fathers such as Jerome that Matthew the Apostle had originally written a gospel in Hebrew, or the "Hebrew language" which at the time was just as likely to be the related Aramaic of Jesus, and that fragments of this work survive in the quotations of Jewish-Christian Gospels found in the works of Jerome and other authors.
 * Wheh! No Pulitzers for you, lad!PiCo (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Evidently not. Go for it. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, don't forget about the wip page. There appear to be some good recent sources there, including Hans-Josef Klauck Apocryphal gospels: an introduction (2003) and Foster, Paul The non-canonical gospels (2008). Ignocrates (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources
Schmidt argues that there was one Jewish-Christian gospel, probably composed in Aramaic c. 100 AD. This journal article is frequently cited in reviews. Ignocrates (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately my German is no better than my Bantu. More seriously, I haven't been able to find a scholarly definition of this hypothesis. I gather that it would say, if I could find it, that this is the hypothesis that a single proto-Gospel, in Aramaic, underlies the canonical Matthew. Is it also supposed to underlie ALL the synoptics (thereby supposing Matthew-priority)? But I really need a definition from a source, not one I make up myself. PiCo (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Klauck calls it ur-Matthew. I don't think the other synoptics or G John would be included in that hypothesis.  ur-Mark is a completely different hypothesis that relates to canonical Matthew and the other synoptics. Ignocrates (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Schmidt is mentioned in Klauck. But Klauck is talking about JC gospels.PiCo (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * True. And we would need to verify that Schmidt mentions an Aramaic Matthew to use him as a reference in this article.  I pasted the Klauck reference on the GH talk page.  I think we should use Klauck there as well as in the J-C article. Ignocrates (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can read German, but I haven't read this. And I cannot find a copy on the web, so I don't think we should be adding a source none of us have seen (!). It's possible I could get access through one of the university's databases. The thing is Peter Lebrecht Schmidt is a Latinist, and the subject of his essay “'Und es war geschrieben auf Hebräisch, Griechisch und Lateinisch': Hieronymus, das Hebräerevangelium und seine mittelalterliche Rezeption,” is, as it says, about the reception of the "Jerome and the GH" in the middle ages, which is why the article appears in Filologia mediolatina Studies in Medieval Latin Texts and Transmission Journal of the «Fondazione Ezio Franceschini». Klauck is a good source for saying medievalists (such as Peter Lebrecht Schmidt) regard Jerome as more trustworthy than they did before. But beyond that do we need him? Klauck already says there is a tendency to merge EvHeb and EvNaz - but against that there are still 3 baptism accounts, which is the reason for 3 JwChr Gospels in the first place. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The only reason to include Schmidt would be to provide a modern reference for the Aramaic ur-Matthew hypothesis. Since his article was published in a peer-reviewed journal, it doesn't surprise me it that the journal article doesn't come up on Google (maybe Google Scholar?).  However, that alone wouldn't be enough of a criterion for exclusion.  Having more of a review article like Klauk discussing Schmidt's work could be enough.  Unfortunately, Klauck only mentions Schmidt in the context of EvHeb vs. EvNaz.  If a review of Schmidt's work will suffice, why don't we just use Skarsaune's review to serve the same purpose? Ignocrates (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I must have missed the baptismal theophany lecture. There is a synoptic baptismal theophany in the GE, and a theophany in the GH where the font of the Holy Spirit rests on Jesus.  Where is the third baptismal theophany? Ignocrates (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Ignocrates - I don't feel comfortable relying wholly on Skarsaune's review when P. L. Schmidt's German original is available. The university database can't access the thing among our staff subscriptions, I might try again with an Athens password later. But again it's only about the medieval reception, and this isn't medieval.wp (mainly).
 * @Pico - not sure this was a good delete. While Helmut Köster and Richard C. H. Lenski are generalist commentators, their removal now means the article is somewhat unbalanced per WP:WEIGHT with lengthy listing various enthusiasts for Aramaische Urgospel without counterbalancing that with the information that these are basically WP:FRINGE theories on the outer rim of the synoptic problem. The way the article reads without mainstream/generalist views like Köster and Lenski is that the question is simply which Urgospel theory to pick. The article was already weak and thinly sourced in this area (partly because most SBL scholars won't waste time on it) now there's next to nothing representing the mainstream view. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with waiting to find out what Schmidt had to say. Btw, I agree with PiCo's deletions, although possibly for different reasons.  1. The first paragraph of the criticism section is a rehash of the J-C gospel problem.  It makes sense to remove that duplication here and rely on the gateway J-C article to explain it.  2. The summary arguments of Lenski and Koester in the second paragraph are incredibly weak.  For example, Lenski is engaging in sophistry by saying in essence if a Hebrew gospel was that important it would have been preserved.  History is full of examples where documents are lost due to war or bad luck.  Koester's argument is a value judgement that Jerome must have either been an idiot or lying.  This is not scholarship. Ignocrates (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reinserted the 2 paras for the sake of argument, but still feel they add nothing. I really need a source that states that Aramaic Matthew is fringe. PiCo (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the combination of (a) taking Jerome's quotes as reliable, and (b) making the lost J-C Gospels into Eichhorn's Ur-Gospel which is Fringe, although in fairness I don't think Edwards actually claims that. As Ignocrates says Koester's argument is a value judgement that Jerome must have either been an idiot or lying, - I think the general view is that Jerome was a bit of both. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a prime example of traditionalist scholars trying to force canonical status on a hypothesis. Denigrating Jerome is the only way they can make the three-gospel hypothesis hold together.  It's not a coincidence that the collapse of consensus around this hypothesis is correlated with the rehabilitation of Jerome as a scholar. Ignocrates (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We should mention the possibly legendary account, described by Ehrman (2011) p.38, of Eusebius in Historica Ecclestastica 5.10.3 reporting that Clement's teacher Pantaenus found a Hebrew version of Matthew's Gospel in India, which, according to tradition, had been brought there by the apostle Bartholomew. I don't see it mentioned here or in any other article on the gospels. It is mentioned in the article on Pantaenus, but that article is an OR/POV crap-fest. Ignocrates (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can add more on Eusebius. Best ref would be Harold W. Attridge, Gōhei Hata - Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism 1992 - Page 132 Eusebius' comments about the Gospel of Matthew form a consistent pattern. ... encountering a Christian group in India who traced their origins to the apostle Bartholomew, who had left them a copy of this gospel "in Hebrew" (HE 5.10). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good plan. Ignocrates (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD or stub
It appears that we have made reasonable efforts to incorporate any material from the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article that might be useful into the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis article. In addition, I pasted a few things to the Talk:Gospel of the Nazoraeans and Talk:Q pages. What is the community's opinion about the ultimate fate of the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article? Is there is room for a stub on a Hebrew (Aramaic) Matthew or should the whole thing be TNT'd by an AfD? I won't support a deletion by redirect for ethical reasons. Opinions please. Ignocrates (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite its title, Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) is actually about the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew - i.e., the idea is that this ur-Matthew is the Aramaic gospel. The statements made in the article are wildly misleading - it says "many now argue that there was a gospel written in Hebrew behind the canonical Gospels... The Hebrew Gospel tradition is both controversial and the subject of ongoing scholarly debate," but for the life of me I can't find "many" scholars arguing this, or any scholarly debate. To me the article is clearly a pov fork from the Gospel of Matthew's discussion of composition and authorship, and contains very little, possibly nothing, of value. I'm sorry about that because I quite like user RetProf, whose article I think it is, but I'd go for deletion.PiCo (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - however I don't see why we can't just redirect. There's nothing "unethical" about removing, again, an article that has already been deleted once, and several previous "Authentic Matthew" deletions going back to 2005. But whatever, delete. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is that we shouldn't have a problem with stating publicly that there is nothing left of value to be merged and letting the community decide. In this case, we have more than exercised due diligence in going through the material, so it should be just a formality. Ignocrates (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per PiCo, and via PROD. I'm satisfied that we have wrung everything of value out of the article.  Since this deletion is uncontroversial, I'm going to remove the merge tags and then tag the article with Propose Deletion as a middle ground between a redirect and a formal AfD. Ignocrates (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * PROD tag applied. Assuming there are no objections, the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article will automatically be deleted in seven days. Ignocrates (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per PiCo and Ignocrates. Since Hebrew Gospel redirects to Gospel of the Hebrews, that's about all anyone would need as a search term, so PROD works for me. – <b style="font-variant:small-caps; color:darkblue; font-family:Arial;">Paine</b> (<b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial;"> Climax !</b>)  08:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirects
I changed the redirects so that Authentic Matthew and Authentic Gospel of Matthew redirect here instead of Jewish-Christian Gospels. Aramaic Matthew already redirected to this article. All of these articles are attempts to describe a hypothetical original Gospel of Matthew. Now all the redirects are logically consistent. Ignocrates (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is one additional point to make about these redirects; it is the Aramaic Matthew redirect that should be made into a stub, per WP:SPLIT, if an when this fringe topic is considered sufficiently notable to merit its own article. The redirect tag already indicates this.  The other two are useless junk that should probably be PRODed, but why bother at this point. Ignocrates (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They do have what could be considered useful talk-page histories that will hopefully deter others from recycling old news. – <b style="font-variant:small-caps; color:darkblue; font-family:Arial;">Paine</b> (<b style="color:blue; font-family:Arial;"> Climax !</b>) 21:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I blanked the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article and redirected it to this article. Now it is pointing to the same place as all the other so-called Authentic Matthew articles. Since we already established a consensus to merge (see discussion above), I didn't see any reason to drag this out. Ignocrates (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Shlomo Pines
I found the following content by Shlomo Pines, including a complete translation, in from an Arabic text entitled Tathbit Dala'il Nubuwwat Sayyidina Mahammad by Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad:

(Shlomo Pines) "The historical texts may be divided into the following sections:

1. A text containing (a) a relation of the fortunes of the first Christian Community of Jerusalem from the death of Jesus till the flight of its members with a short reference to their tribulations in exile and (b) an account of the origin of the four canonical Gospels and of the successful efforts made to put an end to the use of the original Hebrew Gospels.

2. A short passage stating the reasons for the decadence of Christianity and giving a version of the first Christian attempts at converting the Gentiles in Antioch, which is probably based on the account figuring in the Acts of the Apostles.

3. A hostile biography of Saint Paul, partly also based on the Acts.

4. The second part of section 3 is joined or jumbled in a curious way with the beginning of section 4, which gives an account of Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, of this emperor himself and of the Council of Nicaea and also refers to Constantine's successors. This section also contains a passage on Mani.

[deleting translation as the Pines quote itself pushes the limit of copyvio - if it can be shown that the translation is clearly copyright free it can be reinstated. Dougweller (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)]
 * It can be freely downloaded as a PDF file. I'm not sure if that satisfies the requirement.  <S>I will shorten the quotation in any case.</S> Ignocrates (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Pines claims elsewhere in the article that the original language of composition was probably Syriac, and that Abd al-Jabbar translated the material into Arabic and adapted it for his own purposes. This material certainly seems applicable to an article on a hypothetical or lost Aramaic/Hebrew gospel. Ignocrates (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ignocrates, doesn't this belong Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad (935-1025). What relevance has it got to Urgospel? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Abd al-Jabbar is quoting or closely paraphrasing what Pines believes to be a much older source of Jewish-Christian origin. What is new in this case is that the source claims that a group of Jewish-Christians, in opposition to Rome and maintaining Jewish practices, withheld the original Hebrew Gospel from a second competing faction, which was friendly with the Romans and no longer practicing Jewish customs, in order to keep the Romans from corrupting the gospel.  Ignocrates (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Pines' opinion on Peshitta variants is certainly notable, but I don't see him saying - even in footnote 196 - that Ibn Ahmad's 11thC source is necessarily older than the Greek-origin Peshitta. And I believe that the Syriac church belief that their Syriac MSS are the originals and not the Greek is as old as Islam. I have only jumped through the pdf, but initially I would say the place for it is in ibn Ahmad's own article which needs building anyway. Then a see also link at the bottom here to Ibn Ahmad, maybe. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do with it what you will. I'm washing my hands of this article. Ignocrates (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I know I said I was done with this article (and I am), but here are two links that might be of interest: link1 and link2. Ok, now I'm done. Ignocrates (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Studies have shown this to be untenable" - Does Koster's opinion trump all the others or should someone add "Some" studies? I smell POV here. If you're going to just copy Koster's work, why not actually quote what it says which is "Several critical studies". Maybe even mention if those "critical studies" are from a particular POV or from all over the spectrum.- Sman Februrary 10 2013

Composition: Modern Consensus (?)
"There is no doubt among modern scholars that this gospel, like the rest of the New Testament, was composed in koine Greek, the daily language of the time.[3] The anonymous author drew on three main sources, the Gospel of Mark, the sayings collection known as the Q source, both in Greek, and material unique to his own community, called M.[4] Mark and Q were both written sources composed in Greek..."

To describe (what may be) the currently popular or consensus view is of value, but it is misleading to make statements such as "There is no doubt among modern scholars..." In fact, there most certainly IS some doubt among some modern scholars regarding nearly every "matter-of-fact" statement that you make. For example, the prevalence of Aramaic vs. Hebrew (or Greek) is a matter of debate, with some recent scholarship (since the discovery that the majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Hebrew) adding more weight to the use of Hebrew, at least in use for written (esp. religious) matters. There is even some debate as to whether Aramaic or Hebrew was the primary spoken language of Jesus and his Jewish followers.

And some of what you state is, as far as I have read, not accepted by anyone. For example, what evidence is there to support your claim that the 'Q' gospel was composed in Greek, or that it was a written source, or that it existed at all? Even the strongest supporters of the Mark & Q hypothesis will admit that 'Q' is a purely hypothetical construct that was invented in response to an otherwise fatal flaw in the theory of Markan priority. In other words, if one does not (mistakenly) insist on Markan priority, there is simply no need to invent a non-canonical Hebrew 'Q' source to account for any of the material in Matthew. In truth (& despite the currently popular view), it is evident in nearly passage that they have in common that Matthew's version served as the source for Mark's version.

Finally, I wonder why this article exists at all. Given that what modern scholars like to refer to as "the Hebrew Gospel" or "the Gospel of the Hebrews" was understood by the ancient sources to mean "the Gospel according to Matthew, as it was originally written in Hebrew", shouldn't this entire article be incorporated into the article for the Gospel of Matthew? Alan B25 (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please refer to the sources at the foot of the article.PiCo (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto. What is in the article reflects the sources at the foot of the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oral gospel traditions stub.
I added this link because these two articles are sequentially related and we must take care to avoid duplication. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated
Good work. This article is now starting to take shape. You have done an excellent job of editing Mainline consensus to the year 2000. All we need to do now is add the most recent scholarship. Recently scholars such as Ehrman (2012) pp 98-101, Casey (2010) p 86-89 and Edwards (2009) pp 2-10 have taken the position that that Matthew collected the Sayings of Jesus and reduced them to writing. All three further state that this Hebrew Gospel is NOT the same as the Gospel of Matthew we have in our Canon.

Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman is one of the most formidable Biblical historians of our time. He is the holder of a Distinguished Professorship. Not only is he required reading at most seminaries, but he has managed to hit New York Times best sellers list. In his most recent work [http://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22The+Oral+Traditions+about+Jesus%22+occupied+%22for+nearly+a+hundred+years.%22+scholars+OR+%22miracle+stories%22+OR+%22controversy+stories%22&btnG=#hl=en&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Papias+is+an+important+source%22++historical++Gospels+%22had+known+either%22+apostles+quotation+work&oq=%22Papias+is+an+important+source%22++historical++Gospels+%22had+known+either%22+apostles+quotation+work&gs_l=serp.12...36913.46010.8.48661.15.15.0.0.0.0.1461.5581.0j11j5-1j1j2.15.0...0.0...1c.1.11.psy-ab.T5dXrvSKxRk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45645796,d.aWM&fp=b342d3cff06292c&biw=1600&bih=737 Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 98-101] Bart D. Ehrman explains why Papias, who was born in 63 CE and was a Bishop in the Early Church is so very important. Although Ehrman takes the position that Matthew reduced the Oral Tradition to a Hebrew dialect (probably Aramaic) he does not believe that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is the same as the Gospel of Matthew in our Bible. Because there is "a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to" what we call Matthew". Ehrman adds, in fact, what Papias "says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels." The Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew is distinct from the Gospel of Matthew that eventually came to be included in Scripture.p 101 Papias then, is "testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves."P 101

Maurice Casey
Maurice Casey is one of Britain's most noted historians. He is Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham, having served there as Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the Department of Theology. His most recent work [http://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=Papias+%22there+is+every%22&btnG=#hl=en&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=wrote+%22Papias+attributed+the+collection+of+some+Gospel+traditions+to+the+apostle+Matthew%22+%22There+is+every+reason%22+high+&oq=wrote+%22Papias+attributed+the+collection+of+some+Gospel+traditions+to+the+apostle+Matthew%22+%22There+is+every+reason%22+high+&gs_l=serp.12...29661.32102.0.34983.6.6.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.6...1c.1.8.psy-ab.9LScJbZZtyE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=9c62caf62d0aad5b&biw=1600&bih=737 Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. p 86-89] supports the aforementioned scholarship. Casey believes that Matthew collected the oral traditions of Jesus and reduced them to writing. "Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down... There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. p 86 Therefore "it is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language."88 Finally, he agrees with Ehrman that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel has no connection with our Gospel of Matthew. "This tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognized." p 87

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

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

No hurry
There is no rush to update this article as we have our hands full with the Oral gospel traditions but as always your help is appreciated! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Greek improbabilities section
Have a strong sense of deja vu here, has this already appeared/been deleted in other articles? Tends to WP:OR against WP:WEIGHT. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a talk page, this is where we talk about edits. I have reverted again to 18:39, 7 May 2013‎ Auric (talk | contribs)‎ because of a strong sense of deja vu - recycled material. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, please stop mass deleting information on this page without a reasonable basis. I will reverting the page to undo the mass deletion that has no basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadtotruth (talk • contribs) 00:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I left a message on User talk:Deadtotruth's Talk and received reply on my own


 * The argument that "this is a hypothesis page and not a textual criticism page." does not make any difference in terms of WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:WEIGHT
 * citations from Koester, Schneemelcher, Howard, Clontz need to be verified for WP:SYNTHESIS
 * citations were from Hugh J. Schonfield (1927) and Agnes Smith Lewis (1910)
 * use of the term "greek primacist scholars" - a manufactured term used only by a small number of non-scholars in the "original Aramaic NT" self-published world, and used whoever placed this fringe material previously deleted on en.wp beforehand indicates a problem. En.wp is not here to present WP:FRINGE.
 * Deadtotruth states "Your mass deletion is in my opinion a possible violation of wikipedia's mass delete policy. Nonetheless I would point out that unlike yourself I haven't deleted any cited passages while you have deleted properly cited sources en masse." - I would answer WP:BRD allows deletion of material which raises concern WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:WEIGHT, as I have done "R", and then "D" discussion which is only starting now - in the meantime forcing the content into the article is WP:EDIT WARRING. We need other editors to decided whether your source material is properly cited. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The contributing editor has the WP:BURDEN of backing up newly added content with reliable sources. However, wholesale blanking of reliably sourced content under the assumption that the contributed material must be inadequately sourced until proven otherwise is TE, as you are well aware. Ignocrates (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the recent addition of material uses a source called "Koester 1990". What book is this? The only book I see in the Ref section from Koester is from 2000.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I added Koester (1990) as a source. Keep in mind that Koester's 2000 book is the second edition of his original 1982 book, so his scholarly opinions in this book are in fact older than the 1990 publication, unless they are specifically updated. Ignocrates (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the section again. It is WP:SYNTHESIS and en.wp is not a place for trotting out one-sided fringe theories about "improbabilities in Greek" for Matthew. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem section
One passage that it is argued contains a logical improbability in Greek is Matthew 4:8. There isn't a mountain high enough to view "all of the kingdoms of the earth" since the earth is round. The Hebrew word found in Ibn Shaprut's medieval translation of the Greek Gospel of Matthew in the appendix to The Touchstone (c.1380) uses "eretz" which can be translated as earth or land. By substituting the Hebrew word "eretz" into the passage makes it possible that "all the kingdoms of the land of Israel" were viewed from a high mountain such as Mount Tabor in Israel.
 * Perceived logical improbabilities in Greek

Another proposed example concerns Matthew 24:51 and Luke 12:46. Agnes Smith Lewis (1910) noted that the verb used in all of the Syriac versions "palleg" has the primary meaning of "cut in pieces" and the secondary one of "appoint to some one his portion." The primary sense leads to the possible problem of how someone cut to pieces could then be assigned to something else. But, Smith argues, if we take the secondary meaning then we are may suggest that the Greek translator misunderstood a Syriac idiom by taking it too literally. The translation would be "and shall allot his portion and shall place him with the unfaithful" instead of the Greek "shall cut him in pieces and shall place him with the unfaithful." Hugh J. Schonfield (1927) notes that the Hebrew verb "bahkag" means literally to "break forth, cleave asunder" and concludes that the Greek translator has failed to grasp the sense in which the Hebrew word is here used.

Another proposed example involves the genealogy in Matthew. Schonfield (1927) argues that the text of Matthew indicates three genealogical groups of 14 each. However, the Greek texts of Matthew have two groups of 14 and a final group of 13. The Syriac Curetonian and Syriac Sinaiticus add the following to Matthew 1:13, "Abiud begat Abiur, Abiur begat Eliakim. Dutillet's Hebrew version of Matthew adds Abihud begat Abner; Abner begat Eliakim. In both Syriac and Hebrew the spellings between Abiud and Abiur are so close that during translation into Greek the second name could have been dropped mistakenly. In any case, all Greek texts contain only 13 names while possibly indicating 14 should be in the final portion of the list. The two Syriac texts and one Hebrew text have 14 names and indicate 14 should be in the final portion of the list.

Portions of the oral sayings in Matthew contain vocabulary that may indicate Hebrew or Aramaic linguistic techniques involving puns, alliterations, and word connections. Hebrew/Aramaic vocabulary choices possibly underlie the text in Matthew 1:21, 3:9, 4:12, 4:21-23, 5:9-10, 5:23, 5:47-48, 7:6, 8:28-31, 9:8, 10:35-39, 11:6, 11:8-10, 11:17, 11:29, 12:13-15, 12:39, 14:32, 14:35-36, 15:34-37, 16:18, 17:05, 18:9, 18:16, 18:23-35, 19:9-13, 19:24, 21:19, 21:37-46, 21:42, 23:25-29, 24:32, 26:28-36, 26:52.
 * Puns

Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language. Nevertheless, on the basis of this and other information Jerome (c. 327–420) claimed that all the Jewish Christian communities shared a single gospel, identical with the Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew; he also claimed to have personally found this gospel in use among some communities in Syria.
 * Theories

Jerome's testimony is regarded with skepticism by modern scholars. Jerome claims to have seen a gospel in Aramaic that contained all the quotations he assigns to it, but it can be demonstrated that some of them could never have existed in a Semitic language. His claim to have produced all the translations himself is also suspect, as many are found in earlier scholars such as Origen and Eusebius. Jerome appears to have assigned these quotations to the Gospel of the Hebrews, but it appears more likely that there were at least two and probably three ancient Jewish-Christian gospels, only one of them in a Semitic language. These would be in addition to the Syriac Curetonian and Sinaiticus manuscripts found at Mount Sinai and believed to have originated between the 2nd and 4th centuries.

Comment
This is the large chunk of mainly WP:OR which the User has been repeatedly planting on en.wp. This is what needs full axing In ictu oculi (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Now there is something specific to work with. I assume you are willing to stipulate that George Howard (Hebraist) (1995), Helmut Koester (2000) and David Turner (2008) are reliable sources. Ignocrates (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources are the second problem, some are okay, some are old, George Howard (Hebraist) is in my view a fringe crackpot and pseudo-scholar, but this probably won't be apparent to most readers since for theories which are fringe by nature there will be few scholars wasting time explaining/presenting mainstream academic views. But the sources per se aren't the problem. The first problem with this reappeared is that Deadtotruth's edit history is, sorry but the case, virtually a SPA with a single agenda as a believer with promoting in Aramaic lost gospel theories - which means it's going to take several editors to sift and trim. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your statement of the problem, except your POV ("a fringe crackpot and pseudo-scholar") about George Howard. He is obviously a notable scholar. As for the rest, the whole point is to argue it out on the talk page, which you are now doing. Therefore, I'm stepping back and others can take it from here. Ignocrates (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignocrates, when I say "is in my view.." it is rather redundant for you to say "POV" because I have just said "is in my view, POV is when a non-expressed personal view goes into the article page. And yes he's notable, notable for having a theory concerning rabbinical translations of Matthew which all mainstream scholarship totally dismisses. Worth a mention, that's all. In any case the OR here isn't based on his work on medieval Hebrew translations from Latin. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I said POV because I don't like your habit of defaming people, as opposed to criticizing the merits of their works. Other than that, I don't care about the criticisms of Howard's C.V. Ignocrates (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignocrates, I have not mentioned anyone's CV. George Howard believes that a 1385 rabbinic translation from Latin contains bits of a lost Hebrew Gospel from 1350 years earlier. This is WP:FRINGE by en.wp definition of WP:FRINGE. Do you agree, yes or no? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What I personally think about George Howard and his published works is irrelevant. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", a concept you apparently fail to grasp, even though it has already been explained to you here. Ignocrates (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)



Here is the complete reference. What's on your mind, specifically? Please produce page numbers and quotations to back up your seemingly nebulous claims. Ignocrates (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have requested an opinion as to the notability of George Howard (Hebraist) as a scholar in the field of Hebrew Gospel studies at WP:Notability/Noticeboard. Ignocrates (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Relation to Gospel of the Hebrews
I’m assuming this is a different document to the Gospel of the Hebrews, is that correct? If so, this article, (and that one) would benefit from an {{other tag, and an explanatory sentence in the introduction, as it is confusing as it stands. Currently, the only clue to the difference is in the Theory section, which is a third of the way down the page. I've also noticed there is a looong discussion on the Hebrew Gospel page (currently a redirect); I've made a proposal there that might help. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You assume correctly. The GHeb is about an actual gospel, quoted by early Church Fathers, that is believed to have been composed in Greek in the first half of the 2nd century. I'm in the process of upgrading it for peer review, followed by GAN. I will make a distinction between the GHeb and this lost/hypothetical Hebrew gospel by linking to this article when I rewrite the lead. Let me know after its done if I need to make the difference even clearer. Beyond that, I have no interest in getting getting caught up in the <S>jihad</S> on this article or several previous deleted/suppressed versions. I thought I had fixed the many redirects to point here; however, I wasn't aware of an extinct Proto-Matthew article. It should redirect here also. Ignocrates (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, I looked at your proposal and I think its a great idea. It will eliminate a lot of confusion. Ignocrates (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Ignocrates, is "jihad" a personal attack on me for suggesting that the article contains WP:OR WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT problems? User:Moonraker, I'll take a look thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It reflects my weariness at witnessing the strife on this and related pages over the past three years. I don't want any part of it. That's all I meant. Ignocrates (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignocrates you can't have a jihad without jihadists, if you are making a group personal attack counter WP:NPA who are you calling jihadists? Obviously I'm one, who are the other editors you consider jihadists?
 * As for "strife", well the disruption caused by constant repasting of old deleted material, is the conflict between the self-published theories of Rev. David Bauscher, etc. and the entire weight of university New Testament scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are deliberately trying to provoke a confrontation, I advise you to consider the consequences before you go any further. Ignocrates (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You advise me to consider the consequences of asking you to strike "jihad" ? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I clearly did not use the word jihad in the context of referring you personally. Therefore, I have done nothing that requires an apology. If you disagree, feel free to make your case at ANI, and then I will make mine. Ignocrates (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA gives several steps before taking someone to ANI. I don't think you calling other editors edits a "jihad" is nearing that level. But is a concern that you feel you can throw around terms like "jihad" freely. Apart from anything else, I would imagine it is offensive to muslims. Anyway if you feel your use of the term is acceptable, so be it. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi In ictu oculi. Just a quick note to say that Moonraker12 is not me, although his sharp wits do suggest he is likely to be some kind of cousin of mine. Moonraker (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Though possibly not, since the invention of the bicycle (IIRC)! Moonraker12 (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

=The Hebrew Gospel Debate= The Hebrew Gospel debate is one of the most controversial of our time! Scholars are divided! Some believe that Matthew wrote an early Gospel in a Hebrew dialect that was the fountainhead for later gospels. Others believe this to be fringe scholarship that is untenable. The basis for the debate comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey b. 63 A.D). Blackwell (2010) p 301

{{quotation|Papias (b. 63 A.D.) Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus (logia) in a Hebrew dialect (en Hebraidi dialecto), and everyone  translated  (hermeneusen) them to the best of their ability. }}

Those who oppose Papias argue the existence of a Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew is on the "fringes of scholarship today." [http://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=+hypothesis+that+a+Hebrew+or+Aramaic+Matthew+tradition+has+been+detected+in+new+Gospel+fragments+continues+to+surface+on+the+fringes+of+scholarship+today. Perkins (2007) p 197] and that "critical studies" have shown that testmony of Papias "is untenable." Köster (2000) p 207

Critical studies showing Papias is untenable
By the mid 20 C many scholars took the position that the Hebrew Gospel never existed. There were two reasons for this.

If a Hebrew text was not translated into Greek, it did not exist
First, it has been shown that Canonical Gospel of Matthew is not a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. This makes it untenable that the Hebrew Gospel ever existed, for if it was never translated into Koine Greek, this is proof that it never existed. Walter Bauer (1934) goes on to explain Papias' should be understood as an attempt to defend the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew from being used improperly, since he considered heretics in Asia Minor were misusing it.

"Hebraidi dialecto" does not mean a "Hebrew dialect" but rather "Koine Greek"
Second Joseph Kurzinger argued that "Hebraidi dialecto" should not be translated as "Hebrew dialect" but rather as "Koine Greek".

He studied the Papias quote: "Matthew collected the oral teachings of Jesus (logia) in a Hebrew dialect (Hebraidi dialecto), and everyone translated  (hermeneusen) them to the best of their ability." On the surface it implies that Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew. However, upon closer study by Hebraidi dialecto, Papias meant that Matthew wrote in the "Semitic rhetorical style" rather than in the Hebrew language. Therefore if the comment refers to "style" not "language" the gospel could have been written in Greek. Thus Hebraidi dialecto does not mean "a Hebrew dialect" but rather "Koine Greek" proving there never was a Hebrew Gospel.

The New Scholarship
At the turn of the Century, scholars started to take a second look at Papias and many historians are now taking the position that his testimony preserved by Eusebius may "be fairly trustworthy." Blackwell (2010) p 301

Indeed, there has been some serious pushback to "Critical studies showing Papias is untenable." Scholars agree that the Gospel of Matthew was not a translation of the Hebrew Gospel. However, they argue that the Papias note never stated that the Hebrew Gospel was translated into the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Indeed, to say that 'Hebrew Matthew' could not exist because it was never translated into 'canonical Matthew' is a "spurious intellectual argument". The "translation issue" does not call into question the existence of the Hebrew gospel. The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that Hebrew and Aramaic texts did exist without ever having been translated into Koine Greek. Furthermore, the Dead sea Scrolls show Hebraidi dialecto, can refer to 'vocabulary', or 'vocabulary and style' but never should be translated as 'Koine Greek'. Some scholars have gone so far as to argue that the opposition to the Hebrew Gospel may have its roots in anti-Semitism. 

In any event as leading British historian Maurice Casey points out, there can be little doubt as to what Papias meant! "It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew" compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able. There is every reason to believe this. Casey 2010 p 86

Bart Ehrman and James Edwards now support Casey and argue that the Papias tradition "is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves." Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101  (ie the apostolic fountainhead) "It is in any case very early, within living memory of the apostolic age." [http://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22it+is+in+any+case+very+early%22&btnG=#hl=en&gs_rn=14&gs_ri=psy-ab&ds=bo&pq=fountainhead%20apostolic%20early%20%20%20papias's%20testimony%20matthew%20%20hebrew%20language%20%22papias%20testimony%20comes%20directly%20from%20the%20apostolic%20fountainhead.%20it%20is%20in%20any%20case%20very%20early%2C%20within%20living%20memory%20of%20the%20apostolic%20age.%22%22&cp=75&gs_id=e4&xhr=t&q=fountainhead+apostolic+early+++Papias's+Testimony+Matthew++Hebrew+language&es_nrs=true&pf=p&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&oq=fountainhead+apostolic+early+++Papias's+Testimony+Matthew++Hebrew+language+&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47008514,d.aWM&fp=a157245c328105c0&biw=1600&bih=737&bs=1 James R. Edwards, 2009. pp 2-3]

Indeed there can be no denying the striking and incontestable fact that the Apostle Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. Blackwell (2009) p 602 In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these two facts. Edwards (2009) p 259, p 102 & p 117.

To those cynical of excavations of imaginary strata in an imaginary source document, the external evidence looks like a rock in a weary land. "And indeed, if we go back to the door of that library at Harvard and listen closely, we can hear a few voices insisting that the breadth, consistency and unanimity of the external evidence ought to be taken seriously!" Our challenge is to write an article on this topic from a NPOV - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Outline 2014
I have reviewed ongoing debate and clearly there are some strong opinions. <S>Terms such as Jihad are not helpful.</S>

@In ictu oculi: I originally opposed this article but you have won me over.

@Ignocrates: I agree with your comments above. It is important not to provoke a confrontation. Thanks for the heads up that... Koester's 2000 book is the second edition of his original 1982 book, so his scholarly opinions are older than they appear. Futhermore we should not be clinging to these archaic conjectures from 100 years ago. In this article we should focus on the most up to date scholarship.

Stumbling block
During my leave of absence I took the time to review the ongoing debate re the Hebrew gospel hypothesis over the last ten years! Many of the problems arise from combining two distinct issues into one! This has been a key factor in the ongoing edit war.

Proposed Solution
Keep these issues separate.

Issue one - Matthew's Hebrew Gospel
Was Papias correct, when he said that Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus in a Hebrew dialect? Some scholars support Papias and believe Matthew believe composed the Hebrew Gospel while others do not. Straight forward!

Issue two - Was the Gospel of Matthew a Greek translation of Hebrew Gospel
Here there is confusion and the scholarship is all over the place. At Wikipedia tempers have flared and there have been many, many problems.
 * 1) The Catholic Church and many conservative scholars still maintain that the Gospel of Matthew is a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.
 * 2) Scholars from St. Jerome to Casey reject the above "translation position". They argue that "the discrepancies" make this unlikely. They support a Composite Scholarship that was in vogue during the Second Temple Period of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. This is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which has been translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew. It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (from Casey p 87) . . . It is important to note that these sources are NOT saying that "Matthew's collection sayings in a Hebrew dialect" and the Gospel of Matthew are the same work. Indeed there is clear evidence that "Matthew's Hebrew Gospel" was NOT translated into what we call the Gospel of Matthew. Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous and is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. (See Fountainhead)
 * 3) Then there are those like Parker and Edwards who believe the Hebrew Gospel was the basis for the Gospel of Luke.
 * 4) Still others believe it formed the basis of the Gospel of Thomas. Some fringe scholarship have gone so far as to link it to gospel of the Ebionites etc.

Solution
Restrict the scope of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis to the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. Scholars cannot even say for certain if the Hebrew Gospel even existed! To go beyond beyond Issue 1 into Issue 2 will lead us into turmoil.

My proposal is to have the first part of the article explain what the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis consists of and why some scholars support it. In the second part of the article we present the scholarship that raises concerns about the hypothesis and why some feel it is untenable.

We must focus on reliable sources and make sure the scholarship is presented from a NPOV - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We have already been round this many times. The "Authentic Matthew" content you have repeatedly returned to again and again over the last 4 years is WP:FRINGE. Please do not add it again, here or in other articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ret.Prof, I'm concerned that you frame issue #1 as "Was Papias correct, when he said that Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus in a Hebrew dialect?" when it's not clear that that's what he said. Going by (the present form of) the article, that might mean "the Hebrew style"). StAnselm (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't bring up my little tiff with as though it just happened. That was over 6 months ago and a dead issue. (I struck my comment as a courtesy.) It's way past time to move on. Ignocrates (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You all have valid points, however, right now I am trying to get away from Authentic Matthew and focus on the Oral Gospel tradition. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC) PS I struck out the offending comment above. Happy New Year

Mediation notice
A request for Formal Mediation will be filed today. Please see the talk page of User:PiCo Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This article should reference the existence of the Shem Tob (medieval) manuscript of Matthew in Hebrew
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem_Tob%27s_Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew#:~:text=Shem%20Tob's%20Hebrew%20Gospel%20of%20Matthew%20is%20the%20oldest%20extant,Tov%20ben%20Isaac%20ben%20Shaprut. 73.70.104.11 (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)