Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews

A NPOV article

The way we should approach this difficult topic and write a NPOV article is:

1. Fully and fairly present the scholarship of "the Church and conservative scholars" but fully referenced.
2. Then present why "critical scholars" believes this position is is not supported by the evidence.
3. Any other referenced scholarship should be added.
4. Try to find sources that fairly present all views. Take a broader, fuller view.

I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions. The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic. - Ret.Prof (talk)

I agree. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As this topic is so very difficult, I think it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source and a Google Link. Also references should be varied ie old, new, conservative, liberal, etc in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also keeping good humour and not deleting material until after a discussion would be helpful. By the way I now agree with your deletion. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking a break as I need to do more reading on this difficult topic. It is confusing to say the least. Trying to get it right is not easy - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts - it is quite an interesting and informative article to read. Don't take my minor stylistic criticisms too seriously; I'm generally sympathetic to your approach and contributions here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. The fact is I am an old guy who has been temporary overwhelmed by the topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew Gospel

There is a theory started by Jerome that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is the Authentic Gospel of Matthew and it was an eyewitness account of the life and teachings of a Jewish rabbi named Jesus. This Gospel was discarded by the Church as Christianity moved away from its Jewish roots and developed the Gentile doctrines of the Virgin Birth etc. I am now reading through the massive amount of material on this topic which includes:

1. ^ First Clement,
2. ^ Didache,
3. ^ Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans
4. ^ Polycarp to the Philippians
5. ^ Barnabas,
6. ^ Justin, Dialogue,
7. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies
8. ^ Tertullian, On Prayer 26
9. ^ Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
10. ^ Origen,
11. ^ Eusebius, Theophany on Matthew
12. ^ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
13. ^ Didymus, Commentary on Psalm
14. ^ Epiphanius, Panarion
15. ^ Jerome, On Psalm 135
16. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah
17. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel
18. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Micah
19. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
20. ^ Jerome’s Letter to Damascus 20 on Matthew 21.9
21. ^ Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia
22. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians
23. ^ Jerome, Against Pelagius
24. ^ Jerome, On Illustrious Men,
25. ^ Pick Bernhard, Paralipomena: Remains of Gospels and Sayings of Christ BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009 p.31
26. ^ Sabine Baring-gould, The Lost And Hostile Gospels, Nabu Press, 2010. p 122 - 129
27. ^ Waite Burlingame, History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred, BiblioBazaarPub, 2009. p 278
28. ^ Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005. pp 111 - 134
29. ^ "Artifact Record Details: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932: Letter, Thaius to Tigrius (Fragment)". Spurlock Museum at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2001. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/search/details.php?a=1914.21.0010. Retrieved 30 May 2007. "Artifact of the Month: Letter from Thaius to Tirius, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932". Spurlock Museum. 2002. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/collections/artifact/oxyrhynchus.html. Retrieved 30 May 2007.
30. ^ S. Kent Brown comments on the text of Oxyrhynchus 840 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 1000
31. ^ Discourse on Maria Theotokos by Cyril 12A
32. ^ Grabe, Johann Ernst - Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Seculi Post Christum natum
33. ^ Kitto, John - A cyclopædia of Biblical literature.
34. ^ von Harnack, Adolf - Texte und untersuchungen zur geschichte der
35. ^ Weber, Christian Friedrich - Neue Untersuchung über das Alter und Ansehen des Evangeliums.
36. ^ Boyce, William Binnington - The higher criticism and the Bible.
37. ^ Archibald Hamilton Charteris, Johannes Kirchhofer - Canonicity: a collection of early testimonies :to the canonical books of the New Testament.
38. ^Handmann, Rudolf - Das Hebräer-Evangelium.
39. ^ Nicholson, Edward Byron - The Gospel According to the Hebrews.
40. ^Pierson Parker - A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews".
41. ^ Farmer, William - The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
42. ^Walter Richard Cassels - Supernatural Religion.
43. ^Edwards, J.R. - The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition.

I must confess to being somewhat overwhelmed, but I have access to a great Seminary library as well as access to libraries across America via inter library loans etc. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have spent some time reading about the language issue. Although there is agreement that the Gospel of the Hebrews existed in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, there is major scholarly disagreement about the language of composition. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edits:

Language of the Gospel

Scholarship generally held that the Gospel of the Hebrews was probably written in Greek. However some recent scholarship has seriously challenged this position. It has been argued that the historical evidence strongly supports the gospel being composed in Hebrew. Eleven ancient witnesses specify that this Gospel was written in Hebrew letters including:

• Epiphanius - They too accept Matthew's gospel, 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.

• Origen - The very first gospel to be written was by Matthew, once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ. Matthew published it for the converts from Judaism and composed it in Hebrew letters.

• Jerome - In the "Gospel of the Hebrews", written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes ...

One possible reason for the confusion, were the Greek and Latin translations circulating in Ancient times. As modern scholars have no extant text to study, it is difficult to work back to the original language of composition. The following show that there were two different Greek translations and one Latin translation.

• Jerome wrote, And whoever accepts the Gospel circulating under the title "Gospel of the Hebrews" which we most recently translated.

• Jerome also said, 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 ...

• Jerome also said, The "Gospel called of the Hebrews", recently translated by me into Greek and Latin ... Also, In this last he bore witness to the Gospel which I have recently translated.

• Jerome explained, Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it.

In any event, the scholarly dispute is far from being resolved, thus the original language of composition of the Gospel of the Hebrews remains uncertain.

Language such as "almost all scholars agree .... and others believe ...." is confusing. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I am still having trouble with the "Reflist" can you fix? - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed my "Reflist" by archiving earlier discussions. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If nobody has any serious concerns I will add my proposed edit tomorrow. Thanks for the help Michael. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ret.Prof, I have a couple of concerns:

"It has been argued that the historical evidence strongly supports the gospel being composed in Hebrew."

Which scholars argue this?

Also which translation are the quotes from Jerome taken from?

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I will put my proposed edits on hold until we get consensus. Please do the same. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) -PS- I do not see any problem with your edits, but others may. We do not want to repeat the sorry history of this article

Merge

I have been reading through the material on the Gospel of the Hebrews as well as the Jewish Gospels. The resulting merged article would be too long and too confused to be viable. However you are right about the overlap. I think the best way to deal with the problem is to remove some of the overlap without (provoking an edit war). Probably easier said than done. Thanks for taking the time to work in this difficult area. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably, see comment on

Main page: Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels

In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of References

Re:[this deletion] Ret.Prof, I'm afraid I have to ask why did you delete all the added references, correct publication years, etc? Shouldn't Wikipedia readers have the right to know that many of the Google-booked cheap reprints being used repeatedly as references in these articles are over 100 years old? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you have too say. I suspect that you will have no trouble getting consensus for adding dates. You already have me on board for adding dates. But please be patient and let us work together. I am supportive of your work. All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC) PS I have purchased some of the reprints and they are not cheap.

Ret.Prof. My time is valuable, when I spend 3 hours correcting laughably bad references I do not expect someone, no matter how much of an enthusiast they are on the given subject to think their enthusiasm gives them the right to do wholesale deletes. If you have an improvement for of the references, then please do what other uses do and edit Thank you In ictu oculi (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have temporarily stopped editing

I have temporarily stopped editing as, edit war has again resumed. Ictu oculi is breach of WP:3RR, is again making dramatic statements ie "laughably bad references" and deleted my comment about Consenus. Ret.Prof (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If I was the one making wholesale deletes of other editors contributions, and I failed to give a reason, or answer a question as to why, I would not cry "edit war" when the other editor then restored the edits I had failed to give a reason for my bulk deletion. I still see no factual reason for your large delete so it is restored. Feel free to do as other editors and edit.

As regards deleting your comment about consensus, I did not, please compare here I merely removed your == line between my question. A question which remains. Why do did you delete 3 hours of clean up of the references?

Anyway, the field is yours; I have six days work ahead. Please do not delete any more factual data from references. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I may have overreacted. I had just finished reading "the unedited talk page". Sorry - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, please carry on editing as before. Good job on the merge. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A Proposal

I suggest the way we should approach this difficult topic and write a NPOV article is:

1. Fully and fairly present the scholarship of "the Church and conservative scholars" but fully referenced.
2. Then present why "critical scholars" believes this position is not supported by the evidence.
3. Any other referenced scholarship should be added.
4. Try to find sources that fairly present all views. Take a broader, fuller view.

I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions.

The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic. As this topic is so very difficult, I think it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source and a Google Link. Also references should be varied ie old, new, conservative, liberal, etc in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also keeping good humour and not editing material until after consensus is reached is important.

• As there are many, many issues that are interrelated to the Hebrew Gospel and the Jewish Gospels we take them one at a time.

• When consensus is reached, we publish our edit and move on to the next topic.

• We find an unbiased Admin. to help us though the rough patches.

• I would suggest AndrewC. He has sorted me out several times but always in polite and professional manner. He has a knowledge of the topic and is one of the best Admins at Wikipedia. This would also discourage a return of the "sock puppets".

• Proposed agenda

1) Problems with references ie "laughable bad ref",

2) Language of composition,

3) Paralipomena,

4) Gheb numbering.

I hope this proposal addresses your concerns. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

restored text reverted by 200.55.128.88 (talk)

Cannot see any reason for this revert. The Gospel does not even mention the virgin birth. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof you have this which was a previous reversion here by User talk:200.55.128.88. On what grounds did you revert this? The content as left is now incorrect and unsourced. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted disruptive edit

Please stop your disruptive editing and work toward building consensus on the talk page. Your continued edit warring is not helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

RetProf. This is not edit warring, since these are not your edits, -- unless you weren't signed in -- and you are not in a position to issue warnings. As it stands this article is primarily OR, NPOV, and mainstream academic content is deeply buried or obscured. This article requires OR and NPOV labels at the absolute minimum. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

text you have restored It is controversial because it casts doubt upon the Virgin Birth and other teachings of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. It is also said to be written by Matthew (Authentic Gospel of Matthew or Latin: Matthaei Authenticum) and is the only one of the Jewish Gospels to be included in the Early Church Catalogs. It is subject to heated and ongoing scholarly debate.[3][4] [5][6] text you have deleted Irenaeus states that some of the Ebionites produced their own Gospel from Gospel of Matthew, deleting the virgin birth. The surviving fragments of the "Gospel of the Hebrews" do not include, but also do not challenge, the Virgin Birth.

Okay, is what you restored true? Please discuss In ictu oculi (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem very agitated. Your tag spam, comments and edits are inappropriate. In fact you are scaring me a little. Please calm down. This is a difficult topic and we should work together to build consensus. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Please first propose your edits on the talk page as all of us are now doing. Generally you do good work but today has not been one of your better days. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof, please read the above.

I'm not remotely agitated. I'm not the one rushing around deleting references to modern scholarship. You're clearly dead set on having your/Nicholson's/Edward's view as the only view on these articles and it's time to find some more objective editors to contribute. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 29 January 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) 16:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to "out" the identity of a an editor because you do not like her numbering is very inappropriate. It is not my intention to upset you. Maybe we should take a break and cool down a little Also, you forgot to sign your comment. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Am I "upset" that 4 hours work gets reversed by yourself for no given reason? No, I just am asking you to explain your deletions. Re the originator of the invented GHeb numbering, I felt it worth checking history to establish that such was the result of past controversy on the page, not the own contribution of any of the current editors, before I wasted my time proposing that a known academic numbering be used. Re. "my" POV, I actually don't have a POV, or didn't, until coming across these pages I was vaguely under the impression that GHeb GE GN were more or less the same book. It was only correcting the dates on these Bibliobazaar sources which made me aware of the gap between what editors on these 4 articles have been doing and what Schneemelcher etc. say. The list below is overweight with fringe 19thC sources incorrectly dated, and sources that don't support Edwards' (2009) POV, which he is perfectly entitled to, but his own publisher describes as "controversial". But that said, fine, I have no problem with Edwards' view being given 80% or 90% of the article if that's what it takes, but the majority academic view and sources should be allowed a mention.... not so unreasonable you'd think? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not just Nicholson and Edwards but all of the following that go against your POV.

• First Clement,
• Didache,
• Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans
• Polycarp to the Philippians
• Barnabas,
• Justin, Dialogue,
• Irenaeus, Against Heresies
• Tertullian, On Prayer 26
• Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
• Origen,
• Eusebius, Theophany on Matthew
• Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
• Didymus, Commentary on Psalm
• Epiphanius, Panarion
• Jerome, On Psalm 135
• Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah
• Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel
• Jerome, Commentary on Micah
• Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
• Jerome’s Letter to Damascus 20 on Matthew 21.9
• Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia
• Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians
• Jerome, Against Pelagius
• Jerome, On Illustrious Men,
• Pick Bernhard, Paralipomena: Remains of Gospels and Sayings of Christ BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009
• Sabine Baring-gould, The Lost And Hostile Gospels, Nabu Press, 2010.
• Waite Burlingame, History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred, BiblioBazaarPub, 2009. p 278
• Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005.
• "Artifact Record Details: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932: Letter, Thaius to Tigrius (Fragment)". Spurlock Museum at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2001. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/search/details.php?a=1914.21.0010. Retrieved 30 May 2007. "Artifact of the Month: Letter from Thaius to Tirius, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932". Spurlock Museum. 2002. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/collections/artifact/oxyrhynchus.html. Retrieved 30 May 2007.
• S. Kent Brown comments on the text of Oxyrhynchus 840 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5,
• Discourse on Maria Theotokos by Cyril 12A
• Grabe, Johann Ernst - Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Seculi Post Christum natum
• Kitto, John - A cyclopædia of Biblical literature.
• von Harnack, Adolf - Texte und untersuchungen zur geschichte der
• Weber, Christian Friedrich - Neue Untersuchung über das Alter und Ansehen des Evangeliums.
• Boyce, William Binnington - The higher criticism and the Bible.
• Archibald Hamilton Charteris, Johannes Kirchhofer - Canonicity: a collection of early testimonies :to the canonical books of the New Testament.
• Handmann, Rudolf - Das Hebräer-Evangelium.
• Pick, Bernhard. The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005
• Nicholson, Edward Byron - The Gospel According to the Hebrews.
• Pierson Parker - A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews".
• Farmer, William - The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
• Schoemaker, W. R. - The Gospel According to the Hebrews. The University of Chicago Press.
• Walter Richard Cassels - Supernatural Religion.
• Edwards, J.R. - The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition, 2009.
• Casey, Maurice - Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, 2010

The work of these scholars over the years can be summed up as follows:

1. Occam's razor

In a topic where there are many strange ideas ranging from "Jesus as alien being" to "Jesus as a mythical God", Occam's razor states the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one. In other words, Jesus was probably a 'Jewish' rabbi and one of his followers wrote some 'stuff' about him in the 'local dialect'.

2. Hebrew Gospel Tradition 75/12

The simplest explanation is also supported by the historical evidence. During the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link

3. Gospel of the Ebionites 0/0

During the formative years of Early Christianity 0 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Gospel of the Ebionites in circulation. Also it is listed in 0 ancient catalogs. Indeed there is no historical evidence from either Christian or non Christian sources that the Ebionites ever composed a gospel. The Church Fathers all state that the Ebionites only used one gospel which was composed by Matthew in Hebrew and was referred to by "most people" as the Authentic Gospel of Matthew or less frequently the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Therefore Schneemelcher's "imaginary" Gospel of the Ebionites is a non existent gospel or as Edwards politely puts it a scholarly neologism

Schneemelcher's "numbering" has also been weighed, measured and found wanting for the following reasons.

1. It is based on scholarly neologisms
2. Schneemelcher numbers are incomplete as he only cites the "fragments" as opposed to the more extensive Hebrew "paralipomena".

Finally, I may have been a little hard Schneemelcher, as

• Wilson who translated the 1959 work into English did a poor job.
• His book was not meant to be a study of this topic but a broad survey of the non canonical gospels, of which his entry on this topic only consisted of a few pages.
• Schneemelcher himself admits the weakness of his position when he says, "Thus the number of Jewish Gospels -- whether there be one, two or three such gospels -- is uncertain, the identification of the several fragments is also uncertain and, finally the character and the relationship to one another of the several Jewish gospels is uncertain." Google Link

Therefore I strongly oppose any change to the present numbering. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the above - although I appreciate your sincerity and also the subject clearly means more to you than myself - is largely OR. The standard academic numbering should be used, not some invented system reflecting some unpublished individual's pet theory. Wikipedia isn't a blog, and if someone wants their theories on a blog, then they should get a blog. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Compromise

I do agree that it would be a mistake to renew the old edit war between User:-Ril- and User:Melissadolbeer of six years ago (or for that matter six months ago). Therefore I am going to delete the numbering that you object to. From now on let us work for consensus in good faith! I would suggest reading Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth to gain an interesting perspective of the challenges that confront us. Truly wishing you all the best in your editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello RetProf. The above appears to be a duplicated comment related to Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels so I have replied to the above there. As regards here deletions of mainstream academic sources are still holding. Why? Why should Wikipedia readers not be allowed to read what the standard works on the New Testament Apocrypha say? Specifically, why cannot this be said:

Modern scholarship, following the standard edition, Schneemelcher New Testament Apocrypha Vol.I,Vol.1 generally ascribes the title Gospel of the Hebrews to one of three sub-sets of citations and fragments called the Jewish-Christian Gospels. The Gospel of the Hebrews subset consists of seven verses (conventionally numbered GHeb-1 to GHeb-7) The other two sub-sets are called the Gospel of the Nazoreans, consisting of citations and marginal notes by Jerome and others (GN-1 to GN-36) and the Gospel of the Ebionites, consisting of seven citations by Epiphanius (GE-1 to GE-7)

I cannot see any reason to delete this. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I should also say that I have zero interest in getting involved in an "edit war", this isn't even an interesting subject. It is just in passing evident that the articles represent minority/fringe views, not what is found in the standard works on the actual texts.In ictu oculi (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting our proposed edits on the talk page would be good. Then after good natured and hopefully scholarly debate, we reach consensus and post edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Then by all means please go ahead. Start here:

Modern scholarship, following the standard edition, Schneemelcher New Testament Apocrypha Vol.I,Vol.1 generally ascribes the title Gospel of the Hebrews to one of three sub-sets of citations and fragments called the Jewish-Christian Gospels. The Gospel of the Hebrews subset consists of seven verses (conventionally numbered GHeb-1 to GHeb-7) The other two sub-sets are called the Gospel of the Nazoreans, consisting of citations and marginal notes by Jerome and others (GN-1 to GN-36) and the Gospel of the Ebionites, consisting of seven citations by Epiphanius (GE-1 to GE-7)

What is the problem with anything in this paragraph? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear RetProf. What is the problem with anything in this paragraph? Wikipedia readers should be able to see clearly what Gospel of the Hebrews means in modern SBL type works. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually have several concerns. However, it will take a day or so for me to search for reliable source to back up my position. Could you help me by finding a reliable source that asserts Schneemelcher is the "standard edition", or that his is the "standard academic numbering" and clarify what standard means. Also a link useful. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ret Prof

With respect I think you should first restore your deletions, and then go and do study to justify them. Re your questions:

Schneemelcher's standard ...... well don't you own a copy? Doesn't everyone editing these pages?

GHeb 2, 3, 4 etc.Robert Joseph Miller - 1994, Joy Palachuvattil - 2002, Craig A. Evans - 1996 Aquila H. I. Lee - 2005 Robert Walter Funk - 1985 & 1998- etc. These are all SBL authors. Not to mention journals... Wheras Melissa of Bangkok's numbering was purely his/her own invention. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Greek

Is τὸ Ευαγγελιον με τους Εβραίους supposed to be τὸ Ευαγγελιον μετα τους Εβραίους? -- AnonMoos (talk)

Presumably yes, me is a typo for meta. It was one of the edits by Ret Prof 11 Sept 2009. It's one of the many things in the article that should be sourced or deleted. meta + accusative pl. can mean "according" but I expect Eusebius etc. use kat' + accusative plural. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A bit harsh, but you are absolutely correct. I confess that the typo is mine as I hang my head in shame and humiliation. The good news is that consensus has been achieved. You may have the honor of editing the Greek in the article. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm unable to do that as I don't know where the Greek has been sourced from? The second appears to be from Eusebius, where is the first (once corrected to meta) from?

As regards consensus. Do we really have consensus that majority modern scholarship should be given equal place with e.g. the Bodleian librarian/Celticist from the 1870s? If so, can you restore this deletion please? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Again do you have any sources that the Biblical scholarship of "the Bodleian librarian/Celticist from the 1870s" is flawed? Your turn of phrase seems bit harsh. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't harsh to describe Nicholson as a Bodleian librarian/Celticist from the 1870s. Orr ISBE 1915 notes that he failed to convince scholars of his day.

Good to see progress at Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites. Here next? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You missed the point. It is wrong to refer to a scholar as "the Bodleian librarian/Celticist from the 1870s". It would be wrong to refer to Schneemelcher as "a Nazi who fought for Hitler". Nicholson and Schneemelcher were both respected scholars of their time. Feel free to debate the scholarship but let's drop the slurs. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicholson (1879) was the Bodleian Librarian and a Celticist; he was not' a Biblical scholar. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1915 article Gospel of the Hebrews writes "Nicholson has more serious differences to explain, and it cannot be said that his able argument and admirably marshaled learning have carried conviction to the minds of New Testament scholars." And Wilhelm Schneemelcher was not a Nazi, in fact he was dismissed from his job for anti-Nazi views. But I am not interested in carrying on this conversation. You have already 100% got your own way, you have deleted the mainstream sources, and I have not restored them. I do not wish to waste any more time requesting you to explain why you deleted them - the why is evident. Goodbye. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any references citing that Nicholson was not a Biblical scholar? Also the point I was trying to make was that it would be 'wrong' to call Wilhelm Schneemelcher a Nazi because he was a respected scholar. Feel free to debate the scholarship but let's drop the slurs. Now is there any chance that we can put this back and forth behind us? - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you could restore the content you deleted.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it will be after we reach consensus, as will the scholarship of Parker etc Cheers. I have to go now. Chat with you a bit later. Cheers.- Ret.Prof (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Pierson Parker's theory is already in the 4x articles, repeatedly and OVERWEIGHT for 1 writer, but that's okay. The whole point of NPOV is that mainstream scholarship should also be allowed into the article against your POV, that it was NPOV means = NPOV doesn't mean bringing you up the learning curve so you can understand/agree with Schneemelcher Funk etc etc. It goes in spite of you not agreeing. Will you join me and just walk away and let other editors edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)