Talk:Gospel

Luke and John first written in Hebrew

I never heard that before, and I read many books of mainstream Bible scholarship. Sheer WP:FRINGE and sheer WP:OR (no WP:RS being WP:CITED for such astounding claim). Cannot pass WP:REDFLAG.

Morals: Littlewellknowfacts, either WP:CITE WP:RS or take your business elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Revert

@Gospel Romance: [1] by Curt Parton is not WP:RS. See also WP:RNPOV: Wikipedia isn't a website for WP:SOAPBOXING the news of the gospel.

Mainstream historians have no reason to believe that the words the NT gospels attribute to Jesus are verbatim quotes from his speeches.

Also, the consensus of the Church Fathers in Antiquity can by no means be translated into a consensus of modern historians.

Parton believes that the "four gospels" are "genuine", while modern Bible scholars regard the Gospel of John as historically highly dubious (that is, Jesus from the Gospel of John bears little resemblance to the historical Jesus). tgeorgescu (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Jesus from the Gospel of John bears little resemblance to the historical Jesus)" Why should we think than any of the depictions of Jesus in the gospels has any historical accuracy or plausibility? Dimadick (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, except that we aren't performing WP:OR, but we actually WP:CITE mainstream Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jundonbee: Your edit is both WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of "Fringe". The works cited on the page are more accurately called "fringe". 2000 years of church history and 100's of millions of believers opinions on the matter is not considered fringe. For beginners Wikipedia explicitly says that I can edit the "tone" of the articles. Which is what I attempted to do. Jundonbee (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You can certainly edit for tone but you also need to abide by mainstream contemporary scholarly consensus. Tradition is not of any value - generally speaking, eyewitness reports are unreliable, and subsequent reports of such eyewitness testimony even more so. Achar Sva (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

We render theology as theology and history as history. These are two very different academic fields. What it is true theologically could be completely false historically. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Matthew 1:18

There doesn't seem to be any credible scholars other than Ehrman who make the argument the passage in question was "altered." The γεννησις reading is used by the Church Fathers and many early manuscipts. I think this citation should either be removed or at least clarified to be Ehrman's opinion. Divus303 (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I have devoted all my attention so far to textual variants involving Jesus’ relationship to Joseph in Luke and John. Joseph is never called Jesus’ “father” or “parent” in Matthew’s Gospel, but given the circumstance that Matthew also records a birth story, one might expect to find some kinds of orthodox corruption here as well. We have already seen that the scribe of the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, apparently through carelessness, presents a potentially adoptionistic variation of Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1:16. It is striking that other witnesses supply different variations of precisely the same verse, and that these variations serve rather well to stress orthodox notions concerning Jesus’ birth. The text of most manuscripts reads “Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom (fern.) was born Jesus, who is called the Christ.” But several witnesses of the so-called Caesarean text read “Jacob begot Joseph, to whom being betrothed, a virgin Mary begot Jesus, who is called the Christ” (Θ f13 OL arm [syrc]). The Caesarean changes are patently orthodox: now the text explicitly calls Mary a “virgin” (Image) and it no longer calls Joseph her “husband” (Image) but her “betrothed” (ImageImage). These changes serve not only to keep the text in line with the rest of the story (esp. vv. 18–25), but also to eliminate the possibility of misconstrual. Mary was not yet living with a man as his wife, she was merely his betrothed; and she was still a virgin, even though pregnant.⁶⁹ It should be added that there is little reason to suppose the Caesarean reading to be original. Not only does it lack early and widespread support, it also fails to pass muster on the grounds of transcriptional probabilities. Given the story of verses 18-25, who would have wanted to change the perfectly innocuous Caesarean text of verse 16 into one that could be understood as problematic (by calling Joseph Mary’s Image and by eliminating the word “virgin”)?⁷⁰ This Caesarean reading is thus better explained as an early modification of the other, an orthodox corruption that serves to circumvent an adoptionistic construal of the text.⁷¹

46. See the discussions of Bruce M. Metzger, “The Text of Matthew 1:16”; id., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2–7; Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 61–64; and Alexander Globe, “Some Doctrinal Variants in Matthew 1 and Luke 2, and the Authority of the Neutral Text,” 63–66.

69. The term image of course, could simply mean “young woman” or “maiden.” But in the writings of the early church, especially when the term came to be applied to Jesus’ mother, it took on the modern connotations of the word “virgin,” designating, that is, a woman who had never engaged in sexual intercourse. See LPGL 1037–38.

70. In addition to the works cited in note 46 above (i.e., Metzger, Brown, and Globe), see the penetrating discussion of Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, 66–67, n. 34.

71. Other variants that function to protect the notion of the virgin birth in Matthew 1 modify passages that speak of Mary as Joseph’s wife (”wife” is changed to “betrothed” or “companion” in Syriac, Ethiopic, and Diatesseronic witnesses of Matt 1:20; it is changed to “Mary” or “her” in Syriac, Coptic, and Latin witnesses of Matt 1:24); so too descriptions of Joseph as Mary’s husband are modified in the Syriac traditions of Matthew 1:19. On these, compare Globe, “Some Doctrinal Variants.” Globe sees similar forces at work behind the changes of Matthew 1:18 (omit “before they came together”) and 1:25 (change “he did not know her until . . .”), only here, it is the orthodox desire to preserve the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity that is at work. The confluence of versional support (e.g., Syriac and Latin as independent traditions) demonstrates an early date for such modifications. A similar motivation may lay behind the omission of image from Luke 2:7 in manuscript W. Now Jesus is not called Mary’s firstborn son.

— Ehrman, loc. cit.

"Image" means there is an image I could not copy/paste.

My two cents: Ehrman is neither alone, nor bereft of evidence for making his claim. If you think otherwise, make a WP:V argument that Metzger, Brown, Globe, and Zahn do not support Ehrman. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Synoptic problem answers in the lede.

The lede states as fact that Mark was written first followed by Matthew and Luke, and that Matthew and Luke used mark along with the Q source, however, this is just one hypothesis that cannot be known for certain at this point. It also states that Luke and Matthew used sources unique to them, which verges on veering into the less accepted four source hypothesis. My edit clarifying this was reverted, but I think this is an important clarification. The lede can also state that the two source hypothesis is widely accepted, perhaps this is a good middle ground? Wasianpower (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

No, the lead does not state as fact that Mark was written first followed by Matthew and Luke etc; it states this as the most common hypothesis adopted by biblical scholars. Wikipedia's task is not to make arguments but to present the majority scholarly opinion. Yes, there are significant minority opinions, but this is a general overview article, and the more specific articles go into those details. You're referencing the lead, but the lead is a summary of the main section, which does make the kind of distinctions you're talking about. By all means make an edit to this effect if you think it's needed, but don't go into too much detail: I repeat, the lead is a summary of this article which is itself a summary.Achar Sva (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous NT gospels

See User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Robyn Faith Walsh

What's the relevance of Robyn Faith Walsh (2021), The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament? Being published by CUP does not establish its relevance; impact does. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Texts published highly regarded sources like CUP, OUP, or the like are generally inherently impactful. Unless you can find explicit reason to exclude that information, the current dissatisfaction with its inclusion seems to be one of dismay that it disagrees with some older academic writings. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

But to, answer your question, @Joshua Jonathan:

"Even if I am unpersuaded by some of Walsh’s arguments about authorship and book culture in Roman antiquity, these chapters make for stimulating reading. The book is highly provocative and should elicit spirited debate among New Testament scholars." "The origins of early Christian literature: contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman literary culture". Bryn Mawr Classical Review Review. September 11, 2021.

Other reviews are paywalled (such as this from Tilburg University and this from Klio). I really don't see an argument for exclusion here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Wanted to link this in my first message, but please read WP:RSUW for a good explanation of why a CUP-published text from 2021 (and one that has already enjoyed thoughtful review by academic journals) is almost certainly worth inclusion free of undue weight concerns. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No, sources published by CUP and the like are not "inherently impactful." Where's the "spirited debate"? Zero citations at Google Scholar, as far as I can see. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I do not see this standard being supported by UNDUE. The policy states Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. The text was published by a reliable source. Other scholars have reviewed the text and readily accepted that its positions are well within bounds and worthy of discussion. Looking at the other passages in the same section, there are two other CUP sources dating to 2002 and 1998. The spirited debate is already happening in the sources. I see no policy argument for exclusion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)