Talk:Authentic Matthew

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

Please note, that this page contained long discussion not related to 'Authentic Matthew', but rather to accusation of sockpuppeteering. Much of the material was 'cut and pastes' from elsewhere, and all regarding personalities and not substance. I have removed this material, to allow readers to clearly see the substantive debate. The material is still available in the edit history, from where my actions may be scrutinised. (To see the page, prior to my cleanup look here [1]) --Doc (?) 14:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-a compromise?

I recognise that there was no consensus to delete this article – and that it is unlikely to change. I did warn –Ril- [2] that his involvement in the second re-listing was likely to be counterproductive - but getting this article right is more important than personalities.

I am firmly of the opinion that no article should exist by this name. Commentaries on Matthew do discuss various theories of its origins - and even reference Jerome (in passing, and invariably to reject), but there is no discussion of a hypothesis of an actual early document called 'Authentic Matthew'. I have checked some specialist academic dictionaries, and cannot find this even cited in an index. The original article took all sorts of (disputed) asides from the Church Fathers, added them to several unrelated scholarly theories about synoptic origins – to produce what is a piece of original research. Notable proto-Matthean theories can be, and are, discussed under Gospel of Matthew or Synoptic problem. But links from here to other Biblical studies articles, are worryingly giving the impression of a prominent scholarly theory that simply does not exist.

Looking at the last vote Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew 21d , 12k, 4m – I note that 4 of the ‘keep votes’ expressed a desire for a renaming. So that would indicate a 29-8 feeling, not for deletion but, that it was undesirable to have this article at this name. Is there room for an acceptable compromise? I’d like to move it to Possible origins of Matthew’s Gospel and place it the context of the real scholarly debate on Matthew. There would some overlap with both the Gospel of Matthew and Synoptic problem – but that I for one could live with. I could just ‘be bold’ and do this, but it is likely to be reverted, and I’m likely to get abuse, – so I’m looking for some agreement that this has a consensus – preferably from some of those who didn’t vote ‘delete’. Any comments? --Doc (?) 17:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the very, very least this article needs to be renamed to get rid of the highly POV name. DreamGuy 20:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned when voting "keep" on the second VfD, I think a renaming might indeed be in order. "Possible" origins seems unnecesary, though. The document exists so we know it had some origin or other. Perhaps we could call the article simply "Origins of Matthew's Gospel" and begin it with something along the lines of "There are different theories about the origins of Matthew's Gospel." At any rate, I'm not knowledgeable enough about this subject to add anything more, so I'm wishing the rest of you the best of luck and dewatchlisting the page. JamesMLane 21:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest renaming this to Hebrew Matthew or Hebrew version of Matthew. The most common name for these ideas is Gospel of the Hebrews, and that article contains a fair amount on this subject. However Gospel of the Hebrews is also a name given to other texts, so having a separate page might be useful. Aramaic primacy is also closely related, though it again covers a much broader subject. We could also turn this into a general article on Pre-Matthean material, but this would cover far more than the current one, and this subject is probably best covered in the Gospel of Matthew article itself. - SimonP 00:35, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

What about something along the lines of Origins of the gospels? I admit that I'm borrowing the language/ideas Helmut Koester might use. -- llywrch 02:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bit vauge - but I'll go for anything but the current title --Doc (?) 02:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thant there was ever a Hebrew language verion of Matthew is a theory very few scholars embrace. Whilst the debate merits mention on WP, I doubt it alone merits a full article. Even this article (as bad as it is) is working with an Aramaic thesis. I agree that the various pre-matthean material hypotheses would best be covered in the Gospel article (although they are perhaps a little technical for a general browser there) - but I was trying to find a solution for this article. It is being linked into others as if the existence of something called 'Authentic Matthew' was a given, or a notable concept - which it simply is not. --Doc (?) 00:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the vote tallies. There should only have been 11 to keep, since #12, quote "very good" end quote, was the user's 8th edit. On the other hand, in addition to the 21 deletes, one person who voted to merge suggested that a delete was also appropriate. Davilla 11:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is understood or not, that was the conclusion of the closing admin (on the second nomination). I don't want to brown nose the admins - but I think we need simply to accept it and look to see for what there is a consensus. This article is not going to be deleted - pity, but there we have it :{ --Doc (?) 23:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I'd like to point out that this was the second nomination only because the first vote was flawed. I had supported the revote, if you'll notice, because a clear decision doesn't give either side excuses to whine.

When I say that I don't understand the vote, you're correct to assume that I don't agree with it, of course, but more literally, being new to Wikipedia, I don't understand it. If it's supposed to be subjective, then do comments like "seems to be legit" carry as much weight? If not subjective, I was particularly worried that my vote wouldn't be counted although I had invested some time in arriving at a conclusion. And does this three-way split with merge votes ever accomplish anything?

That the vote isn't supposed to be transparent wasn't the answer I was expecting, but it does do a pretty good job of explaining why I don't understand it. And if you are correct, then that's about the best explanation I could hope to have.

I'm not as knowledgable on this stuff as you (and others here... nor are they as you). Work with the man and see what you can do with the title, at least.Davilla 06:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you rejected the Acjelen compromise! --Mikefar 09:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acjelen's version was not a compromise. Acjelen didn't like the article any more than anyone else: if you note, Acjelen deleted most of the article. Acjelen's version is not NPOV or factually accurate, but is more NPOV than previous versions. Mikefar is a sockpuppet of Melissadolbeer. --Ron. 11:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

redirect and protect?

WARNING: This is illegal! VfD result was 'Keep' not merge and redirect --Mikefar 09:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD result was

- 21 votes:DELETE
- 4 votes:MERGE
- 11 votes:KEEP

This is a clear "delete/merge" consensus. The closing admin declared that there was "no consensus" not that the result was "keep". Mikefar is a sockpuppet of Melissadolbeer. --Ron. 11:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the content seems to have all been merged I think the best way to get rid of this issue is to merge it again, possibly even protecting the page to force those wanting unredirection to give their rationale for doing so. What are your thoughts on this? I'm tempted to be bold, but I might as well get some sort of agreement first.

If no-one replies to this comment in a couple of days or so, I'm going to go ahead. So speak now or forever hold your peace. :) Garrett^Talk 01:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd find that acceptable. But where would we point the re-direct? I'd suggest to Gospel of Matthew - certainly not to Gospel of the Hebrews as the identification of that with something called 'Authentic Matthew' is POV --Doc (?) 01:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 08:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DreamGuy 19:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Garrett^Talk 23:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would redirect to Aramaic primacy in order to give the reader an understanding of the controversy. --goethean ॐ 15:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest a modified approach here. The Gospel of Matthew article (which is the most important one) currently is filled with a very disproportionate section '#Lost Aramaic ("Hebrew") versions of Matthew' - which is of very minor interest, and may well have been caused by earlier merges from here. I'd like to split that section off into an Origins of the cannonical Gospel of Matthew - we can then redirect 'Authentic Matthew there' and at least keep all the idiotic theories in one place, and away from the mainstream article. I'm willing to do this (and rewrite) if other agree, and defend me against any 'sock attacks' --Doc (?) 17:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just be sure to spell canonical correctly. :D --goethean ॐ 17:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (feeling foolish} :-o --Doc (?) 17:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to re-merge Origins of the cannonical Gospel of Matthew back to Gospel of Matthew ? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could do, but you'd end up with a lot of fairly specialist and complicated stuff in what should be a fairly general overview of the gospel, its contents, origins, socio-historical backgound and significance. I think you'd also end up with a POV war in a fairly important article. I'd like to do some work on Matthew - but I don't want bogged down with all that - especially if our POV warriors return. --Doc (?) 21:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However The Original Gospel of Matthew is less POV than Authentic Matthew. How do you feel about it Doc?

Melissadolbeer is at it again!!!! The POV that composed this article has been re-created at a new one - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did Jerome actually use the words "authentic Matthew"?

I don't think the term "Authentic Matthew" should be used unless the supposed citation from Jerome in which he gives it that term can be produced, in which case I think said quote should be given verbatim. Anyone have access to the Latin of the Commentary on Matthew?

Can I propose an idea? If we are discussing a Hebrew/Aramaic text of Matthew, then we have to drive the article from the statement of Papias, because it is the only unequivocal reference to such a thing (even though it is not clear what the relation of the text he describes is to the Greek Matthew). Then we link to separate pages on the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazoreans, and Gospel of the Ebionites which then contain the patristic citations we have for each title?

In order, lose the opinion stuff altogether and hunker down behind a "the ancient texts say this, this and this -- there are disagreements as to what this implies."

We could then extend the last part by specifying the various differing analyses of the data, using quotation and reference. If anyone knows what the current consensus of scholars is, of course we don't just have an assertion, but rather a verbatim and referenced citation by a current scholar (who holds a teaching post specialising in the subject) stating "the current consensus is..." (whatever it is).

Just a suggestion. I didn't think it contains wild and obvious falsehoods as it stands.

Roger Pearse 22:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, I don't think any scholar is discussing something called 'authentic Matthew' either to support or deny its existence. The existence of an Aramaic original to Matthew is discussed (mainly discounted). The hypothetical 'M source' is discussed, but no-one is calling this 'authenic Matthew'. Scholars were being cited in the original POV verson of this article - but not for the theory itself - only for the component parts (weaved together in original research). Problem is, having NPOV'd this article - and removed the OR, there is simply nothing here to discuss, that is not discussed somewhere else (Synoptic problem or Gospel of Matthew). However a bunch of (pretty uninformed) votes, prevented deletion. --Doc (?) 22:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,Jerome did actually use the words "authentic Matthew" --Mikefar 09:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Jerome didn't. For a start, Jerome wrote in Greek/Latin. P.s. Mikefar is a sockpuppet of Melissadolbeer. --Ron. 11:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Historiographical issue

No matter what, this topic has a long and interesting historiographical tradition. I ran across the term while reading a scholarly text and came to Wikipedia to learn more about it. Redirecting the article is akin to deleteing it. Is Wikipedia not able to discuss this like adults? See Dark Ages or Feudalism for how one deals with controversial topics in a NPOV manner. At the very least, this article should discuss the terms usage and provide some historiographical backgraound and context. Is that not possible? Stbalbach 14:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, if the term (as opposed to other discusions of a proto-Matthew which are discussed elsewhere) can be shown to have had any usage other than of Jerome. You mention 'a scholarly text', what was it? (Also it has not been deleted - but merged elsewhere with all Original research removed) --Doc (?) 14:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of the Middle Ages, the article on Anglo-Saxon literature (see the References section for a cite). If the content has been merged than that works, either way, so long as there is dicussion of it somewhere. Stbalbach 17:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in Anglo-Saxon literature was added by yourself [3]. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found the reference to it in the Dictionary of the Middle Ages. It's cited in the Refereces section. Stbalbach 22:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such reference in the Dictionary of the Middle Ages article, nor is any of the cited references in the References section describing anything more specific that Anglo-Saxon literature. Indeed, they don't even use the word "authentic" once. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I own a complete set of the Dictionary of the Middle Ages. The Dictionary article calls it the "Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew". I assumed that was some kind of non-authoritative version and so pointed it here, but could be mistaken. Stbalbach 01:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew is something else entirely. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for some reason I missed that in the search, not sure how that happened, sorry for the confusion. Stbalbach 14:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Well, that explains it - what you have is a reference to a medieval apocryphal gospel - your dictionary is labeling as a 'pseudo' not an 'more authentic' gospel. This really has nothing to do with the debates over the ancient origins of Matthew. --Doc (?) 08:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew is a quite distinct work and is not something that could be considered an original "authentic gospel of Matthew" but something else entirely. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -Ril-, I couldn't exactly place it, that settles it, and (I think) ends this debate. --Doc (?) 09:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful, I'll follow that up in the library, I'm intrigued. --Doc (?) 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC) I'm not interested in WP cites - many have been corrupted on this issue by POV pushing of OR. I'm trying to verify any mention of 'Authentic Matthew' in significant secondary literature (so far without success). I'll try to follow up the Dictionary cite next week --Doc (?) 22:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now I get it, only I don't. If there is a 'translation' of Authentic Matthew in Old English then it is obviously spurious, and has nothing to do either with patristic debates or modern scholarship on Matthew's origins. Medieval apocryphal gospels are quite common - but Biblical scholars would not even bother to debate whether they shed light on First Century texts. It is possible that some Anglo-Saxon writer has picked up on Jerome’s remarks and done some invention - but I'd like to see some scholarship making that connection before I would want it mentioned in Wikipedia. I’m not even that clear what Jerome actually said (as opposed to how he’s being translated here). Anyway, the university library beckons in the next weeks or so. --Doc (?) 22:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The book he is on about is the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew it isn't this alleged "Authentic Matthew" - its something completely different. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

All this blanking, recreating, reblanking, recreating, has to stop. The VfDs ended in no consensus, so the article is kept. Unilateral decisions to remove it anyway aren't acceptable. Sort things out here, please — and would editors try to remain calm and composed, and civil in doing so? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is unilateral here??. The 'keep no consensus' debate had many keep voters who were suggesting 'merge' (and everything had been merged) or 'rename' - i.e. were unhappy with an article here by this name. Further, if you check above, you will see a fairly extensive ('calm and composed') debate, in the wake of the vote (and -Ril-'s stupidity), and over a number of days, concerning the possibility of a redirect. A number of people contributed with different ideas - but all were in favour of a redirection - and not one for keeping the article as it stood. My action was not unilateral, nor hasty - quite the reverse.

I might add, your protection is highly questionable. There is no revert war here. I redirected two weeks ago - and no-one has challenged it. Now one editor, has unilateraly reverted it - without any discussion or seeking any concensus - and you have protected that position, when no-one was yet reverting it. Please explain who is not calm or composed here? --Doc (?) 10:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking above, I see accusations of 3RR violations, insults, recriminations — but no calm or composed discussion; nor do I see anything that clearly indicates consensus. Moreover, the last four edits to the article have been: blank & redirect; recreate; blank & redirect; recreate.

I should add that I don't take User:Doc glasgow to have acted in bad faith or maliciously; I just think that it was a mistake. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Please note, Mel's comments here were made after the discussion on redirection (above) had been, presumably accidentally, deleted by User:Melissadolbeer. I have now reinstated that discussion --Doc (?) 11:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

All of the above disputes have involved either -Ril- (who, fortunately, isn't likely to cause trouble right now) or the 'creator'. The last four edits were 1) a redirect (two weeks ago) 2-4) a revert, which the editor immediatly undid himself. 4) Another (unilateral) revert by one party. So, who or what exactly is the article 'protected' against? What abuse is happening or likely to happen? Mel Etitis wants things to 'calm down', but they have been calm for three weeks now - I see no recent agro until today - and that is all accusations from one party. Mel reads the consensus differently from me, OK, so let's calmly discuss it. But it seems to me that this protection is unneccessarily privilaging that same party's position. --Doc (?) 10:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reinstating the discussion; I should have checked, but it didn't occur to me that the page would have been, well, let's say "archived without an archive". The protection, of course, always has to fix one version, so one side is always advantaged (note the wording of the notice, though).

The consensus above, at a quick glance, seems to have been for the creation of Origins of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, with a redirect of this article to that one; I see from the red link that that wasn't done — is there a differently named article of the same type? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I myself was the one suggesting that, but it was going to be a deal of work, and I didn't want to do it - just to get into a dispute with one individual's strong opinion. The redirect was an immediate fix - and could be undone if I, or someone else, had the time to create such an article later. I was not the only one suggesting it. --Doc (?) 14:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My worry is that the quick fix would end up just pushing the issue into an ignorable limbo. Your suggestion was, I think, an excellent one; a start could be made by moving this article to that title, and beginning to edit it in accordance with its new name. As there seems to have been agreement to the basic idea, I'll do that (and unprotect) if no-one objects in the next twenty-four hours. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion was not that this article be moved to Origins of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, but that the existing origins material be split from Gospel of Matthew and expanded to a new article (and that's quite a bit of work)- and then that this article could be a redirect to it. But of course there are other solutions possible.

Mel, I'm finding your attitude here hard to fathom - and your actions somewhat irregular. Why did you, and why are you still protecting this page and now enforcing a solution? <s\> There was a discussion, at the end of which I took action. (And VfD 'no-consensus' results do not preclude redirects or merges.) I admit my action was not incontestable. But then anyone could have objected, or reverted it (even you) – and fair enough. But in fact no-one did – the others in the debate seemed content. Today Melissadolbeer not only undid the revert, but took the article back to a version that most people agreed was both POV and factually incorrect, and did so with no attempt at discussion or to see if her action would commend any support at all. At the same time she removed the critical discussion, on which I had based my action - and made a host of insulting and irrational accusations about a '-Ril- group' (as if!) both here and elsewhere. On her appeal for assistance, you used your admin position to protected her unilateral action - when there was no live 'edit war', or even discussion. Despite my request, that has remained the case. I'm really not sure why you are championing one user (who has vociferously, even with admitted sock puppets, pushed her opinion) against myself and others who were quite calmly looking for a solution. <s\>--Doc (?) 20:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Type in haste, repent at leisure: withdrawing my more heated remarks with apologies to Mel, that was uncalled for --Doc (?) 21:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC) )[reply]

Doc, I think that admins sometimes just freeze pages in the state that they are in to stop a fight (although, true, there was no edit war here). For what it's worth, Mel, I agree with Doc that Melissadolbeer's actions were rash, out of line, and against consensus. And that the page should be temporarily protected as a redirect rather than preserving Melissadolbeer's essay. And of course none of us support -Ril-'s (or -Ron-'s) bizarre antics. --goethean ॐ 21:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't chamioning Melissadolbeer; I was acting on the information I had. Now that that has been <euphemism>supplemented</euphemism>, I'm still unsure about the correct action, but I'll return the article to the unprotected redirect for the moment, and wait to see what happens. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mel Etitis, thanks for your help. Anyone who reads the "history" of the article on Authentic Matthew knows what Doc is saying is totally untrue. -Ril-, Doc, etc., have put up three failed Vfds and have removed the article in other ways. Your action was absolutely necessary. -- Melissadolbeer 11:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing wrong with your recreation of the article, given the confused and obscure history of this article, but deleting the relevant discussion wasn't acceptable. Do you object the consensus discussed above? If not, why not? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 19 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]
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]~~

~~Other options~~