Talk:Gospel of Matthew

Request to Add new Sub-Title to Current Article

The editors of this article may wish to consider adding a new sub-title entitled, "Jewish Exegeses in Jesus' Teachings," which, by the nature of its title, requires a brief look into some of his teachings, and approached from the standpoint of "Source Criticism." This, I think, would be most appropriate to an article treating on the Gospel of Matthew. In fact, IMHO, it is the essence of the Gospel itself. Of course, all of the editors can be involved in its making, citing references which explain some of his, otherwise, esoteric sayings. Having such a sub-topic will greatly enhance the article. In my opinion, it would not have to be long, nor cover the entire Book of Matthew. We can discuss what teaching/saying might be appropriate in this regard and show where it has been diacritically analyzed, thereby bringing to our readers a more enlightened understanding. Davidbena (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

David, have you looked at the section "Themes in Matthew"? Look over that, then read the books cited as sources, and see if you might refine your suggestion in that light. (Personally I think the Themes section could be more detailed). PiCo (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, PiCo. I'll take a look at your suggestion. Davidbena (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Scope

Extended content

The scope of an article is the topic or subject matter, which is defined by reliable sources. I am now willing to concede to user:John Carter that reliable tertiary sources would be helpful in this regard. Verification Verifiability: Remember other people have to be able to check that editors didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. NOTE:verifiability, not truth. Tertiary sources such as encyclopedias and dictionaries remain difficult to verify. With the downturn in the global economy many libraries do not have the most recent encyclopedias etc. Inter library loans policy generally does not cover encyclopedias etc. POD is generally not available for encyclopedias etc. Google books is generally prohibited from most reference books. Many editors are not in a position to buy an encyclopedia to verify a fact. Therefore, verification has become a practical problem. Also because of the internet, publishers have had to cut costs which means that many "new" Encyclopedias etc are already out of date. Also, Online Encyclopedias ie The Net Bible must be handled with care. Yesterday, I undertook the tedious task of going to the seminary library and reading through the Biblical companions, study Bibles, commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias etc. The good news is that reliable sources are united on one point. In their articles or sections on the Gospel of Matthew, they refer to Papias and "his trustworthiness". He is considered important as he provides the earliest information about the composition of Matthew. (See Google list 1 Google list #2 Note also many reliable reference books do not have a Google preview, therefore a trip to the library will be necessary) Also page numbers tend to be movable depending on the edition of a work. Also different libraries tend to have different editions of reference works. To verify one must go to the Gospel of Matthew section found in the reference work. Blackwells (2010) p 301, Encyclopaedia of the historical Jesus (2008) p 256, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003) p 357 ESV Study Bible (2012) p 1815, Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (1990) p 558 The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (2013) p 891, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. p 281 Over 179 reference books in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew, devote a section to Papias, and the trustworthiness of his testimony re Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303 I have chosen Blackwell as my main tertiary source as it is 1) up to date, 2) has an online preview to verify 3) is representative of tertiary sources on topic. 4) has been vetted as a reliable source at Wikipedia. Author and Setting: The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together [text variant “wrote”] the sayings [logia] in Matthew the Hebrew [Hebraiois] dialect [dialecto ̄] and each one translated them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302) By saying, "and each one translated them as he was able," gives allowance for Greek translations to be made with omissions and/or mistranslations, as well as paraphrases, in the text. Hmmmmmmm. I wonder now about our current canonical text of Matthew.Davidbena (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC) I've wondered about that for some time myself, but, unfortunately, without sources indicating what material might be added or deleted, and without any real sources wondering is all we can do. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus actually does a great job indicating all the ways the text of the NT could be, and in some ways pretty much has been verified to have been, changed. But, in a sense, by the same token, there is perhaps also a question as to whether the author of the original Matthew himself were necessarily the ideal source, and whether in some cases the editing to whatever the original was might not have been in some ways improved, particularly if they were based on, for instance, the word of people who had been direct witnesses to things the author of Matthew himself might not have been witness to. This is unfortunately a line of speculation which can't ever be taken to a real, conclusive, end, though, and on that basis this probably isn't the best place to dwell too much on it. John Carter (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC) John, yes, we can only speculate about the matter, since the oldest manuscript of the Gospels is John Rylands P52, and it is merely a fragment. Still, no scholar worth his salt can be numb to the fact that (1) “The books [canonical gospels] are not heard of till 150 A.D., that is, till Jesus had been dead nearly a hundred and twenty years. No writer before 150 A.D. makes the slightest mention of them.” - Bronson, C. Keeler, “A Short History of the Bible;” and (2) “In AD 303... the pagan emperor Diocletian had undertaken to destroy all Christian writings that could be found. As a result Christian documents- especially in Rome- all but vanished. When Constantine commissioned new versions of these documents, it enabled the custodians of orthodoxy to revise, edit, and rewrite their material as they saw fit, in accordance with their tenets. It was at this point that most of the crucial alterations in the New Testament were probably made and Jesus assumed the unique status he has enjoyed ever since. The importance of Constantine's commission must not be underestimated. Of the five thousand extant early manuscript versions of the New Testament, no complete edition pre-dates the fourth century. The New Testament, as it exists today, is essentially a product of fourth-century editors and writers – custodians of orthodoxy, ‘adherents of the message’, with vested interests to protect.” - Michael Baigent, “Holy Blood, Holy Grail,” pp. 388-389. I have actually seen a book in Hebrew which approaches the subject from Textual criticism of the N.T. gospel, pointing out translation errors in Matthew's Gospel. I do not possess a copy of that Hebrew source, although I read it once. When I find again its name and author, I will quote it here for our readers.Davidbena (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC) The only real comment I can make here is that I am really, really astounded that you seem to think Michael Baigent's sensationalist drivel would even remotely qualify as anything remotely reliable, considering virtually every published work he has has been more or less laughed at from publication on. Maybe it is just a personal opinion, but if there is any single individual out there who writes about early Christianity who should be, basically, completely ignored, it's him. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC) If this interpretation of Papias is correct, there are several historical problems. First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (see Chapter 15, "The Synoptic Problem," in this volume). This theory requires that the author of Matthew knew and used Greek versions of Mark and Greek Q as sources. Third, the gospel contains sayings and sayings collections, but is itself not a collection of sayings such as Proverbs or The Gospel of Thomas. In short, Papias' description does not correspond well with the New Testament. — Duling, p. 302 Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC) I beg to differ for the following reasons: - Papias' opinion about the authorship of the original Matthew and, subsequently, later translations of the Aramaic text, is not bound by what modern scholars think or do not think about the canonical Gospel's authorship. The two are not necessarily connected. - As for "specialists in language" who examined the canonical text of the Gospel of Matthew, their findings may have indeed been true about the canonical Gospel of Matthew (the Greek Evangelion). A Greek speaker may have transcribed it and may have been familiar with proper Greek usages and idioms in light of the Aramaic text. This, too, has no real bearing on the original book of Matthew which Papias spoke about. As a professional translator, I have often translated Hebrew idioms into a colloquial English that could be understood by the reader, rather than translate idioms verbatim, and which would be senseless to the reader. It is not inconceivable to think that the author of the canonical Gospel of Matthew did the same thing (IMHO). - As for the "Synoptic Problem," and the author's acquaintance with at least the Gospel of Mark and/or the Gospel of Luke, this problem can only be ascribed to the author who spoke Greek and who transcribed the book from his available sources - be they Greek, Latin or Aramaic sources. Again, the author of the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew cannot be linked to this "Synoptic Problem," since the Synoptic Problem is only concerned with the relationship between the Greek Gospels themselves, and no more. I do not understand what you mean by saying the Gospel is not a "collection" of sayings. What is its significance? On a lighter note, gentlemen, have any of you seen this enlightened article? Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research. While I might not agree with all that is stated therein, it still brings down invaluable sources which can help us all to better understand this matter.Davidbena (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC) You have to decide if you consider that source reliable or unreliable. It certainly cannot be both at the same time. Besides, if you will continue with pushing original research arguments you will get a topic ban. Papias' testimony means nothing as long as he speaks of the disciple called Matthew while there is a broad academic consensus that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew. There is a board scholarly consensus that the author of the Gospel of Matthew was anonymous and that the gospel was written in Greek, i.e. it was not a translation. You have expressed apologies for your behavior at WP:ANI but you still continue with the same problematic behavior you had to apologize for. That's why the topic ban is getting closer. Nobody has anything against a newbie who does not know the rules, but you are obviously a newbie who is unwilling to learn the rules and abide by them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC) David, please remember we are not all men. And those of us who are, don't necessarily claim to be gentlemen.--Rbreen (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Net Bible

I do not use online sources such as Wikipedia, NET Bible, etc as sources for content. I am using the NET Bible to show what a successful online source format should look like. Also note the NPOV... all scholarly positions are explained...both those who support the trustworthiness of Papias and those who oppose. I strongly suggest both sides stop their POV pushing and write an article from a NPOV. Remember NPOV policy at Wikipedia CANNOT be set aside by consensus!

• 2. Authorship.

The questions that cluster around the First Gospel have largely to do with the much-discussed and variously disputed statement concerning it found in Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), cited from the much older work of Papias, entitled Interpretation of the Words of the Lord. Papias is the first who mentions Matthew by name as the author of the Gospel. His words are: "Matthew composed the Logia (logia, "words," "oracles") in the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue, and everyone interpreted them as he was able." Papias cannot here be referring to a book of Matthew in which only the discourses or sayings of Jesus had been preserved, but which had not any, or only meager accounts of His deeds, which imaginary document is in so many critical circles regarded as the basis of the present Gospel, for Papias himself uses the expression ta logia, as embracing the story, as he himself says, in speaking of Mark, "of the things said or done by Christ" (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24; compare particularly T. Zahn, Introduction to New Testament, section 54, and Lightfoot, Supernatural Religion, 170 ff). Eusebius further reports that after Matthew had first labored among his Jewish compatriots, he went to other nations, and as a substitute for his oral preaching, left to the former a Gospel written in their own dialect (III, 24). The testimony of Papias to Matthew as the author of the First Gospel is confirmed by Irenaeus (iii.3, 1) and by Origen (in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10), and may be accepted as representing a uniform 2nd-century tradition. Always, however, it is coupled with the statement that the Gospel was originally written in the Hebrew dialect. Hence, arises the difficult question of the relation of the canonical Greek Gospel, with which alone, apparently, the fathers were acquainted, to this alleged original apostolic work.

• 3. Relation of Greek and Aramaic Gospels:

One thing which seems certain is that whatever this Hebrew (Aramaic) document may have been, it was not an original form from which the present Greek Gospel of Matthew was translated, either by the apostle himself, or by somebody else, as was maintained by Bengel, Thiersch, and other scholars. Indeed, the Greek Matthew throughout bears the impress of being not a translation at all, but as having been originally written in Greek, and as being less Hebraistic in the form of thought than some other New Testament writings, e.g. the Apocalypse. It is generally not difficult to discover when a Greek book of this period is a translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic. That our Matthew was written originally in Greek appears, among other things, from the way in which it makes use of the Old Testament, sometimes following the Septuagint, sometimes going back to the Hebrew. Particularly instructive passages in this regard are 12:18-21 and 13:14,15, in which the rendering of the Alexandrian translation would have served the purposes of the evangelist, but he yet follows more closely the original text, although he adopts the Septuagint wherever this seemed to suit better than the Hebrew (compare Keil's Commentary on Matthew, loc. cit.).

The external evidences to which appeal is made in favor of the use of an original Hebrew or Aramaic. Matthew in the primitive church are more than elusive. Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10) mentions as a report (legetai) that Pantaenus, about the year 170 AD, found among the Jewish Christians, probably of South Arabia, a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, left there by Bartholomew; and Jerome, while in the Syrian Berea, had occasion to examine such a work, which he found in use among the Nazarenes, and which at first he regarded as a composition of the apostle Matthew, but afterward declared not to be such, and then identified with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Evangelium secundum or juxta Hebraeos) also called the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, or of the Nazarenes, current among the Nazarenes and Ebionites (De Vir. Illustr., iii; Contra Pelag., iii.2; Commentary on Mt 12:13, etc.). For this reason the references by Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew are by many scholars regarded as referring to this Hebrew Gospel which the Jewish Christians employed, and which they thought to be the work of the evangelist (compare for fuller details See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, XII, article "Matthaeus der Apostel"). Just what the original Hebrew. Mathew was to which Papias refers (assuming it to have had a real existence) must, with our present available means, remain an unsolved riddle, as also the possible connection between the Greek and Hebrew texts. Attempts like those of Zahn, in his Kommentar on Matthew, to explain readings of the Greek text through an inaccurate understanding of the imaginary Hebrew original are arbitrary and unreliable. There remains, of course, the possibility that the apostle himself, or someone under his care (thus Godet), produced a Greek recension of an earlier Aramaic work.

The prevailing theory at present is that the Hebrew Matthean document of Papias was a collection mainly of the discourses of Jesus (called by recent critics Q), which, in variant Greek translations, was used both by the author of the Greek Matthew and by the evangelist Luke, thus explaining the common features in these two gospels (W.C. Allen, however, in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Matthew, disputes Luke's use of this supposed common source, Intro, xlvi ff). The use of this supposed Matthean source is thought to explain how the Greek Gospel came to be named after the apostle. It has already been remarked, however, that there is no good reason for supposing that the "Logia" of Papias was confined to discourses.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ret.Prof (talk • contribs) 13:52, 31 August 2013‎ (UTC)

WP:NPOV

A special thanks to PiCo for allowing Papias into the article. It seems that the main conflict is no longer about scope. Our article now has a good section about Papias and trustworthiness. However, there is a POV problem in that all the sources in support of the trustworthiness of Papias (ie Casey, Ehrman etc) have been deleted from the article. NPOV is central to Wikipedia and CANNOT even be overridden by consensus. Therefore I have restored the following paragraph:

• Today, some modern scholars believe the Papias reference, preserved by Eusebius to be fairly trustworthy and usually interpret it to mean Jesus' disciple Matthew had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic. Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect, and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ret.Prof (talk • contribs) 13:52, 31 August 2013‎ (UTC)

References

Just another liberal rag attempt to discredit the Bible

So do you Bible hating liberals ever get tired of writing only your own views and pretending they are facts? Odd that not one view other then the Liberal "The Bible was written later then the Apostles because it is all made up" crap is ever seen on Anti-Christpedia. FACT - Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and it was written before 70 AD. but since you liberals can't muster the faith to believe that Jesus could actually predict the Destruction of the temple then you make up lies and justify it by adding the world "Most Biblical Scholars believe" Well only the lame liberal morons that reject the Bible think that, but you are to bigoted to allow any other view point such as the writings of Walvoord, Moody, Bruce etc. You know actual BIBLE SCHOLARS THAT TEACH THE BIBLE AT CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITIES. Typical liberal Free speech means MY SPEECH NOT YOURS. Do me a favor and prove me wrong by going to the Koran site and attack the Muslim Book with the same liberal hate that you use on the Bible. You won't because 1) you are a coward and 2) you don't hate Allah as much as you hate JESUS and Christianity. OK quick, delete this because it disagrees with you and the Christaphobic bigot rules of Anti-Christapedia. I added some things to the Article but I'm sure you will remove it all because it doesn't attack the Bible like the rest of the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

..............Like I said, my addition was up for 3 mins before one of the Christian-haters took it down. No wonder Wikipedia is now a joke and not accepted as a legitimate source by any professional teacher. To bad, it started out to be a good thing u but like everything that liberals control, they destroyed it and made it a joke. So let me ask a real question. If a white person tried to rewrite all of Black history and refused to post anything by black authors because they were considered just POV wouldn't that be called RACISM? so what is it called when Anti-Christs and liberals who don't believe the Bible rewrite Bible history?????? I call it Christaphobic Bigotry. Whatever you call it, it is just as evil a Racism!--69.14.97.53 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The article on the Quran says in the lede: "However, major textual variations and deficiencies in scripts mean the relationship between the text of today's Quran and an original text is unclear." That is a reflection of the scholarship on the issue, and certainly does not accord with a certain Muslim belief. No one is attacking the Bible, we are just trying to the best of our ability to represent the scholarship on the issues. We are just volunteers who enjoy this topic. Our criteria for inclusion and representation of points of view are not based on what or who is "liberal" and what or who is "conservative". If you wish to see a relevant policy, please go to WP:V. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit misrepresents what the reliable sources say (e.g., they do not say merely that Liberal scholars believe that it is anonymous; they say that it is anonymous). Your only source for the other material you included was a .gif of unknown provenance which does not support most of the claims you included. You have to supply a reliable source for a challenged claim. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You want sources then try anything written by Bible Believing Scholars at any of the 1000s of Biblical Universities. Try any book published by Moody Press, Eerdmans Press, Zondervan Press - you know all the publishers that you Liberal Bible haters are afraid to reference. The fact is that Wikipedia is run and controlled by Anti-theists and will use any excuse to keep their articles as Christaphobic as possible. I wonder if Richard Dawkins isn't the Commander & Chief of Wikipedia. For instance, what is you view of God - I would bet my life that if you told the truth, you are a Anti-Theist or you wouldn't be a editor here. No matter what a REAL BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN wrote, Wikipedia would delete it as just a POV because you view belief in God as just a POV. The Koran post above proves nothing. Try saying that the Koran was written 300 years after Mohamed was dead and that he copied it all from someone else and see how long you live. Fact is Wikipedia treats the Bible with pure HATE unlike it's treatment of other so-called Holy Text. OK you can ban me now and delete all this for speaking out against the GREAT LIBERAL RAG of Anti-Christapedia - like always happen. I guess another library IP address will be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW since Liberals are to lazy to look up facts, here are a few (just a few) references for you:

R.T. France, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 1, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 2007)

William L. Lane, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 2, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1974)

Norval Geldenhuys, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 3, The Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1983)

Everett F. Herrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1964)

Robert G Gromacki, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House., 1979)

Irving L. Jensen, Jensen's Survey of the New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981)

Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Handbook (Chicago: Moody Press, 1967)

Let me guess, since these are Christian Bible Believing Scholars that can't be trusted. well before you look foolish I looked up just one of the authors GELDENHUYS and he served at both Princeton & Cambridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so here is the report from a book published by Eerdmans:

The author of the Gospel does not identify himself within the narrative. ... In this commentary the anonymous author of the Gospel will be referred to interchangeably as "the author of Matthew," "the author of the Gospel," of "Matthew".

— Saldarini, "Matthew" in Dunn & Rogerson (eds.), Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Eerdmans, 2003), p. 1000.

In your latest edit [1] you've supplied a bunch of sources, but no page numbers. Would you mind telling me where the claims you have included occur in these works? These works are from over five hundred pages long to over one thousand pages long (as in the case of the France); it is a bit hard to find the support for your claims without knowing where to look. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

OK I give up. Like I said, you anti-theists will do anything or say anything to get your way. What happens after I SUPPLY YOU WITH THE PAGE #. WHAT EXCUSE WILL YOU USE THEN?? FORGET IT, JUST DELETE EVERYTHING LIKE WE BOTH KNOW YOU WILL ANYWAY. YOU CAN'T WIN WITH ANTI-THEISTS FASCISTS and let me be clear, you are Fascists.