Talk:Gospel of the Nazarenes

See Authentic Matthew for discussion

To resolve conflict, I have merged articles.--By George

Unable to resolve conflict, therefore added template

The Discussion Continues

Please note that Eusebius is not regarded as a reliable source in this field. Eusebius is 4th century. Iranaeus (of Lyons) (possibly spelt wrongly) is a much more reliable source. He is mid 2nd century, and even though he is a church father (and thus extremely biased) he nethertheless reports on the views of his opponents, and thus gives us both sides of the case. He is also much closer to the period.-- ANON

Dear ANON,

Certainly the area of Authentic Matthew has been a controversial one. Your points are good, and I agree with the above. However, most scholars concur that the catalogue of Eusebius is an accurate reflection of the works surviving to his time. -- Melissa

Also, listing Eusebius' choice of what is and isnt heresy is not relevant to an article about the gospel of matthew/M/nazoreans/hebrews. It is only relevant to Eusebius. Other people (including Iranaeus, Origen, and Celsus) had different views on the matter. -- ANON

Dear ANON,

There are those who think that Eusebius is a great church scholar. Our point of view is not relevant. In controversial areas, even sources with which we have difficulty should be cited. That is why "the fragments" contained a variety of sources including Origen, Iranaeus, etc. -- Melissa

Likewise, your own view of the origin of the biblical canon has no place in an encylopedia. Your view, is by its very nature, a view, and therefore not factual, is original research, and also not reporting on the views of scholars/relevant persons on the matter. In addition, it is not relevant to the articles you have inserted it into, as it belongs inarticles such as Gospel of Matthew and History of Christianity and Historicity of Jesus to name but a few. -- ANON

Dear ANON,

You jump to the wrong conclusion. There is much in the article on Authentic Matthew with which I disagree. Indeed, my point of view is probably closer to yours than that of the article. That is why I was pleased when user By George merged the two articles. Also, the article on Authentic Matthew is merely a summary of the writings from the early church to now. -- Melissa

Furthermore, Jerome is widely regarded as being inaccurate in this area, not least because he can't tell the difference between the gospel of the hebrews, the gospel of the nazoreans, and the gospel of the ebionites, which are distinct. We know that he can't tell the difference because he quotes from each of these but names them all as the gospel of the hebrews. As such, it makes what he says about hebrews unreliable, as it very difficult to seperate how much of what he says should correspond to a particular one of the texts, and how much to another, and how much is a conclusion he has erroneously reached because he has conflated the three texts into one. -- ANON

Dear ANON,

There are those who agree with what you say about Jerome, but there are many who believe he is a reliable source. Therefore, his writings must be included in any authoritative article. -- Melissa

As you appear to be concentrating your contributions on the apocrypha, at the moment, I would recommend you first read "Apocryphal Gospels:An introduction" by "Hans-Josef Klauck". -- ANON

Dear ANON,

I have. -- Melissa

Authentic Matthew

Authentic Matthew remains one of the most controversial areas of biblical scholarship, and therefore makes it difficult to write a fully unbiased Wikipedia article. There are approximately twenty positions regarding this work that was called Authentic Matthew by the majority of writers in the Early Church. The following are the five major positions:

1. No such thing as Authentic Matthew

Many modern biblical scholars believe that the apostle Matthew never wrote a gospel. They include such scholars as Klauck, Streeter, and the two-source theory, which states that the Gospel of Matthew was written by an unknown editor who merged earlier sources and the oral tradition.

2. Authentic Matthew existed.

This position is supported by the fact that it is cited in the theological discussions of the Early Church fathers.

3. The Gospel of Matthew is Authentic Matthew.

This position states that Matthew wrote a gospel, that is the one that we have in the Bible today. This was the majority opinion until modern biblical scholarship pointed out that the Canonical Gospel was based on Greek sources and not an eye witness account.

4. My point of view.

Matthew wrote a Gospel in Aramaic. Because it was difficult to translate into Greek, sources such as Mark, Q, etc., were used in the translation. Thus, the heavy reliance on Q and Mark in the Canonical Gospel of Matthew.

5. Different Gospels.

This position states that the Gospel of Matthew, Authentic Matthew, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Hebrew Gospel, etc., are all different gospels.

Summary

The purpose of the article "Authentic Matthew" is to put forward the information that we know in an unbiased fashion, not emphasizing any one point of view. Therefore it is important to discuss and edit but not to merely delete or redirect. Where no consensus can be reached, both theories must be put forward so that the reader is fully informed.

By the way ANON, I have read the other material you have submitted to the Wikipedia and found it to be thought-provoking and interesting. Looking forward to your "scholarly" response on Authentic Matthew. I have undone the merge submitted by By George and at present both the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Authentic Matthew stand on their own to be debated and eventually revised. -- Melissa

Suspect References

The first two chapters of Matthew, however, were not included as the Jewish Christians stressed Jesus' humanity and refused his miraculous birth.

I can't find anything to back this up. Ehrman in Lost Christianities states it is "possibly lacking the first two chapters" (p. xi) so I don't think he would have gone ahead and turned this possibility into an absolute, and then claim it is a corruption. (Albeit, he does act in a similar nature in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture). --Ari89 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ehrman is rather confusing on this topic. One book he asserts the two chapters missing are intentional, in another he claims it was a possibility that these chapters were missing. In one book he asserts 2nd Century authorship, then he claims the possibility of first century authorship in the more recent book - and talking to him a week ago he stated "For the record, I do not date any of the Gnostic Gospels to the first century". Confusing. --Ari89 (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ret Prof deletions

I understand you are clearly an enthusiast (understatement) for the minority view, but you cannot go around deleting anything which gives mainstream scholarship a mention. as here. Either explain your deletions or restore them. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No explanation has been forthcoming, and the same practice of deletions, and pushing of fringe ideas is apparent on the 3 related pages Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites, Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels. Clearly any attempt to remove OR and NPOV from this page will be blocked by RetProf for the time being.In ictu oculi (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It is important to calm down. I am not deleting your hard work, but merely reverting it temporarily until we reach consensus. Although I disagree that your sources are the "standard" or more "mainline" than Parker etc. they will be fully represented in the article. Good humor and not taking ourselves to seriously would be good. Also it is important that we stop calling each other names. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The above is a cut and paste from a comment on Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites... go there to see context and response.In ictu oculi (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Some non-enthusiast mainstream editors are needed here to allow that e.g. the mainstream Schneemelcher numbering system and majority point of view needs to take precedence over Melissa from the Bangkok internet cafe and other enthusiastic OR NPOV contributions:

• Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels
• Talk:Gospel of the Nazarenes
• Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites
• Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews

In ictu oculi (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Update:

• Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels - Still very heavy with OR POV. spurious "GHeb" numbering removed.
• Talk:Gospel of the Nazarenes - Still heavy with OR POV. Schneemelcher GN numbers added to Ehrmann's verses
• Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites - significantly improved by a diligent and competent editor
• Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews - Still heavy with OR POV. spurious use of mock-Latin removed.

In ictu oculi (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy twelve

I see the redirect but who said that? The fragments of the Gospel of the Nazarenes are not 96 like in the Holy Twelve! for example there isn't any history of cat! --Fontema (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have modified the wrong redirect.--Fontema (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)