Talk:Authentic Matthew

This article was nominated for deletion on July 13, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep (no consensus).

NOTE: Ril placed 3 Vfd against Authentic Matthew all of which failed. One of them got Ril blocked.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Dmcdevit·t 07:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well... I was going to close it myself, but it's cool. Concur with vote results. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To understand the admin action one must look beyond the votes to what is actually happening with Ril and others.The result was the right.

Melissa and I abstained from the vote on Authentic Matthew by Acjelen but now would vote to keep his article in the spirit of good will.--Poorman 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finding an agreed solution

I am seeking to find an agreed solution to this article. The last VfD had a delete majority, but narrowly no consensus to delete. That must stand. However, according to precedent that still leaves merge, move or redirect as legitimate options. I am thus canvassing the views of interested editors.

Please note. Much of the original material has already been merged elsewhere. Origins of Matthew's gospel are discussed under Gospel of Matthew and Synoptic problem. Gospel of the Hebrews has its own article. No New Testament commentary or Bible Dictionary, to my knowledge, refers to a document called 'authentic Matthew'. The name is POV. For further arguments see above discussion.--Doc (?) 21:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Options (one user, one vote SVP):

1) Keep this article (however cleaned-up) here.

Those in favour:

I think it is time to work together. Authentic Matthew by ed. Acjelen is a good place to begin. Option 2 would violate the Vfd Keep and land us back in trouble. Merge and redirect failed to get much Vfd support. --Poorman 23:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The VFD result was 21 votes:DELETE, 4 votes:MERGE, 11 votes:KEEP. Respecting the VFD result requires that we delete the article. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With respect this is not true. (Arn't you blocked??)--Poorman 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the VfD vote should be respected. Yet, Doc did have some good points. Let us work together in good faith. Authentic Matthew by Acjelen is a fair treatment of the subject. R.E. Brown, 1997 Introduction to the New Testament N.Y. Doubleday studies both sides to the debate. We cannot solve this dispute but we can write an article worthy of Wikipedia --Melissadolbeer 05:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User has already voted - Poorman is a sockpuppet of Melissadolbeer (check contribs history, and this edit where Poorman signs as Melissa) ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This issued was explained long ago. Melissa and I are husband and wife who sometimes work together. Let us show one another good will and work together --Poorman 23:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please let me know the page numbers in R. E. Brown so I can look them up. --Peter Kirby 08:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Good point! R.E. Brown, 1997 Introduction to the New Testament N.Y. Doubleday studies both sides to the debate. On pages 208 to 210 he explains that the majority of Biblical scholars agree that Canonical Matthew was not written by Matthew but is a much later composition written in Greek.

Brown makes three observations that point to an origional Hebrew Gospel of Matthew:

1) In antiquity there was a Hebrew Gospel used by Jewish Christians. Jerome and others believed it to be the Semetic origional.

2) Although contested, some scholars firmly believe in Matthaei authenticum (see G.E. Howard 1987 The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text GA:Mercer)

3) Still other scholars say they can reconstruct Matthaei authenticum

Yet Brown points out problems with Matthaei authenticum and ends by saying, whether some where in the history of Matthew's sources, one of the twelve [Matthew]played a role we cannot know. However it would not be prudent for scholarship, 1900 years later, to facilely dismiss as complete fiction or ignorance the affirmation of those ancient spokemen of long ago.

Question: Would this be a good ending to Authentic Matthew by Acjelen? --Poorman 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The VfD was "no consensus" and considered deletion rather than the proposal of merging. --Peter Kirby 08:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above.--Poorman 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2) Redirect this article to Gospel of Matthew - but leaving permission for someone to create an article on 'the sources of Matthew's Gospel' if they wish and change the redirect.

Those in favour

--Doc (?) 21:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3) Merge this article to Gospel of the Hebrews - see below.

Please discuss before voting.

Other options

Authentic Matthew

Jerome, in his Commentary on Matthew writes "In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew, the man . . ."

It has been pointed out to me that this is a poor translation. More recent publications read as follows: "In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Original Gospel of Matthew, the man . . ."

I am willing to concede the point. --Melissadolbeer 06:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet Ghpbermuda already created an article at The Original Gospel of Matthew, which was a copy and paste of Melissadolbeer's version of the article. That was VFD'd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew with the result of Overwhelming delete. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense from Ril a blocked user. Ril you seem angry! Both Melissa and I repent of any way we have wronged you. Let us work together in good faith! --Poorman 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthaei Authenticum = Evangelium quod Hebraeorum, n'est ce pas?

That is, the text that Jerome says many consider to be the original one of Matthew is the same as the "Gospel of the Hebrews," is it not?

I found the Latin text. "In evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraeni et Ebionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum, homo iste qui aridam habet manum caementarius scribitur istius modi vocibus auxilium precans: Caementarius eram, manibus victum quaeritans. precor te, Iesu, ut mihi restituas sanitatem, ne turpiter mendicem cibos." Translation: "In the gospel which the Nazoraeans and Ebionites use, which we recently translated from Hebrew speech into Greek, and which is called by many the authentic [gospel] of Matthew, this man who has the dry hand is written to be a mason, praying for help with words of this kind: I was a mason, seeking a livelihood with my hands. I pray, Jesus, that you restore health to me, lest I disgracefully beg food." I do not believe that Matthaei authenticum is presented as a title but rather as an assertion, i.e., that Jerome reports that many people believe this to the original text written by Matthew. This text is commonly known by scholars as the "Gospel of the Hebrews" (evangelium quod Hebraeorum in Jerome, On Isaiah, preface to book 18 and Jerome, on Isaiah 4, commentary on Isaiah 11:2; Hebraico evangelio secundum Matthaeum in Jerome, commentary on Psalm 135; evangelio quod iuxta Hebraeos scriptum in On Isaiah 11, commentary on Isaiah 40:9; evangelio quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos in On Matthew 1, commentary on Matthew 6:11; Evangelium quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos in On Famous Men 2). My first preference is to merge this page with Gospel of the Hebrews, since Gospel of the Hebrews is the term used in English-language scholarship. Thoughts? --Peter Kirby 07:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It was already merged before even being put up for VFD the first time. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not merged now. Do you that agree it should be? --Peter Kirby 10:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to go with Peter on this (NB -Ril- is banned from editing Wikipedia at ths time, and so his comments should be ignored). --Doc (?) 11:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Peter. As you probably know Epiphanius, who was born about 300 C.E. and was Bishop of Salamis, published the following in the Panarion: They have the Gospel of Matthew complete in Hebrew, for this gospel was preserved among them as it was first written in Hebrew script. . .They too accept the Gospel of Matthew, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script.

If he is right, then there is only one Hebrew Gospel and that would mean Authentic Matthew is the Gospel of the Hebrews. Care to comment Peter. You can probably see where I am going.--Poorman 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not sure where you are going. Please let me know where you are going with this. --Peter Kirby 05:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second Issue

In the meantime, whatever happens to the article, there are currently two versions, which of them is more suitable

Version 1 - Melissadolbeer

Version 2 - After Version 1 has been somewhat culled by Acjelen I respectfully disagree. It was an attempt to find common ground by removing the contest sections. It was also the Authentic Matthew that survived the Vfd...Cleaned, NPOVed, and Wikified!

Version 3 - Wikified, cleaned up, and NPOVed versionEven Melissa and I would have to vote against it. In good faith, is this little more than a straw man?

If the article survives, then one of these needs to be chosen. Likewise one needs to be chosen in the meantime during discussion of more permanent issues.

Version 1 (Melissadolbeer - Original)

Version 2 (Acjelen - Original after culling) I respectfully disagree. It was an attempt to find common ground by removing the contest sections. It was also the Authentic Matthew that survived the Vfd...Cleaned, NPOVed, and Wikified!

Version 3 (Cleaned, NPOVed, and Wikified)This is little more than a stub. Even Melissa and I would have to vote against it. In good faith, is this little more than a straw man?

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Can the refs be supplied?

I want to echo Peter Kirby's request. Let's do something constructive. What do Brown, Streeter and Porter actualy say? Do these sources check out? Can we have page refs, so that those with access to the literature can verify or otherwise? If these secondary refs can't been defended, then they must be deleted, and this article is in real trouble. --Doc (?) 23:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wayyyyy ahead of you! I've found an Amazon Search Inside for the one, and some more info for the others. I've also added a "critique of" book which will no doubt be worth checking out as it will challenge that other writer's facts. So you can check the one book right away. I couldn't find "The Gospel Before Mark" on Amazon, and that strikes me as very suspicious as they list a million fragillion rare and out-of-print books, even ones without ISBNs. I'll have a look around some other places for it later, but I'm wondering if the name is either wrong or, heaven forbid, it's fake. Garrett^Talk 00:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Garrett, this is useful, but you are slightly missing my point. That these books exist, I don't doubt. In fact, I've read both Streeter and Brown in the past. My question is, what do they actualy say about Jerome and 'Authentic Matthew'? Do they metion it at all? Do they back up all the assertions of this article? This is one of the weaknesses of WP - you can chuck a lot of refs to books at the bottom of things - and it is unlikely anyone will ever check that they actually back up the article. These are not books on 'Authentic Matthew' not even on 'real canonical' Matthew, so if they say anything it will be an aside. We need chapter and verse - and we need someone to get down to a university library and confirm it. --Doc (?) 01:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to the library tomorrow and can check both Brown and Streeter. Pierson Parker's The Gospel before Mark exists and was published in 1953 by the University of Chicago Press, but no library I currently have access to has a copy. I read through Birth of the Messiah in its entirety only a few months ago, and it certainly does not agree with the ideas advanced by this article. Brown might have something to say about Jerome's authentic Matthew theory. Ideally it would be good to know exactly what parts of this article are based on which books, and specific page references would also be helpful. - SimonP 01:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

No I saw the point, but my solution is the best I can do without travelling out to Massey and reading the books myself (no time). With the Search Inside you can probably find that info right now, but unfortunately it's only the one book. :( Garrett^Talk 01:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]