Talk:M source

Please lets deal with issues before deleting or redirecting articles
Listing the canon of Eusebius in an article about M or Matthew or the Gospel of the Hebrews is entirely inappropriate. It has very little to do with the article. It may be valid to put it into an article about canon, like Biblical Canon, but not about Matthew etc, because it is very little connected to it, or the M source. I could just as easily list "ancient books which the church of england thinks are quite good reading for monday afternoons". All the content you have is about Eusebius' canon, and totally unrelated to M or Matthew, or Hebrews, except that these are 1 of the items in the list. For example, I could quote from one of the works of Preisner (classical music composer) and list all the texts he thought appropriate, and shove the list, and comments about how music developed, into Revelation or Dies Irae. But that would be totally inappropriate behaviour, as is adding Eusebius' list to M-source, or Gospel of the Hebrews.

Why I deleted Mel's addition

 * Point 1: Eusebius was a Church Father, i.e. he (a) supported the mainstream christianity, (b) was increadibly biased against anyone which contrasted with it (c) not a reliable witness to historicity, only relevant as a secondary source, i.e. telling us more about Eusebius and his kind rather than the people he writes about. However since he is one of the few sources we have about this period in time, he is somewhat necessary, though MUST be taken with a pinch of salt.
 * Point 2:Whoever Eusebius is, he had nothing to say about the M-source, its a modern theory. He does mention the Gospel of the Hebrews, but only saying that there is one. M is the text NOT in Mark or Q that is in Matthew. Hebrews is thought by a few modern scholars, and by Eusebius, to have been somewhat of a prototype matthew. As such it contains Mark + Q + M, and therefore could never be just M, and thus not relevant here.
 * Point 3:We know of the early works because of Iranaeus, particularly in Contra Celsum, and because of Origen, who were much earlier than Eusebius.
 * Point 4:There are numerous texts which tell us what it is that existed, particularly the Gelasian Decree, we do not rely on Eusebius for this information.
 * Point 5:Listing the texts of Eusebius is somewhat pointless - at his stage in history, many church figures listed wildly different accounts of what was and wasn't heretical, e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas was originally canon and Revelations was not.
 * Point 6:Describing a heavily 1 sided and extremely opinionated account of how christianity began in 37AD, particularly when it is heavily disputed amongst scholars, is extremely POV and not how wikipedia operates.
 * Point 7:Claiming that in 62AD the Jews murdered St James is EXTREMELY anti-semitic, and offensive. And not backed up by any historical source whatsoever. It is also not held to be true by most academics.
 * Point 8:Higher criticism has not proven that Matthew was written originally in Greek. Many people think it was a gospel specifically directed at the Jewish community, and therefore highly likely (and definitely the most likely out of the 4 canonical gospels) to have been originally in hebrew.
 * Point 9:Jerome is totally unreliable in the matter of the "Gospel of the Hebrews". In fact, he confuses 3 texts that scholars regard as seperate, naming all three rather than just the one, as the "Gospel of the Hebrews".
 * Point 10:Speculation about why Mark is canon is not wikipedia practice. Speculation is original research and does not belong in Wikipedia.
 * Point 11:Mark originally ended at 16:9 before the resurrection - see Mark 16. I.e. it wasn't in the original, which is strange if it actually happened, given it's significance, don't you think.
 * Point 12:Koine greek is the common greek of the era. It is a bit like writing something in slang.
 * Point 13:The bible gateway text for the gospel of Matthew is NOT an external reference for M-source.
 * Point 14:None of this is the slightest bit relevant to M-Source.

Inaccurate and misleading article
The following statements, excerpted as quotations from the article, are complete hogwash: "most scholars accept the Four Document Hypothesis" (link to Streeter's 4DH); "M ... continues to be a widely accepted theory among biblical scholars". Within the last 20 years, virtually no one in the scholarly community agrees that M was a single written source document as postulated by Streeter, nor do most agree with Streeter's conception of a primitive proto-Luke (Q + L). M and p-Luke as Streeter conceived of them are effectively dead as hypothetical source documents. Ignocrates (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

FOUR Document Hypothesis
The FOUR document hypothesis talks only of three documents. The page for the FDH mentions four (Mark, Q, M & L), so it is curious that L is absent here. ntnon (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)