User talk:Ret.Prof/archive4

Archive 4 (2011)

.

.

		The article you created was just deleted?
		All is not lost. Here is what you can do right now:
		Many administrators will be happy to give you a copy of your deleted article, either by putting it on a special user page for you (a process called userfication) or by e-mailing you a copy. List of administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles (empty) no pages or subcategories Once you have the article, you can try to resolve the issues why it was deleted. If you've repaired the article, or you believe the reasons for deleting the article were in error, you can dispute the deletion at Deletion Review. Generally, you must show how the previous deletion(s) were in error, but this is the place to resolve disputes about whether a deletion was wrong.

When a person goes through the time and effort to write an article or to research sources or whatever, he or she is going to have some emotional attachment to it. That's natural. Personally, I like it when someone takes an article and improves it and expands it. But if there's a danger of the hatchet coming down in the form of aggressivedeletion monkeys, then why should I put my time and mental equanimity on the line? I'm a professional writer and editor. I get paid to do this stuff. I'm less willing to write and edit articles on a voluntary basis when those contributions aren't welcome. -- Acsenray

The above quote shows why constructive edits are so very important. It also shows why we suffered a net loss of 49,000 volunteer editors in the first three months of this year, compared with 4,900 for the same period last year. Even our fund raising is being hurt. A simple rule for groups that depend on volunteers and donations is they must treat people nicely. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian, Thursday 26 November, Jenny Kleeman: Go to an article on a current event, or a celebrity, and you're likely to find that it's been "protected" from tinkering by newcomers. But it could be that the collaborative aspect itself is driving people away. Disenchanted ex-volunteers say they are burned by squabbling with established editors over their contributions, and some claim the site is run by an impenetrable inner circle that controls all its content. "It's colloquially known as the cabal, although it's more like a hierarchy of power cliques, each one staking out its territory," says former contributor Barry Kort.

Jenny we are not a cabal, but we need editors of good faith to stop this from happening. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia: the Story

Wag more, bark less,
Don't bite.

.

.

.

Temporarily stopped editing

I seem to have pissed really upset an editor at Gospel of the Hebrews and the Jewish Gospels. I tried work to out a compromise which seems to have upset him even more. Before it gets really ugly, I have decided to step back and ask for Admin. support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear RetProf. Well it hasn't got ugly so far. You have been deleting content cf. Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews etc. (which just happens to reflect the mainstream academic POV) and I haven't been reversing your deletions have I? There's no edit warring, I'm merely asking you to please explain your deletions on the talk pages, which you seem unwilling to do. I also note that you have removed NPOV tags, which I have also not reversed. This is all the more unfortunate in that I don't even have much interest in this subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are correct as it does appear we have avoided an edit war. Actually my intention was not to delete your hard work, but to temporarily revert until consensus was achieved. I am now enjoying the good natured scholarly debate. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction: We haven't avoided an edit war. I have avoided an edit war by accepting the deletions of someone who clearly is pushing a fringe view and isn't familiar with mainstream scholarship on the subject he's appointed himself king of the castle. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A little harsh? However I will strike my comment that offended you.- Ret.Prof (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not harsh at all. Your behaviour is that of a one-sided edit war, you are constantly firing, deleting any edit I make. And I'm supposed to apologise to you for your behaviour? And you're sitting there patting yourself on the back for how we've avoided an edit war. It wouldn't be so bad if you were familiar with the mainstream academic sources you're deleting. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It is important to calm down. I am not deleting your hard work, but merely reverting it temporarily until we reach consensus. Although I disagree that your sources are the "standard" or more "mainline" than Parker etc. they will be fully represented in the article. Good humor and not taking ourselves too seriously would be good. Also it is important that we stop calling each other names. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems one "old guy" is getting badly beaten by the Oculi dude. Time to take some time to heal. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear RetProf, Imagine if I was the one following you around deleting your contributions, would I be the one playing for pity? As it stands I have taken repeated thumps from you - you followed me round 4 pages deleting 5 hours work, and then you refused to even discuss it - you still refuse to discuss it. But, in Wikipedia terms, I have turned the other cheek, I have not reverted, I have not responded in kind by deleting your contributions, I have asked for explanation for why the mainstream view should be deleted. I made one more innocuous edit (moving two duplicate paragraphs together so another editor could edit) and you immediately deleted that too. And now you need time to heal? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I heal quickly. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Trust but verify

• Am I really playing for pity?
• Have I been civil, or given "repeated thumps"?
• Was I "following Oculi around deleting his contributions" or simply trying to work out consensus?
• Are In ictu oculi's references really 'mainline' or just one position in ongoing scholarly debate?
• Did I really remove his tags from the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites?
• Did I really delete all In ictu oculi's edits or only revert those lacking consensus?
• Have I been acting in good faith; trying to work out a reasonable compromise?
• Is Schneemelcher's numbering really the present 'standard'?
• What is really meant by "this is a minor/trivial/boring subject"?

In any event, I hope my edits speak for themselves. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear RetProf.

Sorry, the delete-and-go-weepy-when-challenged approach is one I've seen used before.

Someone did follow me round 4 pages and delete 100% of changes over a 4 hour period on Saturday with no explanation, and till now have refused all requests for explanation on 4 talk pages, if it wasn't you who was it?

As you know from the way the above verify question is phrased (sneaky) you did remove NPOV tags here and here.

Asking questions like "Is Schneemelcher's numbering really the present 'standard'?" isn't for here, it's for on the talk page where you asked already that question - after having deleted first - and were given 8 SBL authors using Schneemelcher's numbering. After which you still restored Melissa from the Bangkok internet cafe's invented unique-to-Wikipedia numbering because you "strongly support" it. And by "this is a minor/trivial/boring subject" I mean that better editing would be done by those who are detached from the subject and happy to see in an encyclopedia article a concise/non-controversial summary of academic orthodoxy, whether it is right or wrong, and the "controversial" theories further down the page. Anyway you should be off the pages now, or you can stay and block/delete other editors, either way these pages don't mean enough to me to restore deletes in the face of an incumbent with a fringe view. Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Except the edits do not bare out what you say. You still sound very upset and I am sorry that you think I am responsible. I suspect you are now trying to intimidate me. I must say I do find your erratic behavior a little unsettling. Yet I still wonder if there is any chance in working through our differences. In any event I do wish you the best in your editing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

PS When people try to intimidate me I do not become "weepy", I become stronger, more determined...It is a serious mistake to confuse meekness with weakness.

Dear RetProf, though we both know you were never a professor.

You don't think it's slightly hypocritical to say "I do wish you the best in your editing" in the same breath as = I will continue to delete you?

You're fortunate, you're currently throwing your weight around and bullying in a small corner of Wikipedia which is prone to OR and fringe theories by nature. But if you try this out in more general subjects you will soon discover that the aggressive and territorial approach you're taking won't be accepted as I'm accepting it.

Now please leave me alone - you have had your way, 100%. You write those pages as fits with your view. I couldn't care less. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have considered your proposal and will assume good faith. Therefore I will step back. Starting now we will abstain from editing this topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Resumed editing

Resumed editing to join scholarly debate. Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now stopped editing this topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comments at AFD

I have noticed you have made very brief comments at several AFDs recently, this one [1] being a representative sample. Please keep in mind that AFD is supposed to be a discussion. Merely asserting something with one word is not particularly helpful, and such comments are routinely ignored when evaluating consensus. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. This is not intended to discourage you from participating at AFD, but rather to encourage you to make arguments of substance rather than bald assertions with no real analysis or commentary. Thanks for your time. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Will rectify immediately - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Too late! I see you have closed as keep notwithstanding my too brief comment. Thanks. Please be advised I have been duly sorted out. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Panyd has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Thank you for your well-wishes. They were very much appreciated and made me feel a lot better during my time off. For your kindness I present you with a kitten! May it love you and keep you. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, as you may know, I treasure kittens and admire people who act courageously when confronted with the challenges of life. Wishing you good health - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My Recent RFA

Hello and thank you for your recent support in my last RFA. I have unfortunately had chosen to withdraw my RFA with a Support of 7 and Opposition of 26 and 0 Neutral. I am in good sprites to attempt a possible RFA in a later time with more experience. This seems one of the main concerns expressed by the Wikipedia community as well as fixing my grammatical errors.I hope you support me in my discussion to withdraw and I am looking forward to your support in a future RFA's and other edits made by myself here on Wikipedia.

Thanks Again,

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} 00:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to supporting you in your next RfA. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Glane23

Hi Ret.Prof. I moved your comment directly below Logan's because it seemed like you were asking the question of him, and not me. If that was a mistake on my part, please revert me. It's a pretty confusing thread given that I disagree more strongly with Logan than I do with you, despite the fact that he and I are both opposing and you are supporting. I suspect that you are right, and that the candidate is being judged too harshly on superficial concerns. 28bytes (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, but thanks for letting me know. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for David Kenny

An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Kenny. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. v/r - TP 21:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course ;)--v/r - TP 00:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Josephus on Jesus

1. Ping Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus#Section_Deleted,
2. Please peruse the hat Wikipedia editor only. Academic hats and roles deviates more or less from the encyclopedic/librarian position, religious ones very much so.

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted per request. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Emilia Carr

Some opinions for Delete has been raised. Perhaps if you feel like it you could specify why you voted Keep on the articles Afd. Or give an argument for why it should be kept in discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the tone is shifting to delete. I am reconsidering my position. Thanks for letting me know. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Keep was the right choice - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for input to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Ebionites_2

A request for arbitration on the Ebionites article has recently been filed. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Ebionites_2 Please feel free to add any comments you believe appropriate. Ovadyah (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I hope I can be of some help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ret. Prof, would you consider joining the formal mediation advertised on Jayjg's talk page. All parties have expressed confidence in your neutrality and proficiency. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be pleased to join the formal mediation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Great, then see you there. Don't forget to let Jayjg know here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 13:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Before you commit to joining mediation, you should be aware that your integrity is already being called into question on the article talk page. If you do decide to join the mediation, you can expect that to intensify dramatically. I hope you will still decide to participate, but it's important to understand that what you are undertaking may be painful. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt it will be any worse than what we already see on the article talk page. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I expect, based on observation, that it will be similar to SlimVirgin's experience when she stopped by the article talk page, at my request, to offer a Third Opinion. I had no editing history with her whatever (that was partly the reason I asked her, in addition to being brilliant and erudite), and she was accused almost immediately of being a co-conspirator, as the ensuing flame-war on her, now-archived, talk page makes clear. Ovadyah (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

For better or worse I'm in. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the same thing I said to myself last May. Oye vey! :0D Ovadyah (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Slon02_3

You've currently got 2 !votes in there - 'weak support' and 'weak oppose'.  Chzz  ►  03:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, will fix - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/My76Strat

Hi Ret.Prof. I see you have !voted twice in this RfA. I'm taking the liberty of indenting the second one. 28bytes (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't get discouraged and please try again. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebionites mediation

The Ebionites mediation has begun. Please make your opening statement at Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Expert attention?

I am in the process of trying to create a discussion page for religion articles in general for use in April and May, something like maybe a "religion summit." The first draft can be found at User:John Carter/Religion meeting. You clearly have advanced degrees which would qualify you for inclusion as some form of expert in your specific fields of study, and I for one would love to have a list of such experts to use in the event of controversy. One of the things I am considering is trying to create some sort of "expert" section to list "go to" people for various topics as required.

There is, unfortunately, one rather serious problem with this. I'm not sure if you are acquainted with the Essjay controversy, but it does demonstrate that at least some people are willing and able to falsify their credentials around here, and do so successfully for a rather extended period of time. Once burned, several times shy, as it were. And, of course, there is always the possibility (unlikely, but possible) that someone might have a degree from a diploma mill, unaccredited institution, or clearly and obviously extremely biased institution. Granted, I can't think of any of the last right now, but there might be some school similar to Bill's College of Streetcorner Evangelism out there.

Like I said, I very sincerely doubt if any of those reservations apply to you, but they might be grounds for others to question your status as an expert. If, and it is entirely your call here, if you were to want to be added to such a list, I think it might work if you were to just contact OTRS here and indicate to them your name and credentials in some verifiable manner. Once that were done, I don't think you would even necessarily have to indicate your "real" name.

Anyway, thank you for your contributions and input on our articles. I note that User:Pastordavid, one of our earlier leaders (and one the best informed Christian editors we had - a Lutheran minister with a MA in a relevant topic) indicated that a lot of the content regarding early Christianity in particular was weak. Myself, I knew then (and still now) bloody little myself about the era, and am very grateful for any efforts to improve it, and very appreciative of your efforts in that matter. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

I seem to have pissed really upset an editor at Gospel of the Hebrews and the Jewish Gospels. I tried work to out a compromise which seems to have upset him even more. Before it gets really ugly, I have decided to step back and ask for Admin. support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear RetProf. Well it hasn't got ugly so far. You have been deleting content cf. Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews etc. (which just happens to reflect the mainstream academic POV) and I haven't been reversing your deletions have I? There's no edit warring, I'm merely asking you to please explain your deletions on the talk pages, which you seem unwilling to do. I also note that you have removed NPOV tags, which I have also not reversed. This is all the more unfortunate in that I don't even have much interest in this subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are correct as it does appear we have avoided an edit war. Actually my intention was not to delete your hard work, but to temporarily revert until consensus was achieved. I am now enjoying the good natured scholarly debate. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction: We haven't avoided an edit war. I have avoided an edit war by accepting the deletions of someone who clearly is pushing a fringe view and isn't familiar with mainstream scholarship on the subject he's appointed himself king of the castle. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A little harsh? However I will strike my comment that offended you.- Ret.Prof (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not harsh at all. Your behaviour is that of a one-sided edit war, you are constantly firing, deleting any edit I make. And I'm supposed to apologise to you for your behaviour? And you're sitting there patting yourself on the back for how we've avoided an edit war. It wouldn't be so bad if you were familiar with the mainstream academic sources you're deleting. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It is important to calm down. I am not deleting your hard work, but merely reverting it temporarily until we reach consensus. Although I disagree that your sources are the "standard" or more "mainline" than Parker etc. they will be fully represented in the article. Good humor and not taking ourselves too seriously would be good. Also it is important that we stop calling each other names. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems one "old guy" is getting badly beaten by the Oculi dude. Time to take some time to heal. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear RetProf, Imagine if I was the one following you around deleting your contributions, would I be the one playing for pity? As it stands I have taken repeated thumps from you - you followed me round 4 pages deleting 5 hours work, and then you refused to even discuss it - you still refuse to discuss it. But, in Wikipedia terms, I have turned the other cheek, I have not reverted, I have not responded in kind by deleting your contributions, I have asked for explanation for why the mainstream view should be deleted. I made one more innocuous edit (moving two duplicate paragraphs together so another editor could edit) and you immediately deleted that too. And now you need time to heal? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I heal quickly. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Trust but verify

• Am I really playing for pity?
• Have I been civil, or given "repeated thumps"?
• Was I "following Oculi around deleting his contributions" or simply trying to work out consensus?
• Are In ictu oculi's references really 'mainline' or just one position in ongoing scholarly debate?
• Did I really remove his tags from the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites?
• Did I really delete all In ictu oculi's edits or only revert those lacking consensus?
• Have I been acting in good faith; trying to work out a reasonable compromise?
• Is Schneemelcher's numbering really the present 'standard'?
• What is really meant by "this is a minor/trivial/boring subject"?

In any event, I hope my edits speak for themselves. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear RetProf.

Sorry, the delete-and-go-weepy-when-challenged approach is one I've seen used before.

Someone did follow me round 4 pages and delete 100% of changes over a 4 hour period on Saturday with no explanation, and till now have refused all requests for explanation on 4 talk pages, if it wasn't you who was it?

As you know from the way the above verify question is phrased (sneaky) you did remove NPOV tags here and here.

Asking questions like "Is Schneemelcher's numbering really the present 'standard'?" isn't for here, it's for on the talk page where you asked already that question - after having deleted first - and were given 8 SBL authors using Schneemelcher's numbering. After which you still restored Melissa from the Bangkok internet cafe's invented unique-to-Wikipedia numbering because you "strongly support" it. And by "this is a minor/trivial/boring subject" I mean that better editing would be done by those who are detached from the subject and happy to see in an encyclopedia article a concise/non-controversial summary of academic orthodoxy, whether it is right or wrong, and the "controversial" theories further down the page. Anyway you should be off the pages now, or you can stay and block/delete other editors, either way these pages don't mean enough to me to restore deletes in the face of an incumbent with a fringe view. Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Except the edits do not bare out what you say. You still sound very upset and I am sorry that you think I am responsible. I suspect you are now trying to intimidate me. I must say I do find your erratic behavior a little unsettling. Yet I still wonder if there is any chance in working through our differences. In any event I do wish you the best in your editing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

PS When people try to intimidate me I do not become "weepy", I become stronger, more determined...It is a serious mistake to confuse meekness with weakness.

Dear RetProf, though we both know you were never a professor.

You don't think it's slightly hypocritical to say "I do wish you the best in your editing" in the same breath as = I will continue to delete you?

You're fortunate, you're currently throwing your weight around and bullying in a small corner of Wikipedia which is prone to OR and fringe theories by nature. But if you try this out in more general subjects you will soon discover that the aggressive and territorial approach you're taking won't be accepted as I'm accepting it.

Now please leave me alone - you have had your way, 100%. You write those pages as fits with your view. I couldn't care less. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have considered your proposal and will assume good faith. Therefore I will step back. Starting now we will abstain from editing this topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

1. There were about 16 pages containing similar duplicate material, much of it verbatim.

2. I will see what has been removed.

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You have some valid points. We should try to remove all unnecessary duplication and add material that fully explains the position of those scholars who disagree with Edwards etc - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and the Historical Jesus: Man, Myth or Demon?

Religious articles tend to be areas of conflict and POV pushing. My project is to explore the Historical Jesus from a strictly neutral point of view. I will start with the earliest sources and try to leave my 50 years of scholarly baggage behind and see where the reliable sources lead me.

The Three Hats of Retired Professor

Christian: The first "hat" is that of a Christian. I am a priest and pastor who has a real relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I am in many ways a pretty Orthodox believer. I have found such persons as Francis of Assisi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and President Obama to be a source of inspiration. (Yes, I am one of the few people happy to see Obama take a stand against the wave of bigotry sweeping America although it was not in his political interest to do so and I find crazed pastors burning the Koran particularly offensive.) Indeed I would call myself a "born again" Christian, yet not in the way that Glen Beck or Sarah Palin are born again. Not only do I not hate other religions, but have studied them and they have helped deepen my faith. For example, Gandhi, a Hindu, has helped remind me how far we as Christians have drifted from our core beliefs.

Biblical Scholar: As a professor and Biblical scholar I have been able to distinguish between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History. The Historical Jesus is a composite based on historical evidence. Every time a new Gospel fragment is found or a new scroll unearthed, the Historical Jesus changes. Indeed, unlike the Christ of Faith, the Historical Jesus is constantly changing. Historians and Biblical scholars must accept that over the past 2000 years much has been lost and the Historical Jesus is but a poor reflection what once was , is, and will be.

Wikipedia editor: This "hat" is radically different from the aforementioned. 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.

Part I - Sources outside the New Testament

In the quest for the Historical Jesus, much has been learned over the past 100 years. Yet the topic is a difficult one because religious people tend to be people of strong convictions. In this first part I plan to work on sources outside the New Testament.

Oral tradition and the historical Jesus

The first problem we face is the Sitz im Leben. Early Christians & Jews worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This Oral Tradition interpreted the written Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.

When the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70, that this Oral Tradition was no longer viable and this midrash was written down. Scholars believe it formed the basis for the Gospels.

Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire

With the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem many written sources were lost. Also when Christians and Jews were persecuted by various groups whole libraries were destroyed. Only a very few works survived this period of upheaval.

Orthodoxy

By the time of Constantine much had been lost or destroyed. However as Constantine tried to establish orthodoxy throughout the Empire, even more works were "lost"

Archetypes

The writing materials of the day were fragile and primitive. The archetypes or originals of early authors have almost all been lost. What has survived are copies of copies. Into these copies crept errors additions and "improvements".

Thallus (historian)

His is the earliest reference to the historical Jesus, written about 20 years after the Crucifixion. Thallos details the Crucifixion of Jesus but explains that the darkness that fell over the land at the time of Jesus' death was not a supernatural miracle, but an merely an eclipse. This would establish a pre-Markan origin for the story spoken of in the Gospel of Mark.

James Ossuary

The James Ossuary is a 2,000-year old limestone box used for containing the bones of the dead. Researchers uncovered it in Israel in 2002. The Aramaic inscription on the artifact read: Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

It is significant because this archaeological evidence establishes that there was a historical person named Jesus whose father was Joseph and brother was James as written in the Bible and in the works of Jewish historian Josephus.

However, the authenticity of this artifact has been contested and is the subject to ongoing scholarly debate. It is presently before the Courts who are about to rule on the authenticity of the inscription.

Mara Bar-Serapion

Mara bar ("son of ") Serapion, sometimes spelled Mara bar Sarapion was a Stoic philosopher from ancient Syria. He wrote an eloquent letter (c.75) in Syriac to his son, who was also named Serapion. This writing is said to be one of the earliest non-Jewish, non-Christian references to a historical Jesus.

Josephus on Jesus

(Born 37 AD) Josephus , also known as Yosef Ben Matityahu (Joseph son of Matthias) and Titus Flavius Josephus, was a renowned first-century Jewish historian. Josephus writes of a Jewish sect, whose leader was James the Just (the brother of Jesus). Josephus' history includes sections on John the Baptist, the High Priest Annas, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus called the Messiah.

Caiaphas ossuary

The Caiaphas ossuary is said to be the tomb of Joseph, son of Caiaphas, commonly known as the High Priest Caiaphas in the New Testament. He was the Roman appointed leader of Judaism at the time of Christ and is said to have organized the plot to kill Jesus. Caiaphas is also said to have been involved in the trial of the "King of the Jews".

According to the Gospels, Caiaphas was the major antagonist of Jesus. However Biblical scholars argued against the historicity of such a person. Archeology ended this debate when the ossuary of the high priest, Joseph Caiaphas, was found in Jerusalem in 1990

Tacitus on Christ

(Born AD 56)

Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. His writings cover the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in AD 14 to the death of emperor Domitian in AD 96. Tacitus' work called the Annals (written c. 116) is important to Christianity because it confirms the historicity of Jesus. Book 15.44 mentions Christ as a person executed by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius' reign.

Pilate Stone

The Pilate Stone is the name given to a block of limestone with a carved inscription attributed to Pontius Pilate, a prefect of the Roman-controlled Judea from 26-36. It has been deemed important, because Biblical scholars believed that he was a mythical character. Then, in 1961 an inscription with his name was found confirming the historicity of Pontius Pilate, and adding to the credence of Josephus on Jesus and the Biblical accounts.

Pliny the Younger on Christ

(Born 61 AD)

Pliny the Younger, was Governor of Bithynia as well as a priest, lawyer and author. He is known for his hundreds of surviving letters, which are an invaluable historical source for the period. Of particular interest to Christians are his references to Christ.

Suetonius on Christ

(Born 69 AD) Suetonius was a Roman historian belonging to the equestrian order in the early Imperial era. He is important to Christians because of his reference to the Historical of Jesus. The topic is notable enough to warrant a separate article

Jesus in the Talmud

The reliable sources all confirm the saying of Monsieur Renan: That in the history of the origins of Christianity, the Talmud has hitherto been far too much neglected and the New Testament can only be understood by the light of the Talmud.

Testimony Book

Paul possessed a copy of the small "Testimony Book," more popularly known as the "quelle" gospel (shortened in all reference books to the "Q" source) which is thought to be the "lost gospel" and which formed the basis of later gospels. It was a collection of sayings. Google link Google Link Google Link

Pool of Bethesda

Bethesda, is the name of a pool in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem, on the path of the Beth Zeta Valley. The Gospel of John describes such a pool in Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. It is associated with healing. Until the 19th century, there was no evidence outside of John’s Gospel for the existence of this pool. Scholars argued that the gospel was written later, probably by someone without first-hand knowledge of the city of Jerusalem, and that the ‘pool’ had only a metaphorical meaning, rather than historical, significance.

Then in the nineteenth century, archeologists discovered the remains of a pool exactly matching the description in John’s Gospel. Thus, archeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of John’s account.

Lucian of Samosata on Jesus

Lucian of Samosata (Born 115 AD) was a well-known Greek satirist and traveling lecturer. More than eighty works bear his name. He mocks the followers of Jesus for their ignorance and credulity, although he does credit Christians with a certain level of morality. He is considered important to Christians for giving insight into the Historical Jesus.

Celsus

Celsus was a 2nd century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity. He is known for his literary work, The True Word which is the earliest known comprehensive attack on Jesus.

Celsus explained that Jesus came from a Jewish village in the Holy Land. Jesus' mother was a poor Jewish girl. This girl's husband, who was a carpenter by trade, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to the bastard Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return made himself out to be a god. Celsus confirmed the Historicity of Jesus but not the Virgin birth. Celsus also confirmed

Criteria of authenticity and the Historical Jesus

Important to the topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

An important area but a difficult one, as people have strong convictions. I too have strong convictions which I have tried to put on hold. Much evidence has been lost. Some evidence has been doctored by Christians and non - Christians alike. As to the basic question as to whether Jesus was a "Man' or a "Myth" the evidence clearly indicates the answer is "YES"-

Jesus the Man

The Sitz im Leben of Roman occupied Judea makes it highly unlikely that the Jews would create a Jewish mythical God as in Greek mythology or Roman mythology. Indeed none of the historical sources from the time of Christ to Constantine ever argue that Jesus was a mythical creation. The sources both Christian and non Christian are remarkably united in their portrayal of the Historical Jesus:

At the time of Pontius Pilate, there was an outspoken Jewish Rabbi from Nazareth who preached against the Roman occupation and those who got rich by collaborating with the regime. He was a Jewish sage who condemned the collaborators, calling them "snakes", "hypocrites", a "brood of vipers", "hypocrites" and "sons of hell".

Those in authority, both Roman and Jewish responded in an unfavorable fashion. They pointed to his humble beginnings saying that Jesus' mother was a poor Jewish girl. This girl's husband, who was a carpenter by trade, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to the bastard Jesus, who became a sorcerer and led many in Israel astray. For this he was executed near the time of Passover.

The non Christian historians such as Josephus, Thallus, Celsus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion confirm the above in varying degrees. So do several sections of the Talmud (these sections have been removed from modern editions). Of equal importance is the fact that no early historical source, Christian or non Christian, disputes the historicity of Jesus.

Christ Myth

However, the evidence does point to a Christ myth being developed sometime after Paul's ministry to the Gentiles. The Sitz im Leben would be Roman and Greek. This mythical Christ bore remarkable similarities to the gods of Greek mythology and Roman mythology. It was developed by Gentile Christians and was eagerly accepted by "Pagan" Christian groups. They eventually prevailed over Jewish Christians. The following is a summary of the Gentile Christ Myth:

God came down from Heaven. He found a girl named Mary who was and would remain a perpetual Virgin. God had relations with her and she became pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit. As a result of these relations, the Gentile Christ God was incarnated.

The Christ God was begotten before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with God the Father. It was for humanity and for our salvation, that he came down from Heaven, and was made man. He taught us how to live and was the propitiation for our sins. He remains seated with God on the right hand side, from where he shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead and whose kingdom shall have no end.

This "myth" has nothing supporting it from the early historical sources. Indeed, the eyewitness testimony referred to by the Church Fathers i.e. (Peter's Gospel of Mark, Matthew's Hebrew Gospel and John's Signs Gospel) records that Jesus was anointed Messiah and becomes a child (or son) of God at his baptism.

Don't get me wrong

I am a Christian, who will celebrate Christmas and will say the creeds. The foregoing is simply an "objective evaluation" of the historical evidence. It should not be viewed as Truth or the full story. Indeed, the only thing that can be said with certainty is that more evidence will be discovered and our understanding of the aforementioned will change. For example, the criminal, scholarly and scientific implications of the verdict in the James Ossuary trial are immense. Historical scholarship and Faith are two very different topics.

Hebrew Gospel Tradition

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
26. ^ Sabine Baring-gould, The Lost And Hostile Gospels, Nabu Press, 2010.
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.
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,
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. ^Pick, Bernhard. The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005
40. ^ Nicholson, Edward Byron - The Gospel According to the Hebrews.
41. ^Pierson Parker - A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews".
42. ^ Farmer, William - The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
43. ^Walter Richard Cassels - Supernatural Religion.
44. ^Edwards, J.R. - The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition.
45. ^Schoemaker, W. R. - The Gospel According to the Hebrews. The University of Chicago Press.

Part II - Sources inside the New Testament

Now I am working on those sources that make up the Christian Canon.

Gospel of Matthew

Here I am running into the same difficulty as I did at the Gospel of the Hebrews. I have now completed my review of WP policy on duplication. It appears to me that Ictu may be using duplication as a cover for POV pushing. Over the past several weeks he has visited many many many articles and removed all material from Edwards, Parker, Nicholson, Butz etc.

However, there are some legitimate Duplication concerns. The problem is that sources explain that 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

Letter to Pope Damasus Jerome, 383 A.D.

The labor is one of love, but at the same time both perilous . . . I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judæa in Hebrew characters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead.

Nicholson, Parker, Edwards, Bütz and others agree with Jerome. Thus the Hebrew Gospel is the basis for a number of topics. How do we go back to the fountainhead without duplicating material? The matter is further complicated by the fact that the Catholic Church and a number of scholars believe that Jerome was wrong and that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible was written by Matthew. As a sign of good faith I have removed most of the material objected to until we work out a solution. Ret.Prof (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Two Ways

I offer a simple observation, born of my personal experience. There are TWO WAYS (see the Didache). One path leads to assumptions of WP:AGF on the part of all editors and a focus on improving article content. The other path, the dark path, leads to arbitration. Once you start down the path of poisoning the well, you will end up drinking deeply from its water. Hang in there. Ovadyah (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. My problem is that although I have a strong grasp of the sources and references, I am truly dim witted when it comes Wiki-warring techniques. I need admin help to allow me to focus on the scholarship. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

While we're talking generalities, my further observation is that I don't think you understood my "blending" point about NPOV. Trying to judge and weigh sources often leads to unintentional synthesis, which is forbidden. Even experienced editors often do not understand this point, and attempt to suppress POVs that are, in their opinion, out of favour, to the detriment of the readers. As I said, all significant views should be represented. From your response I'm not clear that you understood that. If you did, my apologies. I would hate to see you sanctioned in any way (and this is not a threat from me, BTW, but an observation about what others may do), but you need to familarise yourself more with the Wikipedia policies, or else you are likely to be be reported at ANI with undesirable consequences. It takes awhile to get into the Wiki-style. If another editor reprimands you, claiming that you are in breach of policy, it would be a good idea to presume that they are correct for the next 6 months or so. There is a lot more to policy than just avoiding content forks. For instance, reacting to an edit war by reverting is not the answer, but would be judged as edit warring itself if you were reported. And that's the sort of thing that gets editors' nuts cut off..... which you would find painful, I assure you!

Time spent reading and digesting the policy pages would not be time wasted, since it would save you much more time later that would be otherwise be wasted in fruitless disputes that you would ultimately lose. Once again, let me emphasize that this is meant as a constructive advice - I don't want to see your enthusiasm and scholarship broken on the wheel. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Death of Sian O'Callaghan

Hi friend, if you feel like it please participate in this articles Afd. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I can use all the friends I can get these days. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Book of Matthew response

I just read your response to PiCo on the Book of Matthew Talk page and I have to say I'm pretty impressed. Not that I followed "all" of it, but I have to say that that was one of the most honest, logical, well documented arguments that I've ever read. And this is independent of whether I agreed with your argument. Hoping not to give you a big head, but - Good Stuff!

I also liked your brief in the "Reflections" section. As a recent Wiki editor (7 months ago I changed jobs and have had a little more time on my hands), I'm (fortunately) not well versed on the tactics that people use in order to further their insertions (at the detriment of others), since I've spent most of my time expanding/editting pages on sports figures and other non-critical subjects. As I have bookmarked many of the books of the Bible and major biblical figures, I am aware of the sniping and how it can get. Good or bad, I try to stay away from controversy - so if someone violently disagrees with something I've added/deleted, I usually let them have their way as I consider my Wikipedia edits to be a relaxing side-line and not a life and death undertaking. If someone HAS TO have it say "Yes" rather than "Affirmative", it isn't worth fighting over. However, if it's a right/wrong thing - well, then we may have some little back and forth (I am an engineer after all). Above all else, I feel that if I'm not having fun and feeling like I've left Wikipedia a little better at the end of the day, I might as well find something else to do. Anyway... Take care -Ckruschke (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks for the kind words. I retired in 2008 (well, semi-retired). Most of the editors at Wikipedia are fantastic. Of course I do not mind when I am shown to be wrong. (Students in my classes got the best marks if they challenged me successfully.) I started an editing quest on the historical Jesus in September. It was great fun, as well as a learning experience - - -until I hit the Gospel of the Hebrews. It got ugly. Scholarly debate was replaced with nasty, ignorant comments eg:

• "Dear RetProf, though we both know you were never a professor."

It was an ignorant comment because he had no way of knowing if I ever made it to "full professor" and because at Wikipedia, academic standing of an editor is not relevent. I agreed to step back from editing the Gospel of the Hebrews and ... well, that did not work! I have now read and re-read the edit history and realized what was going on. There are a group of editors who believe Wikipedia is a game and I was not playing well.

• "Wikipedia is a game. It is an entertainment, played . . ."

I reflected upon this and strongly disagree. I now believe "players" seriously hurt Wikipedia. For me, the issue is no longer the Gospel of the Hebrews, but rather the heart and soul of Wikipedia. Thanks again for the kind words, for I no longer believe I am a minority of one. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nor I. As "luck" would have it, I stumbled on another one of these "Thou must not trample on the sacred ground" pages as I was looking up the author of a "Christian" book I had seen on a website that had fostered much criticsm. After seeing nothing on it in the page, or anything on the middling-level controversy surrounding this pastor, I read the entire Talk page and got some real instruction on who was in charge - and it wasn't for the faint of heart. Many strawmen were erected in order to keep the site "just so". And you are correct. Many of the editors are great - and I've tried to bookmark those that are - it's just the vocal minority who spoil it for those of us who really have good intentions. Keep up the good fight. Maybe I'll stop by from time to time when I need a sympathetic ear. Ckruschke (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Remember we religious types tend to be "people of strong convictions" (ie pigheaded). Having a person like you (ie an engineer) helps keep us honest. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What happens when the engineer is also a born-again Christian? However, maybe I don't exist - I was once told that science and God were incomptible (maybe I'm Galileo...) Ckruschke (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks

The Jeffrey Butz book has arrived. Looks good! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk: Gospel of Matthew

You asked for a discussion on changes to the article - since then almost 3 days have passed, and you've said nothing. Do you want to contribute? PiCo (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I was even beginning to believe I had been played again...until I realized Ictu had done something to the formating that made your comments invisible. Sorry for not assuming good faith. I will get to it right away! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear RetProf: Done something? Can you (on the page) be more specific please? The Talk:Gospel of Matthew Page has been very difficult to follow with edits like this reformat done by yourself. here. I have been back through the Talk Page prior to this edit and cannot see any precedent/reason for your reformat. I don't actually have an enormous problem with it, but to be called on myself having done anything like the same (?) I'd like to see the link. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My comments were not showing up . Why? - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

More Controversy

If you haven't had enough on the Book of Matthew page, you might stroll over to Thomas the Apostle and weigh in. Besides the fact that the page needs a major edit bad, I've done some minor things but someone needs to start using a sword, there is the on-going issue about whether Thomas made it to southern India and how much to say about this. You know, if you haven't been stoned by then... Ckruschke (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

More Controversy

If you haven't had enough on the Book of Matthew page, you might stroll over to Thomas the Apostle and weigh in. Besides the fact that the page needs a major edit bad, I've done some minor things but someone needs to start using a sword, there is the on-going issue about whether Thomas made it to southern India and how much to say about this. You know, if you haven't been stoned by then... Ckruschke (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ebionites Mediation

Now for some lighter entertainment! :0) You might want to leave your comments for and against inclusion of sources if you have any. We have a bit over a week to go before the jaws of arbitration open. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not forgotten. Just been busy with Gospel of Matthew - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I know. I thought you might want a break. Things have gotten very contentious over at GM! No problem, take your time. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Torah Shebiktav

RetProf When you did this merge 3 Oct 2010 where did this content come from?

"As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php Ahavat Torat "

• Not found in merged source 3 Oct 2010 before and after merge
• Not found in merged recipient 3 Oct 2010 before and after merge

Any idea where the content "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php Ahavat Torat " came from?

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this Google Link help? - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, evidently a Google-Book search of the term can't explain your edits and cut-pastes, please explain your Oct 3 2010 edits, and then how the material entered Gospel of Matthew on Talk:Gospel of Matthew. Thanks.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Torah Shebiktav is the Written Torah. According to tradition, God dictated the entire Torah (except for the very last part of the book of Deuteronomy) to Moses in the Sinai desert. See Google Link for a list reliable sources. The Torah Shebeal Peh is the Oral Law. See Google Link for a list reliable sources. I do not think it is Messianic POV content? In any event if you find the "non-English" terminology offensive we can drop it. Still a little confused but I hope I answered your question? I agree with Ictu to revise and in some places remove duplication. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ret.Prof Please answer the question NB As proposed by other editors removing duplication requires deleting the entire large section you have composed/edited on Gospel of the Hebrews and cut and pasted into Gospel of Matthew and other pages.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am very disappointed, but it now appears that after weeks of trying, we have totally failed to resolve our differences. Outside help is needed to ascertain if:

1. Banned user:CheeseDreams has been using alternate accounts to avoid his block;
2. There has been a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing;
3. WP policies on duplication, fringe etc. are being used as a cover for POV pushing.

Until these issues are resolved, I do not see any way forward. Still keeping an open mind. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ret Prof

I have no knowledge whatsoever of user:CheeseDreams. Can you please answer the question re "As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This oral tradition interpreted the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php Ahavat Torat" Did you:

(a) write this into the merge.

(b) copy it from elswhere.

This is a straightforward (a)/(b) question which is directly relevant to the discussion of the duplicate material you have posted over several articles cf. Talk:Gospel of Matthew Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews Talk:Canonical gospels etc. Is it (a) your own material, or (b) a copy? Will you please answer the question? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

See my answer at the Gospel of Matthew - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Suetonius & Bar-Serapion

Pretty nice work you did on 'Suetonius on Christ' as well as the page on 'Mara Bar-Serapion'. It was about time to get those in. Köstenberger specifically says that the Bar-Serapion letter was 73AD. Also Van Voorst and Evans. Your opinion? Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the kind words. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, but do you have any idea about the date of Bar-Serapion or is it just too vague to know? I am in the process of cleaning up the chronology of Jesus etc. and these 2 articles will be helpful. Your text is pretty good, but to back it up a little more so it will not be questioned, I will try to add more book refs. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't be of much help as I am in way over my head at the Gospel of Matthew. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine, no problem. History2007 (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way I have come across your work quite often - Good stuff - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste of duplicate material

Dear RetProf. Since this concerns duplicate contributions to Talk:Gospel of Matthew, Talk:Canonical gospels, Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus, Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament I make the comment here (as per archive) to make it clear, the concern is twofold: 1. Some of the claims in the below section [e.g. most easily identifiable that the Acts church "revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php "] were introduced into the text of Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews on a claimed "merge" of Authentic Gospel of Matthew - yet the content is not found in either article. 2. Re the duplication of this section verbatim on several pages:

CUT AND PASTE DUPLICATE SECTION

Matthew, a Galilean and the son of Alpheus [2] collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas.[3][4][5] Matthew was "called" by Jesus of Nazareth to be one of the Twelve Disciples.[2][4][6][7][8] As a disciple, Matthew followed Christ, and was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension.

It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish.[9][10][11][12] They remained in and about Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jesus son of Joseph was the promised Messiah. These early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes.[13][14] It is near certain that Matthew belonged to this sect, as both the New Testament and the early Talmud affirm this to be true.[5][15][16][17][18][19]

As Jews, this group worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This Oral Tradition interpreted the Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.[20][21][22] It was in this cultural context or Sitz im Leben that the Christian Oral Tradition had its roots, as Jesus and later Christian 'Rabbis' developed the oral "Gospel" or Logia to interpret the written Law given to Moses by God.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]

This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the consequent upheaval of Jewish/Christian social and legal norms. Jewish Christians were required to face a new reality— without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study), the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period of upheaval, that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.[20][22][25][26][27][31][32][33]

The resulting diaspora, (or Tefutzot תפוצות, "scattered") after the defeat in the Great Jewish Revolt meant Jews were scattered throughout the Empire. Matthew (one of the Twelve disciples and a Jew) was part of the Diaspora.[34] The Church Fathers recognized this and Matthew was said to have written the first Gospel out of necessity. [35][36]

ENDS HERE

There is no need for this to be duplicated verbatim on several Wikipedia pages. I suggest in the friendliest possible manner than perhaps you first decide which page this content belongs on, and then submit to the review of peers there. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As I explained to you before, I actually agree, therefore I will start to replace the cut and paste. Ret.Prof (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ret.Prof.

I don't think anyone objects to you editing your material, provided you do it on a Talk page or Sandbx. Have you decided which article Talk:Gospel of Matthew, Talk:Canonical gospels, Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus, Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament will be the location of the material? The duplicate cut and paste material has been again been removed from Gospel of Matthew. If you intend to edit and post a new section, please edit on the talk page or in a Sandbox and discuss. Thank you.In ictu oculi (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I see you have again restored your cut-and-paste material.In ictu oculi (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste concerns cover for Ictu POV pushing

Ictu has been dramatically saying that he is upset over what he calls "cut and paste concerns". As a good will gesture, I was going to replace the "material he found so very upsetting" with the material from Blackwell's article on the Gospel of Matthew as it covers the same points as in the article but with different wording. He rejected this compromise. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that most of his concerns, even those that "sound good" are a cover for his POV pushing. This is not acceptable for Wikipedia articles must be written from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• See below In ictu oculi (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

I see that my position is being misrepresented (See reflections). My primary concern is that the Gospel of Matthew must be written from NPOV. This is not happening! There are several different aspects that come up when writing about this topic:

First Issue - Duplication or Back to the Fountainhead

• Jerome explained "The New Testament, was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who was the first in Judea to produce a Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead. [1] [2]
• Cassels, Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker, Butz, etc., are agreed, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, under various names, such as the Gospel according to Peter, according to the Apostles,the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians, etc., with modifications certainly, but substantially the same work, was circulated very widely throughout the early Church. [3] [4]

[1]Google Link [2]Google Link

• [3]Google Link [4]Google Link

• If I understand your position correctly, since Matthew, the Hebrew gospel and the Oral tradition are mentioned in other articles it represents "duplication" and therefore all the above scholarship must be deleted from this article.

• My position is that this is a false reading. This scholarship is essential to understanding the topic and therefore is allowed. I further believe that Ictu is using this as a cover for POV pushing.

• If Ictu prevails on this issue, then the above mentioned scholarship should remain in this article but removed from other articles.

Second Issue - Matthaei authenticum

Close to 75 ancient 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.

• See Matthaei authenticum

• If I understand your position correctly all material from the Church Fathers, as well as all the scholarship of Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, should be deleted and the article should be written from the narrow point of view of Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.

• My position is that is serious POV pushing, particularly since these works are not even about Matthew or the Gospel of Matthew (see below)

Third Issue - Matthew and the Gospel of Matthew

What is the relationship of Matthew to the Canonical Gospel of Matthew?

1. The Roman Catholic position is that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible was written by Matthew and is authentic.
2. Liberal scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew is a "false Matthew" written by an unknown redactor long after the time of Matthew.
3. A third group believe the Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew (See Aramaic original) was used as one of the sources of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew.

• See Aramaic original

• If I understand your position, because some scholars have argued that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew should be deleted from the article. Also since Matthew is mentioned in other parts of Wikipedia it is duplication to mention him in this article.

• Here I most strongly disagree. Removing Matthew from the Gospel of Matthew seems a little counterintuitive. I did a quick Google search and found almost all articles on the Gospel of Matthew had a section on Matthew. Even those sources that believe Matthew did not write "his" gospel had a section on Matthew. Google Link I thought we came to consensus with Blackwell's article but I see you removed all my edits that were based on that source. Unfortunately, I must accept your deleting my work. However it should be noted that I did not suggest "Blackwells" but accepted it as a compromise.

We must work out these three issues. If we cannot, then we must seek outside help. We, as editors, must work together to compose a NPOV article. (See Reflections at User talk:Ret.Prof) Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

RetProf

The first problem with that the duplicate material you have placed on

•  Done Talk:Gospel of Matthew,
•  Done Talk:Canonical gospels, Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews,
•  Done Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus,
•  Done Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament is duplication itself.

The second problem is POV. You clearly have a POV (see above).

 DoneAnyway, either the other editors will support removal or they won't. Simple. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the duplication but noticed you reverted? Whats up? - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ret.Prof The five paragraphs of duplicate material are now proposed for deletion at:

• Talk:Gospel of Matthew
• Talk:Saint Matthew
• Talk:Canonical gospels
• Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews

not counting Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament, and Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus which you have blanked. The section I removed at Gospel is a separate duplication.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Keeping Ictu Honest: This is beginning to feel more like an election campaign. You seem to be spamming everybody. Actually, I spent a lot of time fixing the duplication. Then you reverted my edits. And then complained about duplication. In the Gospel you have done some "strange" duplicating. Please do some serious clean up. You have made quite a mess. Thanks- Ret.Prof (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Butz, Tabor, and conspiracy theories

FWIW, I did not pay much attention to the first section of the Butz book, rather to the material which was mentioned in the reviews I found, which was the material about the subsequent history of Ebionite Christology. I take as a given your reference to material in Butz about Tabor's theories being squelched as some sort of academic conspiracy theory. That point does raise a question in my mind however.

Nishidani, among others, has said that there is abundant evidence that there were a number of books in early Christianity which were, probably, burned and otherwise destroyed by the "majority" Christians who disagreed with their content. Certainly, Hennecke/Schneemelcher's Neutestamentliche Apokryphen makes mention of a broad range of such works which survive only in brief citations or other references in literature. AFAIR, it might even be the case that those other references are only known by reference in tertiary sources, too. I would in no way say that such material did not exist. The question is whether we can say that some things which we don't know about today existed earlier (a point I don't think many if any people would dispute) is as per policies and guidelines something which can support the contention that certain specific, individual theories put forward by academics today about groups which may have used such documents should be considered sufficiently important to be included in articles about those groups. Basically, there seems to be lack of evidence in a lot of areas - the question is whether that lack of evidence is sufficient to prove as a form of evidence that these conjectures might be right.

Personally, I, at least as an individual, don't see how policies and guidelines would support such a conclusion, but I also acknowledge that there are serious questions about what kind of material we should include about subjects we only know about from the subject's enemies, and I don't specifically know how policies and guidelines deal with such subjects, or even if they really do directly.

The quote you gave from Butz did state that there is some sort of academic "conspiracy" against Tabor and his theories. We do have an article about Bible conspiracy theories, and, based on the Butz quote, there might be some reason to think some material on this subject could be included there. Maybe. I think, personally, that there might be a better place to put such material, but, as someone who personally doesn't work that extensively with Biblical material per se, I don't know where it might be. In any event, as someone who knows something about Biblical studies, I think you might be among the better people to perhaps assemble an article on suppression of material not in accord with the later NT canon. The theory that such material was destroyed wherever possible is itself one with unquestioned support.

Also, finally, one last point. On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting page, I raised a question about Biblical commentaries. I know that there are a large number of them, many of which disagree with each other rather regularly and in some cases seriously. Unfortunately, I am myself not so sure as to which commentaries are considered the most reliable for comparatively large or significant groups of Christians, Jews, etc., and which might be essentially required for articles on particularly NT material to be really balanced. If you have a clearer idea as to which commentaries do so qualify, I think that information would be very relevant for both that page, and, maybe, as a specific section in the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible page.

Anyway, thanks for your attention, and sorry if this seems excessively long. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Matthew Talk page

Hi RP, I deleted your edit to the dispute summary request I posted. We really - really - need to keep the page simple so external editors can review the problem. Please leave that section as it is so editors can have access to a simple overview of the issues. Thanks (and accept my apologies for the deletion). Eusebeus (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew

Just a note to say that it's not my intention to be hostile towards you in my most recent comments on that Talk page. I find the exchange of views very enjoyable, and hope we can keep it going in a proper friendly spirit. PiCo (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your questions are good, difficult and will force me to the library. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Epiphanius and the rest are primary sources: they have to be used with great care. We have to ask questions such as, What did they mean? What facts did they have in front of them? How did they arrive at their conclusions? This is not a job for Wikipedia editors, not if we want to avoid original research. For this reason, we have to rely on modern scholars (secondary sources) to interpret them.PiCo (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why you think they are primary sources? Why is not the Gospel text the primary source? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The gospel is a primary source, of course. But all ancient texts are primary, because they need to be interpreted - or, if you like, they need to be translated, not linguistically, but culturally. The mental world of two thousand years ago is more distant from today than the mental world of the average 21st century Chinese, who at least is exposed to many of the same influences we know. That's what makes them primary - the need for interpretation. PiCo (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

When authors like Jerome are discussing a primary source, they are one step removed and therefore by Wikipedia policy are considered secondary sources? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

RetProf, to avoid cluttering up the Talk page, and in keeping with Eusebius's request, it might be better to take this to personal Talk pages unless it seems essential to the article. PiCo (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Butz and Tabor are academics, but their ideas as expressed here are not mainstream. Contrast them with Edwards's statements as I've given them above - Edwards denies that "one of the Twelve" wrote the Gospel of Matthew and calls the idea that he did "an easy mistake to make." We have to avoid cherry-picking like this and find statements of the mainstream opinion of modern scholars. This can be done by looking for passages that say things like "most scholars believe..." or "according to the majority opinion" or whatever, even if the person who writes these words then goes on to challenge the majority opinion (which is what Butz and Tabor are doing). PiCo (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• In the interests of accuracy, I think we should be aware that Edwards does not think that the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew. He calls this a "mistaken presumption" and "an easy error to make" (Edwards, "Hebrew Gospel", p.252) - in other words, his position is exactly the opposite of the case RetProf is stating. A few pages later he points out that the Gospel of Matthew contains nothing from the Gospel of the Hebrews, and says: "The only reasonable explanation ... is that, unlike Luke [who does have material from it], the author of Canonical Matthew did not have the Hebrew Gospel at his disposal" [which] "virtually eliminates the possibility of the Apostle Matthew being the author of canonical Greek Matthew." (p.256) PiCo (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not wrong but you simply are not right. Edwards, Nicholson and Jerome would agree that Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel. Now the role the Hebrew gospel played in the redacting of canonical Matthew is a) none b) a source c) a direct translation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside Nicholson and Jerome, Edwards believes that the "Matthew" who wrote the Hebrew Gospel is not the same individual who wrote the Gospel of Matthew. That gospel was originally anonymous, and had the name "Matthew" attached to it later. He sets this out clearly in the pages I've cited. PiCo (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• In the interests of accuracy, I think we should be aware that Edwards does not think that the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew. He calls this a "mistaken presumption" and "an easy error to make" (Edwards, "Hebrew Gospel", p.252) - in other words, his position is exactly the opposite of the case RetProf is stating. A few pages later he points out that the Gospel of Matthew contains nothing from the Gospel of the Hebrews, and says: "The only reasonable explanation ... is that, unlike Luke [who does have material from it], the author of Canonical Matthew did not have the Hebrew Gospel at his disposal" [which] "virtually eliminates the possibility of the Apostle Matthew being the author of canonical Greek Matthew." (p.256) PiCo (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not wrong but you simply are not right. Edwards, Nicholson and Jerome would agree that Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel. Now the role the Hebrew gospel played in the redacting of canonical Matthew is a) none b) a source c) a direct translation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside Nicholson and Jerome, Edwards believes that the "Matthew" who wrote the Hebrew Gospel is not the same individual who wrote the Gospel of Matthew. That gospel was originally anonymous, and had the name "Matthew" attached to it later. He sets this out clearly in the pages I've cited. PiCo (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I am off to the library to work on your questions. Have a great day - 02:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

PiCo Questions

• Epiphanius and the rest are primary sources: they have to be used with great care. We have to ask questions such as, What did they mean? What facts did they have in front of them? How did they arrive at their conclusions? This is not a job for Wikipedia editors, not if we want to avoid original research. For this reason, we have to rely on modern scholars (secondary sources) to interpret them.PiCo (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nesting

• While I warmly welcome your views, your edits to the talk page are having a deleterious effect on the flow of discussion. I have thus nested your presentation of the evidence. You should note that a recent arbcom finding has specifically observed that repeated edits to an article's talk page which impede discussion are not acceptable. If you have large amounts of evidence you wish to show, please create a separate page in your user space and provide a link for interested editors. I will therefore refactor your comments accordingly. Thanks. Eusebeus (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't even know about nesting. I learned something today. Cheers. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ret.Prof. You have new messages at Ovadyah's talk page.
Message added 16:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Display examples for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Display examples is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Display examples (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

.

.

Reflections on Ictu and sock puppets

Several months ago I started my edit quest. Things got ugly when I finally came to the Gospel of the Hebrews. I have read the extensive edit history and this edit war has been around since 2004.

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.

There have been two different approaches to editing this topic.

Wikipedia the game

According to this first approach Wikipedia is a game. It is an entertainment, played in moves, according to "rules", towards the goal of topic domination.

• Twaddle: The twaddle is fatuous nonsense delivered with an authoritative and informed air implying unnamed but impeccable mainline or "standard" sources. The twaddle is "full of it". It is baloney, hogwash, balderdash, patent nonsense, that always sounds learned, sounds good. It is extremely effective because most of us do not verify. The best twaddles are, "this is clearly fringe" or "this goes against the standard..." Google Link

• Waffle: is unnecessarily self-protective verbiage. Recognition and public acknowledgments of one's own twaddles and waffles are marks of an outstanding player. Deceit, deception and disruption can leave your opponent chasing his tail ("Merda taurorum animas conturbit") as he tries to set the record straight, which he will never be able to do if "the player" keeps generating enough material. As the victim runs around like a chicken with his head cut off you can accuse him of Spamming. Google Link

• Personal attacks: the meaner, the more condescending the better. It is effective because: A) You smear your opponent; B) You have him defending himself rather than focusing on your lack of sources or references; and, if done skillfully you may provoke him into doing something stupid. Sometimes you may even be able to get him blocked!

• Playing the con: Get your opponent to agree to something then secretly go back on your word. It makes him look stupid and may provoke him. If played properly you may even succeed in having him blocked as he overreacts.

• False accusations: Lots of false accusations are very helpful. The fact that there is little or no truth to the charge does not really matter. Admins. are too overworked to delve into most charges in any detail. It is great fun to watch your opponent defend himself. If he does a bad job, he may even make himself look guilty. If he does a good job, respond with "thou doth protest too much" and of course "silence implies consent". Google Link. The skilled player knows how to use false actuations as a cover for his own wrongful behaviour. When POV spamming, claim you are undoing your opponent's wrongful POV spamming. When wiki-lawyering, accuse your opponent in dramatic fashion of wiki-lawyering. When using alternate accounts make dramatic "sock puppet" allegations against your victim.

• Refactor the talk page: If your opponent does make a good point or actually catches you in some wrong doing, alter his comment. It is great fun to watch his reaction when he wakes up to what you have done. Google Link Google Link

• Canvassing: Contact other editors who share your views on a topic. This is best done by email.

• Tagspam: Generate lots of "tagspam" which will disrupt, confuse and infuriate your opponent.

• A team sport: In order to play you need at least three players, each with at least ten different user accounts. At least one account should be a "good guy" account who can be eventually made an admin. At least one player must like to travel. You must accept that on occasion an account will be banned from Wikipedia and you should be prepared. Never think of yourselves as a sock puppet nest but rather a "collective" where resistance is futile. The rest is mostly technique, minimal decorum and attention to detail. Google Link

Now I must admit the above is but a poor reflection of this approach to editing. A detailed study of the edit history of the Revision history of Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews is necessary. I most strongly oppose this approach

NPOV and reliable sources approach

No drama, no tricks, good natured scholarly debate and above all No personal attacks.

1. Primary source: In the case of the Hebrew Gospel, this is not an issue as it has been lost
2. Secondary sources: Here we are in luck as the Hebrew Gospel was widely circulated in the Early Church. It was quoted, discussed, and debated. Their was total agreement about authorship and composition. All we need to do is carefully read them, discuss them and when we reach consenus on the talk page post our NPOV edit
3. Other sources: This is a little more difficult as presently their is disagreement among modern scholars. It is complicated. We must read the sources and fairly present the material from a NPOV only after we have reached consensus on the talk page.

I support the second approach. It will result in better scholarship. I believe it more closely follows Wikipedia Policy. I am presently seeking Admin help to end this senseless edit war. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to allegations made by Ictu

I feel as though I have just stepped into somebody else's manic episode - Which may not be far from the truth. In any event I think Ictu has confirmed most of what I said on my talk page. See Reflections at User talk:Ret.Prof. For the record I am not banned user:CheeseDreams, user:-Ril-, User:Dylan Flaherty etc trying to evade a block. Nor am I suspect User:Melissadolbeer, User:Swift as an Eagle, User:Bearnfæder nor User:Matruman. I am a good faith user who believes in Wikipedia policy. It was User:Wetman who created the Gospel of the Hebrews, User:Peter Kirby who first introduced Matthaei Authenticum and Anon user who first introduced the Hebrew Gospel by James Edwards, none of whom are linked to me. Nor am I linked with any of these. I do agree with Ictu that something strange is evidently going on here. Since the Gospel of Matthew is an important Wikipedia article and it appears to have been compromised, I believe it should be subject to a full Administrative investigation. Also, I have counted close to 15 canvassing violations and suspect more via email. This article needs help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Gospel_of_Matthew#Authentic_Gospel_of_Matthew, and Talk:Gospel_of_Matthew#Talk_Page_refactored for context Special:Contributions/207.194.164.93 etc. Firstly you yourself acknowledged in the link you gave editing via 2 IPs. Secondly if you accuse (as above) people not even involved in the Talk of being sock puppets on a Talk page it is reasonable to notify them at their talk page. Why would anyone need to use email? I haven't.In ictu oculi (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed AfD

Please note that John Carter, despite a complete lack of engagement on the matter, has raised an AfD on the demerged content / Ebionite Jewish Community, which is consequently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to offer comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination).-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew

Sounds like a good move. Editing Wikipedia should be a pleasure, not a battle. Have you told InIctu and asked him to do likewise? PiCo (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Clear readable prose I can do, but the latest scholarship is beyond me - I'm not any kind of scholar, NT or OT or other, I'm a professional writer, I do journalism for a living. PiCo (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not hard, just read Ictu's references and mine and be fair. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You were right about Ictu Oculi

I owe you an apology about Oculi. You were right about him! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course the sad thing is that editors like him (and Eusebius) is that they really hurt Wikipedia. They alienate gifted editors. They are skilled at skirting our policies, never acting quite badly enough to be thrown out. Now the question is what to do. That is part of the reason I am stepping back. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Keeping Wikipedia Safe

The majority of our gifted editors, know their 'areas of expertise' and the references connected with them. They actually look forward to scholarly debate. However, when they come under attack from skilled Wiki-Warriors, they simply do not stand a chance. How do we nurture an environment that keeps them safe? This is our Achilles' heel. It puts everything we are trying to at Wikipedia at risk. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is for the best that I step back from Wikipedia

A question: What would you name as the five most important recent commentaries on Matthew? PiCo (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me the question. However, I have stated that I am stepping back from this article and helping you could (would??) be misinterpreted. You have a great writing style and I appreciate your being fair. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment...but I wouldn't regard nominating important commentaries as interference or even involvement. And I've been scrupulously even-handed, I've asked InIctu the same question :). PiCo (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have been scrupulously even-handed, but I think it is for the best that I step back from Wikipedia. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ret P, I hope you don't retire from Wikipedia. I like the stuff you write, and you bring much needed knowledge. We all get overwrought at times, and get rather excited about material we feel strongly about and are puzzled about how others don't share our exact viewpoint. You can either let it get under your skin or laugh it off. There have been times when I've felt like dumping WP, but now I try laughing more. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I said elsewhere, one of the things we need is experts. If you were to in some way "declare" your identity, even to a very selected group, like to one volunteer who has committed to keep information private through WP:OTRS, that might solve a lot of problems. Also, I think, if you were to stay, or return for a while, the potential involvement in class groups which has been proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting could certainly use the assistance of as many academics and others as possible. I don't know the specific reasons you have for choosing to step back, but hope that, at your discretion and your own decision, you at least consider returning. I know a lot of the early Christianity content is substandard, and we could definitely use as much help there as we could get. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Gospel question

Hey Prof, can I bother you in your retirement? An IP has just added a section in Gospel pertaining to the Book of Mormon. Can you have a look to see if that's really appropriate for the article? I think it's too broad to really qualify for inclusion here. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Whoa. I just read the above messages, and I'm saddened. I've seen and admired your work and your evenhandedness, and if you retire from being Ret.Prof. that would be a great loss to the project. I could ask you to reconsider but I don't want to badger you--at any rate, thanks for your contributions. May the fish bite, or may you finally finish that book. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Blackarachnia deletion review

There is a deletion review here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 18 that may interest you. Mathewignash (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"Trite" references

Hi, I see when you added the comparison chart to the Gospel of the Hebrews page, you filled a number of reference tags with "trite." Did you mean by that that we should check with the sources found in the beginning of the section? If so, it'd be nice to know which section is supported by which book(s). Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Ret Prof: Thanks for asking me to look at the material you've gathered. At the moment, I'm taking a vacation from religion-oriented articles, so I won't be able to help. Good luck. --Noleander (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Hi Ret. Prof, you asked me for an evaluation of sources on your user page. I haven't read through all your sources in detail, but here are some initial thoughts:

1. According to Eusebius, our earliest primary witness is Papias c.125, who states that Matthew compiled logia in the Hebrew language. The first use of the term gospel to indicate a written source we have preserved is Justin in c.155, and Marcion was probably the first to use the term in this way to describe his Gospel of the Lord in c.140. Be careful about using sources that just assume it's a fact Matthew wrote something in Hebrew equivalent to what we moderns call a gospel.

2. By describing a Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew as being different from canonical Greek Matthew, there is an implicit assumption that Greek Matthew is somehow altered or a fake. That is what Symmachus claimed at the end of the second century. Any secondary sources making such a controversial (explosive) claim should probably cite Symmachus as a primary witness. I suggest you carefully weight such claims against the large number of counter-claims that Greek Matthew is genuine.

3. Although scholars can speculate all they want, there is no hard evidence that the GH is a Hebrew version of Matthew. This may be a case of extrapolating beyond the data to say what perhaps some wish to be true. Origen and Clement of Alexandria are the best primary witnesses for the GH, and I don't remember either of them equating that text with Matthew. You might want to be careful about citing sources that simply assume this equivalence without definitive evidence.

I have to run. Take care. Ignocrates (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. You have provided great insight. Your statement, "By describing a Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew as being different from canonical Greek Matthew, there is an implicit assumption that Greek Matthew is somehow altered or a fake." was most unsettling - but your logic is undeniable. Forged by Bart D. Ehrman is not where I am coming from. (Although I do recommend the book notwithstanding his anti Christian bias.) In trying to write from a NPOV I may have over done it! You have stopped me dead in my tracks. - But that is a good thing. I hope you continue to critically evaluate my sources. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Thanks A Georgian (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Hello, this is in reply to your e-mail: It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction. Please respond here; I don't normally communicate by e-mail.  Sandstein  16:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Another concern: The "anon user" makes statements such as "As to consensus, we did have a consensus on this article being a redirect. -- 202.124.73.48 (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)". Could this "anon user" be a sockpuppet? Is rest of the "nest" about to make an appearance? I am probably just getting a bit paranoid but I may ask an admin to look into it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The "anon user" is not a sockpuppet. That statement "we did have a consensus on this article" was made by me, and meant "we, the Wikipedia community" (on the basis of looking at the edit history and talk page, I saw a consensus to redirect). I have, as far as I recall, never touched the article Canonical gospels before. However, by taking Canonical gospels to AfD, you naturally attracted opinions from a range of editors not previously involved. There was never a guarantee that those opinions would align 100% with yours. -- 202.124.74.70 (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "anon edits" are OK as long as you don't then edit with your user account or are using your anon edits to avoid a block or ban. Cheers from a somewhat paranoid Ret.Prof (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Re my user/talk pages

Sorry for being so long to get back to you on this, I don't know how I missed that message. Thanks for the compliment. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent publications

You might be interested in some new publications: here, here, and here. Best. Ignocrates (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:MatrumanUser:Bearnfæder