Talk:Gospel

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)

A standpoint held by one author is not a significant view. A review is not the same as debate of a viewpoint in a regular scholarly article, of which I see no evidence. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Your concerns seem be around the idea that it would be against WP:BALANCE to include Walsh. Per BALANCE: However, when reputable sources contradict one another and [bolding original] are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. Walsh is a regularly published author on the subject, with secondary source reviews that reliably describe the contrasting viewpoints. Altering the passage to reflect the critiques of Walsh's perspective would not only ensure we have the most recent, reliably sourced scholarship but that we also have substantive critiques of said perspective. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Note "relatively equal in prominence." When one author comes with an alternative to a broad consensus, and is not referenced in any other publication, then that author's view is not "relatively equal in prominence." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be rather convinced that this material is unsuited for inclusion on this article. However, what do you think of this edit to Oral gospel traditions? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

BURDEN means providing a policy-based rationale for inclusion, which I did. Despite policy indicating a strong basis for inclusion and opposition to inclusion being based on sourcing preexisting this reliable source publication, I have alternatively proposed the edit I made to another article as a temporary solution. Please feel welcome to respond to that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, see WP:ONUS Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I am very aware of this policy. Singular opposition (the other editor who removed this content not engaging in discussion) is not consensus. Per WP:NOCON: When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Since that material had stood for over a month, with several other editors actively working on the article in-between, that would mean restoring the passage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop pushing this undue pov; see also WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus, as I pointed out. If you want a consensus, get one. You could also look at the alternative solution I offered you. Also, let's not cast aspersions regarding POV-pushing, given I have provided reliable sourcing and policy-based points from the get-go. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." you're ignoring basic policies: we don't give undue weight to minority positions. Walsh's pov is such a minority pov; it's only endorsed by herself. That's a tiny grain of sand on a beach of scholarly consensus, not worth of mentioning. Maybe that changes when her ideas are being discussed by other scholars, that is endorsed or rejected with arguments; at the moment, that's not the case. And if you want Achar Sva's opinion again, you could ask them, imstead of implying that two days without editing means they have changed their opinion. We can also ask Tgeorgescu, if you like, another regular contributor. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Finally, a more extensive answer! Given that two separate editors favor inclusion, there's actually an even split at present. Also, ONUS gives way to NOCON, given that the material survived uncontested for so long. You have no consensus for the BOLD deletion of the passage. Don't accuse me ignoring policy when I've explained my policy basis for everything—that's uncivil. Please also see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, as it is unusual that you didn't ping the editor who originally included the material. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I have all sympathy for Walsh's POV, but if Achar Sva says it's a one man show, he is right in 95% of the cases. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

One month is not a long time; and you still haven't established the significance of this pov. There are so many publicayions in this field, that just being published is not enough to establish the relevance of a single publication. The book is an adaptation of a PhD-thesis; Robyn Faith Walsh is a beginning scholar. Her view may be relevant, but then, it needs more than just one publication~which has not been referenced by any other author. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Robyn Faith Walsh #2

I first heard of Robyn Faith Walsh on Reddit earlier in the year. From what it looked like, most serious scholars appear to take her work seriously (Including Bart Ehrman). The multiple reviews written means that it meets WP:BKCRIT and WP:NB. I was stunned to find that no mention of her work appeared on Wikipedia when I last checked despite her being so prolific these past couple years. Heck, the book itself doesn't even have an article. There is no question in my mind that this book is not a WP:FRINGE take. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I would take this to WP:FTN just to be safe. I have no reason to defend her views. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

That the book meets the standards for a notable book does not mean it should also be included in an overview-article; see WP:ONUS. Apart from reviews, there is not a single reference to it in scholarly publicatiins. And "Ehrman appears" is useless here; where does he do that? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This is what I was referring to. It is at around the 18:00 mark. It does appear that the person interviewing him might not be a reliable source of information though. If the book legitimately does not appear in any other scholarly publications, I stand corrected. I just find it hard to believe that such a popular book among intellectuals wouldn't even have a rebuttal published. Scorpions1325 (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman, Remembering Columbus, remembering Christ, may 7, 2023: "I’m not convinced at all — but it’s a terrific book and she’s a fine scholar. (I think it’s very hard to think of the Gospel authors as writing for elites, but I’m open to the idea)." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Lol. I guess I do stand corrected. I don't know how I didn't find that myself. I guess I don't have anything more to contribute to this discussion as my knowledge of mainstream bible scholarship is pretty spotty. Scorpions1325 (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Writing an article about the book may be a good idea anyway, given the attention it has received. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I can take up that task. I already have a dozen tabs on the book open so I probably can manage it the best from the start. Once I have it up and running, I'll tag you two on its talk. Thanks ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Review by Matthias Becker:

• "Die These, es habe im 1. Jahrhundert zwar „Jesus people“ (133), aber keine kohäsiven christlichen Gruppen gegeben, ist haltlos"
• "W. ist darin zuzustimmen, dass die Exegese sich selbst viel zu lange durch Textfragmentierung und Spekulationen über Schichten, Überlieferungs(vor)stufen und Gemeindebildungen den Blick auf die Literarizität der Evv. verstellt hat. Selten hat ein Buch mit einer solchen Vehemenz dazu aufgerufen, die Evv. als kunstvolle Literatur und die Evangelisten als literarisch gebildete Schriftsteller im Kontext der griechisch-römischen Kultur ernst zu nehmen."

In English:

• the idea that, in the 1st century, there were Jesus-people, but no cohesive Chtistian groups, is untenable;
• Walsh has a point that the text-cr itical analysis has lost sight of the literary value of the gospels. She makes a worthfull call to view the gospels as artfully crafted literature, and to see them in the context of Greek-Roman culture.

That, in a nutshell, may be the scholarly view: she's a serious scholar, not a fringe-author; her view on the origins of the gospels is untenable; but viewing the gospels as art, and contextualizing them in Greek-Roman art, is a good idea. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Sorry for not responding more thoroughly the last couple days–I happily had family in town. In any case, I thought I should mention that I have found some fairly substantive references to the Walsh text in recent academic literature outside of reviews. Citations found using CUP's own website and accessed mostly through the Wikipedia Library:

• Trax, Kenneth (January 2023). "Happy Reading: Textual Self-Consciousness and Human Flourishing in the Macarisms of Lk 11.28, Gos. Thom. 79.2, and Rev. 1.3". Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 45 (3). Cites Walsh's book to claim "we should not posit discrete reading communities centered on different Christian documents".
• Eberhart, Zechariah Preston (August 2023). "Shifting Gears or Splitting Hairs? Performance Criticism's Object of Study". Religion. Uses Walsh's book as an example of modern alternative scholarship supporting elite authorship of the Gospels (comes with the baggage associated with all MDPI literature).
• Hansen, Christopher M. (2022). "Re-examining the Pre-Christian Jesus". Journal of Early Christian History. 12. Cites Walsh to demonstrate that some modern scholarship now finds a greater number of syncretic elements in early Christian writings, lending added credence to those in the mythological Jesus camp. Hansen stops short of directly claiming that Walsh argues the mythological Jesus thesis. (My reading of Walsh, even after reading the glowing review by the noted FRINGE Carrier, is that Walsh is not making a definitive statement on this.)

There is no doubt in my mind that Walsh's theories are kinda "out there", so to speak, but they're being discussed and are repeatedly referenced to reflect an existing strand of modern scholarship. I feel like these references (and the other four that I found but didn't have time to read) provide a strong basis towards inclusion of the Walsh material with appropriate inline attribution. I apologize if pinging you repeatedly is annoying. I don't know if you're watching this, but let me know if that's the case. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging is okay, and obviously Google Scholar needs an update on it's algorhytms; outstanding job you've done, in the best of the Wiki-spirit! Eberhart seems most relevant, with your comment "an example of modern alternative scholarship supporting elite authorship of the gospels." There are other instances of such scholarship? Otherwise, it would still be a single voice against a long-standing consensus; any mention of Walsh would easily give her thesis too much weight. Marc Goodacre's comment should be a warning-sign: "The Origins of Early Christian Literature turns a century of New Testament scholarship on its head." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Excellent! I'll get back to you Soon™ on the particular phrasing we could use for this article. I have some really, really long hours coming up, but some of them will be "hurrying up and waiting" and I may get a chance to do some real editing work. I'm almost done with the draft for the book article, which can be found here. Just fleshing out the critical reception section and will add a fair-use image of the cover. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Checking Eberhart; they mention Walsh in a note; that's not exactly 'establishing notewothiness'... Eberhart writes:

More recently, however, the notion that the gospel authors are writing for a “more common” audience has been challenged. For an argument in favor of the Gospels as products by and for the literary for elite, see Walsh (2020).

Just a mentio, not an argument pro or contra. But, also, feeding curiosity on Walsh thesis: the gospels are not only written by an elite (makes sense), but also for an elite. Looking forward to your article. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)