Talk:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis

Title of article

There are lots of sources that refer to the Hebrew Gospel (see Google Link) but there is no source that refers to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (see Google Link) Is this a spoof? - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof, as you are the main recent advocate of the hypothesis of a Hebrew Gospel on Wikipedia, are you saying that the hypothesis doesn't exist but is it a fact? The following show that it is generally considered a hypothesis:

• Abbott E. The Son of Man or Contributions to the Study of the Thoughts of Jesus. Great Britain, Cambridge at the University Press, 1910. Section The hypothesis of a Hebrew Gospel
• Richard C. H. Lenski section in The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel 1-14 1937 p11 "THE HYPOTHESIS OF AN ORIGINAL HEBREW MATTHEW Another prominent form of this 'hypothesis is that the logia of Papias really formed an entire Hebrew Gospel, originating from Matthew's pen in the years 64-67 and being translated into Greek by an unknown writer in the year 90.."
• See article for Nicholson; Edwards 2009 describes his hypothesis as a hypothesis

In ictu oculi (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

POV Fork

I now see that this is a serious attempt to solve the issue before us.

Issue

The Historical writings from the time of Jesus to the time of Jerome c.385 C.E., state Matthew wrote an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus called the Hebrew Gospel or sometimes the Gospel of the Hebrews. No ancient source either Christian or non-Christian disputes this. There are many scholars such a Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, who agree with the historical sources and explain why. Then there those who disagree such as Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.

Your solution is to divide the article into two. This article would reflect the position of the Historical writings from the time of Jesus to the time of Jerome c.385 C.E., which state Matthew wrote an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus called the Hebrew Gospel or sometimes the Gospel of the Hebrews. Scholars such a Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz who support this position would also be included in this article .

The other article, the Gospel of the Hebrews would reflect the point of view of those who disagree such as such as Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.

I have carefully read WP:POVFORK and believe this solution goes against WP Policy. We as editors must work together to blend all the sources into a NPOV article. (See Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof and Talk:Gospel of Matthew) Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

No, I'm not suggesting that majority SBL type reference works have to be the only view on any of the 3 Jewish-Christian Gospel pages. But majority scholarship should be stated first, with refs, then other views, with refs.

W:Content forking does allow the distinction between a text and a hypothesis about a text or theory (the distinction being as James R. Edwards states about wishing to develop his hypothesis into a theory) and the content of that hypothesis or theory.

• So for example a Germanic substrate hypothesis article is a justifiable fork from Germanic languages, Indo-European language family and Proto-Germanic.

In the same way the hypothesis of a lost Hebrew Ur-Matthew is a justifiable fork from Jewish-Christian Gospels (which exist and therefore are texts not a hypothesis) and Gospel of Matthew and New Testament Apocrypha (again which exist and therefore are texts not a hypothesis). It seems to me also that Parker is a mainstream enough serious academic for his hypothesis in particular to be given the same Wikiairtime as Griesbach hypothesis (which note redirects to Two-gospel hypothesis) or Augustinian hypothesis. In listing Parker it would also be possible to trace back the hypothesis via Grotius etc. to primary sources, primarily Jerome. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What you say equals a POV fork. We as editors must work together to blend all the sources into a NPOV article(s). (See Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof and Talk:Gospel of Matthew) Cheers - - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral page deletion by Ret Prof

Ret Prof. Well now you're really edit warring with all guns blazing. You've now deleted an article on the hypotheses of Nicholson/Parker/Edwards simply because it includes a detached view and restored old attempts to have the same hypothesis given a page Talk:Authentic Matthew and Talk:Authentic Gospel of Matthew.

"The Authentic Gospel of Matthew, (Latin Matthaei Authenticum) is the hypothesis or belief that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the true gospel of Matthew."

Why not Authentic Gospel of Matthew hypothesis per Two-gospel hypothesis Two-source hypothesis? Because the phrase "Authentic Gospel of Matthew" is more loaded than "Hebrew Gospel". My personal opinion is that this is a fringe view which is borderline as to whether it deserves its own page. But that what I can only describe as enthusiasts for the view (of which you are only the latest) will populate main articles with the subject unless it has its own nest.

Note that this is the second unilateral page delete:

1. (cur | prev) 17:39, 24 March 2011 Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) (35 bytes) (Merged POV Fork into Gospel of the Hebrews) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 09:06, 24 March 2011 Eusebeus (talk | contribs) (5,556 bytes) (Undid revision 420437053 by Ret.Prof (talk) rv per WP:BRD - let's keep the discussion at the main Hebrew Gospel page) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 04:04, 24 March 2011 Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) (35 bytes) (Merged POV Fork Gospel of the Hebrews) (undo)

In ictu oculi (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD

I was going to nominate for deletion, but you are doing a good job. I am actually enjoying it. I still think it is a POV fork, but I will take no action. Good work - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I wouldn't have been concerned if it had been nominated, anyone who wants to, go ahead. Or better still contribute. But out of interest, what article did you think it was a POV fork from? Both views are represented here and the topic of Lessing/Parker/Edwards hypothesis didn't have an article on 22 March.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If this get nominated, it would be for forking the scholarship of Edwards, Tabor etc view with Deutsche Christen scholarship. But since we so far have consensus (or at least no edit warring) indeed, I am enjoying your stuff, feel to edit the article without first getting consensus on the talk page. I will do the same. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that which page is the POV of the non-Edwards view? I cannot see a Deutsche Christen hypothesis on the Jewish-Christian Gospels POV page from which this is a fork. I don't think there is an anti-hypothesis as such since majority scholarship has not integrated the JG in any significant form into Augustinian hypothesis, Griesbach hypothesis, etc.

May I ask by Deutsche Christen which mainstream scholars specifically are Nazis? All of them because they don't believe in an original lost genuine Hebrew Ur-Matthew? The last time you intimated that Schneemelcher fought for the Nazis I pointed out that he actually suffered mild persecution under the Third Reich, and was conscripted, so clearly not Schneemelcher. Nor can I see evidence that Vielhauer, Strecker, Hans Waitz etc.etc.etc. were Nazis. I wouldn't deny that there was a strong anti-semitic vein in German scholarship from Luther through to Friedrich Delitzsch (nothing whatsoever to do with GHeb) which led ultimately to Alfred Rosenberg's Mythus, but still the reason that majority scholarship rejects some of the various Hebrew Gospel hypotheses seems to me to be on the same text-critical and linguistic criteria applied to any other 3rd-4th Century set of primary source texts. I don't think Ron Cameron and the living scholars even have German blood. :(In ictu oculi (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally since many of the mainstream scholars who question the Hebrew Gospel view, such as Klijn, are very much W:Living people, please be careful about throwing Deutsche Christen around even on Talk pages In ictu oculi (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I found your comments confusing and a little off topic. I made a serious effort to answers your questions:

1. The souces I found seem to confirm Vielhauer, and Schneemelcher fought for Nazi Germany.
2. Does the fact that they fought valiantly for Hitler and Nazi Germany make them Nazis? After all, they were conscripted, and had no choice but to follow orders?
3. My position is that they renounced Hitler and Nazi Germany, therefore we should accept what they say at face value. Not that easy for me as I have Jewish ancestors.

Now back to topic. I think you are doing a good job. I am enjoying what you write. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Overlap with Gospel of Matthew

Thanks, In ictu oculi, for creating and developing this article. One question jumps out: what is the degree of overlap with the canonical GoM? The article talks about this reconstucted gospel without ever saying what its contents are. It would be helpful if the differences between, and similarities with, the other gospels was explicated. (The Gospel of Matthew article, for example, sets out the structure of the Gospel.) (I see that this is set out more at Hebrew Gospel, in which case the above point is redundant, but the following is still relevant.) Perhaps the sentence that ends

and that fragments of this work survive in the quotations of Jewish-Christian Gospels found in the works of Jerome and other authors.

should be changed to

and that fragments of this work survive in the quotations of Jewish-Christian Gospels found in the works of Jerome and other authors, along with the canonical Gospels.

? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

From Talk:Aramaic Matthew REDIRECT

That's fine. I have now (belatedly) added "or Aramaic" to Gospel of Matthew but you are right Hebrew Gospel hypothesis may well be a better REDIRECT. The making of the New Testament documents Edward Earle Ellis - 2002 speaks of "the Aramaic Matthew Hypothesis" and it looks like the Independence of Matthew and Mark John M. Rist and Aramaic sources of Mark's Gospel Maurice Casey - 1998 may have useful source material. And yes, you're correct it isn't a povfork, just a content fork not to overload the main Matthew article with a subset of Aramaic/Hebrew related hypotheses. Cheers. (btw please consider the benefits of registering, cheers!): In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, hopefully useful. Maybe that article should be retitled to "Aramaic or Hebrew Gospel hypothesis"? Most scholars think Aramaic is more likely, as in Aramaic of Jesus, but Hebrew is possible and closely related. Even the Jewish Bible has some Biblical Aramaic. 75.0.11.75 (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea later on, but it would probably be best to build up at least a paragraph on "Aramaic Matthew hypothesis" as distinct from Lessing's Proto-Gospel hypothesis and Howard's Hebrew Gospel hypothesis first before making a page title change. Please feel free to add in sourced content. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was Merge and delete the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article and redirect.

---

It has been suggested on this talk page that portions of the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article that will improve the Gospel of the Hebrews article be moved there, and that other parts of the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel be merged into this Hebrew Gospel hypothesis article. Please discuss the merge into this article below. – Paine (Climax!)  06:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Merge. While some portions of the "Merge from" article are useful to the Gospel of the Hebrews article, other more speculative parts are more appropriate for this article. Another pertinent discussion of this can be found at this talk page section. – Paine (Climax!)  06:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

PiCo and I both concur that the content merge to the GH article is complete. Essentially, none of the content from the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article was useful there. I copied a small section about Jerome to the talk page of the GN article. Nothing else was useful there, so we can spare the effort of yet another merge proposal to that article. Ignocrates (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to searching for content that might be useful in the GH and GN articles, I went through the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article section by section and made a reasonable effort to eliminate OR/POV/Duplication and content supported only by marginal sources. All of that process is described on the H(A)G talk page. The remaining material should be considered a stub at this point. The next step is to go through the stub and evaluate the remaining material for merging into this article. Someone else needs to step up and do that. I have had all the fun I can stand. Ignocrates (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Merge: per Paine Ellsworth. Ignocrates (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• First identify any sourced/non-OR content - as above "other more speculative parts are more appropriate for this article" yes, but the problem is what. This article is already a "merge" of Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel from when that article had previous lives as Authentic Matthew before being re-created. Just as Jewish-Christian Gospels and Gospel of the Hebrews Gospel of the Nazarenes even Gospel of the Ebionites have all had previous "merged" content from Authentic Matthew heading their way repeatedly since 2005. My concern is that James R. Edwards is fringe and already overweight in this article, loading up with primary sources about Papias won't improve article either. If there is sourced relevant content, then by all means, what specifically is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds as if you concur with Ignocrates and PiCo that there is no more text in the (Aramaic) article that needs to be moved to the Gospel of the Hebrews article. If that is so, then the {{Move portions}} templates can be removed. As for the merge into this article, I get the impression that you don't think there is any material there in the Aramaic article that can be justifiably merged here. On that issue I "check" to the opinions of Ignocrates, PiCo and yourself. In spite of the humility all three of you have displayed, you are all far more knowledgable in this area than I am. Thank you for inviting me to this ongoing saga. It seems that it will only be fully resolved when the involved scholars resolve the major controversies as regards the various authenticities. I hope I've been of some small help. – Paine (Climax!)  15:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is my reality check. It is a nonsense argument to conclude that none of the remaining material is useful. PiCo has stated that he intends to use that material as a starting point to rewrite the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article from scratch. Ignocrates (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That confuses me a bit. It was my understanding that the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) was the same as the Gospel of the Hebrews. The Ledes were essentially the same, etc. Now you and PiCo appear to say that there is an Aramaic version of the Hebrew Gospel that is separate and distinct from the Gospel of the Hebrews. The question arises why the merge and partial move was even considered in the first place. I understand that there are believed to be more than one possible rendition of Matthew's gospel that are being protected by the Church. Was the Aramaic version so different from the one at Gospel of the Hebrews? If so, is it notable enough to be in its own article? Why not just mention it at GofH and delete this page?

Please keep in mind that I am less interested in the context of these articles and more concerned with following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Notability seems to be a major issue here. If the Aramaic version isn't notable enough to warrant its own article (if it's mostly OR then it's decidedly not notable enough), then is it the right thing to do to rewrite it rather than scrap it? – Paine (Climax!)  19:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

PS. Shouldn't the disambiguator be at the end? as in Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic)? A parenthetical disambiguator looks cumbersome if it's slap in the middle of an article title. Please see WP:NATURAL. Note that Aramaic isn't even mentioned in the Lede.

Indeed. That is because the whole point of re-applying the merge tag was to delete the article by redirect with a minimum of discussion, which was a concern I expressed here, as well as here, here, and here. It was obvious from the beginning that the duplicate content was a single sentence in the lead, which could have easily been fixed with a simple deletion of that sentence. Ignocrates (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps it is the wise choice to see how PiCo's analysis and rewrite unfolds. I shall rename the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article, though, so that it conforms to policy. Also, I just created a much needed Dab page at Aramaic (disambiguation). Feel free to improve it as needed. – Paine (Climax!)  02:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates, the point of the merge tag (which was added by a passing non-involved editor remember) was to remove a duplicate article. The fact that the deleted-restored article in fact duplicates sections from several other articles Jewish-Christian Gospels, Proto-Gospel hypothesis, Gospel of the Hebrews doesn't change the fact that it is a duplicate article.

The underlying issue remains however sources sources sources. If there's valuable sourced NPOV content it won't be lost and will be placed where appropriate on Jewish-Christian Gospels, Proto-Gospel hypothesis, Gospel of the Hebrews.

Now at this point having agreed that, let's identify some specific content in the duplicate article which passes WP:NOR WP:IRS, then we can work out where of the 3 articles it should go. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hi PiCo - clarification please. See Paine Ellsworth's question: "Now you and PiCo appear to say that there is an Aramaic version of the Hebrew Gospel that is separate and distinct from the Gospel of the Hebrews." I didn't see you say this. As far as I know there are only:
• Jewish-Christian Gospels the umbrella topic for
  • Gospel of the Nazarenes fragments
  • Gospel of the Ebionites fragments
  • Gospel of the Hebrews fragments
• Aramaic New Testament - i.e. the section of the Peshitta translated from Greek, and the new UBS modern Aramaic
• Proto-Gospel hypothesis - Lessing and others synoptic problem solution of a lost Aramaic gospel.

Is there another? Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is my understanding, formed from a few days of research for the articles Gospel of the Hebrews and Jewish-Christian gospels. But first, an excellent guide is chapter 7 of Ehrman and Plese's recent (2011) book, The Apocryphal Gospels:Texts and Translations It's written in very readable English, but is by recognised scholars. And of course, it's recent, therefore up to date regarding scholarly arguments.

• My understanding is essentially as you've outlined above: there is no such thing as an Aramaic/Hebrew version of the Gospel of the Hebrews, which got its name from being used by the Hebrews (Jews), not from the language it was written in (Greek).
• That gospel is one of the reconstructed Jewish Christian gospels, usually seen as three, although possibly only two.
• There was a great deal of confusion among the early Church fathers about these Jewish Christian gospels, even though they quoted from them. They were mostly unaware how many Jewish Christian communities there were, or how many gospels there were among them, or what languages they used. So the vast majority of modern scholars are not willing to take their testimony at face value. (Ehrman explains).
• There was a tradition in the early Church that Matthew had been written originally in Aramaic/Hebrew. Matthew is, of course, distinct from the Gospel of the Hebrews, which was written in Greek for the Greek-speaking Jewish Christians of Egypt and bears no resemblance to Matthew (you can read the fragments in the Gospel of the Hebrews article). This hypothetical original Matthew is an element of the proto-gospel hypothesis (ideas about the sources behind the gospels), and presumably would be the subject of a re-written Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article - but as it stands, that article is special pleading for the Aramaic Matthew idea, not a presentation of the hypothesis.PiCo (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct In ictu oculi (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• • ERK! I've just found that proto-gospel hypothesis takes you to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. This is potentially highly confusing - that title has to be changed! The article itself seems pretty good, though, and maybe after renaming should be the target of the merge with Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel.PiCo (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, sorry I should have linked above with the article title rather than academic name REDIRECT. Unfortunately "Hebrew Gospel hypothesis" (or some variation on that) is undeniably the WP:COMMONNAME, and much more likely to be searched for, thanks to Edwards, Tabor and co. Academic sources are 50/50 between "proto-Gospel hypothesis" and "original-Gospel hypothesis" so there isn't an agreed common name for the 19th Century hypotheses either. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, seems we can't change the title then. We need to explain in the lead, just a line about "not to be confused with". PiCo (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the very first sentence of the lead to this article:

The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis or proto-Gospel hypothesis or original Gospel hypothesis[1] is a group of related theories commonly taking as their starting point the testimony of some early church fathers such as Jerome that Matthew the Apostle had originally written a gospel in Hebrew, or the "Hebrew language" which at the time was just as likely to be the related Aramaic of Jesus, and that fragments of this work survive in the quotations of Jewish-Christian Gospels found in the works of Jerome and other authors.

Wheh! No Pulitzers for you, lad!PiCo (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Evidently not. Go for it. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, don't forget about the wip page. There appear to be some good recent sources there, including Hans-Josef Klauck Apocryphal gospels: an introduction (2003) and Foster, Paul The non-canonical gospels (2008). Ignocrates (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources, sources, sources

Schmidt, Peter Lebrecht (1998). "Und es war geschrieben auf Hebraisch, Griechisch und Lateinisch: Hieronymous, das Hebraer-Evangelium und seine mittelalterliche Rezeption". Filologia Mediolatina. 5: 49–93. Schmidt argues that there was one Jewish-Christian gospel, probably composed in Aramaic c. 100 AD. This journal article is frequently cited in reviews. Ignocrates (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately my German is no better than my Bantu. More seriously, I haven't been able to find a scholarly definition of this hypothesis. I gather that it would say, if I could find it, that this is the hypothesis that a single proto-Gospel, in Aramaic, underlies the canonical Matthew. Is it also supposed to underlie ALL the synoptics (thereby supposing Matthew-priority)? But I really need a definition from a source, not one I make up myself. PiCo (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Klauck calls it ur-Matthew. I don't think the other synoptics or G John would be included in that hypothesis. ur-Mark is a completely different hypothesis that relates to canonical Matthew and the other synoptics. Ignocrates (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Schmidt is mentioned in Klauck. But Klauck is talking about JC gospels.PiCo (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

True. And we would need to verify that Schmidt mentions an Aramaic Matthew to use him as a reference in this article. I pasted the Klauck reference on the GH talk page. I think we should use Klauck there as well as in the J-C article. Ignocrates (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I can read German, but I haven't read this. And I cannot find a copy on the web, so I don't think we should be adding a source none of us have seen (!). It's possible I could get access through one of the university's databases. The thing is Peter Lebrecht Schmidt is a Latinist, and the subject of his essay “'Und es war geschrieben auf Hebräisch, Griechisch und Lateinisch': Hieronymus, das Hebräerevangelium und seine mittelalterliche Rezeption,” is, as it says, about the reception of the "Jerome and the GH" in the middle ages, which is why the article appears in Filologia mediolatina Studies in Medieval Latin Texts and Transmission Journal of the «Fondazione Ezio Franceschini». Klauck is a good source for saying medievalists (such as Peter Lebrecht Schmidt) regard Jerome as more trustworthy than they did before. But beyond that do we need him? Klauck already says there is a tendency to merge EvHeb and EvNaz - but against that there are still 3 baptism accounts, which is the reason for 3 JwChr Gospels in the first place. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The only reason to include Schmidt would be to provide a modern reference for the Aramaic ur-Matthew hypothesis. Since his article was published in a peer-reviewed journal, it doesn't surprise me it that the journal article doesn't come up on Google (maybe Google Scholar?). However, that alone wouldn't be enough of a criterion for exclusion. Having more of a review article like Klauk discussing Schmidt's work could be enough. Unfortunately, Klauck only mentions Schmidt in the context of EvHeb vs. EvNaz. If a review of Schmidt's work will suffice, why don't we just use Skarsaune's review to serve the same purpose? Ignocrates (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have missed the baptismal theophany lecture. There is a synoptic baptismal theophany in the GE, and a theophany in the GH where the font of the Holy Spirit rests on Jesus. Where is the third baptismal theophany? Ignocrates (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

@Ignocrates - I don't feel comfortable relying wholly on Skarsaune's review when P. L. Schmidt's German original is available. The university database can't access the thing among our staff subscriptions, I might try again with an Athens password later. But again it's only about the medieval reception, and this isn't medieval.wp (mainly).

@Pico - not sure this was a good delete. While Helmut Köster and Richard C. H. Lenski are generalist commentators, their removal now means the article is somewhat unbalanced per WP:WEIGHT with lengthy listing various enthusiasts for Aramaische Urgospel without counterbalancing that with the information that these are basically WP:FRINGE theories on the outer rim of the synoptic problem. The way the article reads without mainstream/generalist views like Köster and Lenski is that the question is simply which Urgospel theory to pick. The article was already weak and thinly sourced in this area (partly because most SBL scholars won't waste time on it) now there's next to nothing representing the mainstream view. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with waiting to find out what Schmidt had to say. Btw, I agree with PiCo's deletions, although possibly for different reasons. 1. The first paragraph of the criticism section is a rehash of the J-C gospel problem. It makes sense to remove that duplication here and rely on the gateway J-C article to explain it. 2. The summary arguments of Lenski and Koester in the second paragraph are incredibly weak. For example, Lenski is engaging in sophistry by saying in essence if a Hebrew gospel was that important it would have been preserved. History is full of examples where documents are lost due to war or bad luck. Koester's argument is a value judgement that Jerome must have either been an idiot or lying. This is not scholarship. Ignocrates (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reinserted the 2 paras for the sake of argument, but still feel they add nothing. I really need a source that states that Aramaic Matthew is fringe. PiCo (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the combination of (a) taking Jerome's quotes as reliable, and (b) making the lost J-C Gospels into Eichhorn's Ur-Gospel which is Fringe, although in fairness I don't think Edwards actually claims that. As Ignocrates says Koester's argument is a value judgement that Jerome must have either been an idiot or lying, - I think the general view is that Jerome was a bit of both. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a prime example of traditionalist scholars trying to force canonical status on a hypothesis. Denigrating Jerome is the only way they can make the three-gospel hypothesis hold together. It's not a coincidence that the collapse of consensus around this hypothesis is correlated with the rehabilitation of Jerome as a scholar. Ignocrates (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We should mention the possibly legendary account, described by Ehrman (2011) p.38, of Eusebius in Historica Ecclestastica 5.10.3 reporting that Clement's teacher Pantaenus found a Hebrew version of Matthew's Gospel in India, which, according to tradition, had been brought there by the apostle Bartholomew. I don't see it mentioned here or in any other article on the gospels. It is mentioned in the article on Pantaenus, but that article is an OR/POV crap-fest. Ignocrates (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, we can add more on Eusebius. Best ref would be Harold W. Attridge, Gōhei Hata - Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism 1992 - Page 132 Eusebius' comments about the Gospel of Matthew form a consistent pattern. ... encountering a Christian group in India who traced their origins to the apostle Bartholomew, who had left them a copy of this gospel "in Hebrew" (HE 5.10). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Good plan. Ignocrates (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD or stub

It appears that we have made reasonable efforts to incorporate any material from the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article that might be useful into the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis article. In addition, I pasted a few things to the Talk:Gospel of the Nazoraeans and Talk:Q pages. What is the community's opinion about the ultimate fate of the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article? Is there is room for a stub on a Hebrew (Aramaic) Matthew or should the whole thing be TNT'd by an AfD? I won't support a deletion by redirect for ethical reasons. Opinions please. Ignocrates (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Despite its title, Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) is actually about the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew - i.e., the idea is that this ur-Matthew is the Aramaic gospel. The statements made in the article are wildly misleading - it says "many now argue that there was a gospel written in Hebrew behind the canonical Gospels... The Hebrew Gospel tradition is both controversial and the subject of ongoing scholarly debate," but for the life of me I can't find "many" scholars arguing this, or any scholarly debate. To me the article is clearly a pov fork from the Gospel of Matthew's discussion of composition and authorship, and contains very little, possibly nothing, of value. I'm sorry about that because I quite like user RetProf, whose article I think it is, but I'd go for deletion.PiCo (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - however I don't see why we can't just redirect. There's nothing "unethical" about removing, again, an article that has already been deleted once, and several previous "Authentic Matthew" deletions going back to 2005. But whatever, delete. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

My reasoning is that we shouldn't have a problem with stating publicly that there is nothing left of value to be merged and letting the community decide. In this case, we have more than exercised due diligence in going through the material, so it should be just a formality. Ignocrates (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per PiCo, and via PROD. I'm satisfied that we have wrung everything of value out of the article. Since this deletion is uncontroversial, I'm going to remove the merge tags and then tag the article with Propose Deletion as a middle ground between a redirect and a formal AfD. Ignocrates (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

PROD tag applied. Assuming there are no objections, the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article will automatically be deleted in seven days. Ignocrates (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per PiCo and Ignocrates. Since Hebrew Gospel redirects to Gospel of the Hebrews, that's about all anyone would need as a search term, so PROD works for me. – Paine (Climax!)  08:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

I changed the redirects so that Authentic Matthew and Authentic Gospel of Matthew redirect here instead of Jewish-Christian Gospels. Aramaic Matthew already redirected to this article. All of these articles are attempts to describe a hypothetical original Gospel of Matthew. Now all the redirects are logically consistent. Ignocrates (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There is one additional point to make about these redirects; it is the Aramaic Matthew redirect that should be made into a stub, per WP:SPLIT, if an when this fringe topic is considered sufficiently notable to merit its own article. The redirect tag already indicates this. The other two are useless junk that should probably be PRODed, but why bother at this point. Ignocrates (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Shlomo Pines

I found the following content by Shlomo Pines, including a complete translation, in Shlomo Pines (1966). The Jewish Christians Of The Early Centuries Of Christianity According To A New Source. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities II, No. 13. ISBN 102-255-998. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help) from an Arabic text entitled Tathbit Dala'il Nubuwwat Sayyidina Mahammad by Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad:

(Shlomo Pines) "The historical texts may be divided into the following sections:

1. A text containing (a) a relation of the fortunes of the first Christian Community of Jerusalem from the death of Jesus till the flight of its members with a short reference to their tribulations in exile and (b) an account of the origin of the four canonical Gospels and of the successful efforts made to put an end to the use of the original Hebrew Gospels.

2. A short passage stating the reasons for the decadence of Christianity and giving a version of the first Christian attempts at converting the Gentiles in Antioch, which is probably based on the account figuring in the Acts of the Apostles.

3. A hostile biography of Saint Paul, partly also based on the Acts.

4. The second part of section 3 is joined or jumbled in a curious way with the beginning of section 4, which gives an account of Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, of this emperor himself and of the Council of Nicaea and also refers to Constantine's successors. This section also contains a passage on Mani.

The first section is here translated in full:

After him, his disciples were with the Jews and the Children of Israel in the latter's synagogues and observed the prayers and the feasts of (the Jews) in the same place as the latter. (However) there was a disagreement between them and the Jews with regard to Christ.

The Romans reigned over them. The Christians (used to) complain to the Romans about the Jews, showed them their own weakness and appealed to their pity. And the Romans did pity them. This (used) to happen frequently. And the Romans said to the Christians: "Between us and the Jews there is a pact which (obliges us) not to change their religious laws. But if you would abandon their laws and separate yourselves from them, praying as we do (while facing) the East, eating (the things) we eat, and regarding as permissible that which we consider as such, we should help you and make you powerful, and the Jews would find no way (to harm you). On the contrary, you would be more powerful than they."

The Christians answered: "We will do this."

(And the Romans) said: "Go, fetch your companions, and bring your Book." (The Christians) went to their companions, informed them of (what had taken place) between them and the Romans and said to them: "Bring the Gospel, and stand up so that we should go to them." But these (companions) said to them: "You have done ill. We are not permitted (to let) the Romans pollute the Gospel. In giving a favorable answer to the Romans, you have accordingly departed from the religion. We are (therefore) no longer permitted to associate with you; on the contrary, we are obliged to declare that there is nothing in common between us and you;" and they prevented their (taking possession of) the Gospel or gaining access to it. In consequence a violent quarrel (broke out) between (the two groups). Those (mentioned in the first place) went back to the Romans and said to them: "Help us against these companions of ours before (helping us) against the Jews, and take away from them on our behalf our Book." Thereupon (the companions of whom they had spoken) fled the country. And the Romans wrote concerning them to their governors in the districts of Mosul and in the Jazirat al-'Arab. Accordingly, a search was made for them; some were caught and burned, others were killed.

(As for) those who had given a favorable answer to the Romans they came together and took counsel as to how to replace the Gospel, seeing that it was lost to them. (Thus) the opinion that a Gospel should be composed was established among them. They said: "the Torah (consists) only of (narratives concerning) the births of the prophets and of the histories of their lives. We are going to construct a Gospel according to this (pattern).

Everyone among us is going to call to mind that which he remembers of the words of the Gospel and of (the things) about which the Christians talked among themselves (when speaking) of Christ." Accordingly, some people wrote a Gospel. After (them) came others (who) wrote (another) Gospel. (In this manner) a certain number of Gospels were written. (However) a great part of what was (contained) in the original was missing in them. There were among them (men), one after another, who knew many things that were contained in the true Gospel, but with a view to establishing their dominion, they refrained from communicating them. In all this there was no mention of the cross or of the crucifix. According to them there were eighty Gospels. However, their (number) constantly diminished and became less, until (only) four Gospels were left which are due to four individuals. Every one of them composed in his time a Gospel. Then another came after him, saw that (the Gospel composed by his predecessor) was imperfect, and composed another which according to him was more correct, nearer to correction than the Gospel of the others.

Then there is not among these a Gospel (written) in the language of Christ, which was spoken by him and his companions, namely the Hebrew language, which is that of Abraham, the Friend of God and of the other prophets, (the language) which was spoken by them and in which the Books of God were revealed to them and to the other Children of Israel, and in which God addressed them.

(For) they have abandoned (this language). Learned men said to them: "Community of Christians, give up the Hebrew language, which is the language of Christ and the prophets (who were) before him, peace be upon them, and (adopt) other languages." Thus there is no Christian who (in observing) a religious obligation recites these Gospels in the Hebrew language: he does not do so out of ruse (using) a stratagem, in order to avoid (public) shame.

Therefore people said to them: The giving-up occurred because your first masters aimed at deception in their writings using such stratagems as quotations from counterfeit authorities in the lies which they composed, and concealing these stratagems. They did this because they sought to obtain domination. For at that time the Hebrews were people of the Book and men of knowledge. Accordingly, these individuals altered the language or rather gave it up altogether, in order that the men of knowledge should not grasp quickly their teaching and their objectives. (For if they had done so these individuals) would have been disgraced before having been (able) to consolidate their teaching and their (objectives) would not have been fulfilled. Accordingly, they gave up (Hebrew and took up) numerous other languages which had not been spoken by Christ and his companions. (Those who speak these languages) are not people of the Book and have no knowledge concerning God's books and commandments. Such were the Romans, the Syrians, the Persians, the Armenians and other foreigners. This was done by means of deception and ruse by this small group of people who (wanted) to hide their infamy and to reach the goal of their wishes in their aspiration for dominion (which was to be won) through (the instrumentality of) religion.

If this were not so they would have used the language of Abraham, of his children and of Christ, through whom the edifice had been constructed and to whom the books had been revealed. In establishing a proof (meant) for the Children of Israel and the unbelievers among the Jews it would have been better that a call be made to them in their own tongue and a discussion engaged with them in their language, which they would not have been able to refuse. Know this; it is a great principle.

Know-may God have mercy upon you-that these three sects do not believe that God revealed to Christ in one way or another a Gospel or a book. Rather, according to them, Christ created the prophets, revealed to them the books and sent to them angels. However, they have with them Gospels composed by four individuals, each one of whom wrote a Gospel. After (one of them) came (another) who was not satisfied with (his predecessor's) Gospel and held that his own Gospel was better. (These Gospels) agree in certain places and disagree in others; in some of them (there are passages) which are not (found) in the other. There are tales concerning people-men and women-from among the Jews, the Romans, and other (nations, who) said this and did that. There are many absurdities, (many) false and stupid things and many obvious lies and manifest contradictions. It was this which people have thoroughly studied and set apart. However, a person who reads it becomes aware of this if he examines it carefully. Something-but little-of the sayings, the precepts of Christ and information concerning him is also to be found there.

As for the four Gospels: one of them was composed by John and another by Matthew. Then, after these two came Mark who was not satisfied with their two Gospels. Then, after these came Luke, who was not satisfied with these Evangels and composed (still) another one. Each one of them was of the opinion that the man who had composed a Gospel before him, had given a correct account of (certain) things and had distorted others, and that another (Gospel) would be more deserving of recognition and more correct. For if his predecessor had succeeded in giving a correct account, there would have been no need for him to compose another, different from that of his predecessor.

None of these four Gospels is a commentary upon another (Gospel); (it is not a case of) someone who coming after (someone else) comments upon his predecessor's book, giving first an account of what the latter had said, and then (proposing) a commentary. Know this: (he who composed a Gospel) did this, because another man had fallen short of success (at his task).

These (Christian) sects are of the opinion that these four (Evangelists) were companions and disciples of Christ. But they do not know, having no information (on the subject), who they were. On this (point) they can (merely) make a claim. For Luke mentions in his Gospel that he had never seen Christ. Addressing (the man) for whom he composed his Gospel---he is the last of the four (Evangelists)--- he says: "I knew your desire of good, of knowledge and of instruction, and I composed this Gospel because I knew this and because I was close to those who had served and seen the Word." Thus he says clearly in the first place that he did not see the Word---they signify by this word Christ; thereupon he claims to have seen people) who had seen Christ. But his having seen them is a (mere) assertion (on his part). If he had been someone deserving of trust, he would not have-in view of the (kind of) information (which was at his disposal)---composed anything at all. In spite of this he mentions that his Gospel is preferable to those of the others.

If the Christians would consider these things, they would know that the Gospels which are with them are of no profit to them, and that the knowledge claimed (on their behalf) by their masters and the authors (of these Gospels) is not (found) in them, and that on this point) things are just as we have said---it is a well-known (fact) which is referred to here (namely the fact that they have abandoned the religion of Christ and turned towards) the religious doctrines of the Romans, prizing and (seeking to obtain) in haste the profits which could be derived from their domination and their riches.

The first part of this text appears to outline the early history of the Jewish Christian community, whose writings were adapted by 'Abd al-Jabbar; to be precise, its history as it was remembered in the tradition of the sect." (end quotation)

Pines claims elsewhere in the article that the original language of composition was probably Syriac, and that Abd al-Jabbar translated the material into Arabic and adapted it for his own purposes. This material certainly seems applicable to an article on a hypothetical or lost Aramaic/Hebrew gospel. Ignocrates (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)