Quote |
|||
Line 186: | Line 186: | ||
Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. [http://www.google.de/search?q=%22Matthew+composed+the+sayings+in+the+Hebrew+tongue%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xuHrUfKPKcXSqwGRsYGYBA&ved=0CCIQpwUoBA&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3AJuly+1+2011%2Ccd_max%3AJuly+1+2013&tbm=bks#hl=en&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3AJuly+1+2011%2Ccd_max%3AJuly+1+2013&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22we+call+Mark+and+Matthew%22+&oq=%22we+call+Mark+and+Matthew%22+&gs_l=serp.12...16104.31690.1.34464.19.18.1.0.0.3.736.3565.6j9j5-2j1.18.0....0...1c.2j1.23.psy-ab..43.3.315.K_CNKaaQ1kQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=97f1b66d9a0f2091&biw=1600&bih=737&bvm=pv.xjs.s.en_US.seW1cfrvSKg.O Ehrman 2013 p 100] |
Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. [http://www.google.de/search?q=%22Matthew+composed+the+sayings+in+the+Hebrew+tongue%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xuHrUfKPKcXSqwGRsYGYBA&ved=0CCIQpwUoBA&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3AJuly+1+2011%2Ccd_max%3AJuly+1+2013&tbm=bks#hl=en&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3AJuly+1+2011%2Ccd_max%3AJuly+1+2013&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22we+call+Mark+and+Matthew%22+&oq=%22we+call+Mark+and+Matthew%22+&gs_l=serp.12...16104.31690.1.34464.19.18.1.0.0.3.736.3565.6j9j5-2j1.18.0....0...1c.2j1.23.psy-ab..43.3.315.K_CNKaaQ1kQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=97f1b66d9a0f2091&biw=1600&bih=737&bvm=pv.xjs.s.en_US.seW1cfrvSKg.O Ehrman 2013 p 100] |
||
Quoted by [[User:Ret.Prof|Ret.Prof]] ([[User talk:Ret.Prof|talk]]) 23:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC) |
Quoted by [[User:Ret.Prof|Ret.Prof]] ([[User talk:Ret.Prof|talk]]) 23:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
:This is an academic debate that should be described in the article. A "fringe theory" is one that is outside of the responsible literature entirely. If Ehrman et al. cover it, that is at least grounds to mention it. [[User:Shii|Shii]] [[user_talk:Shii|(tock)]] 23:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:55, 2 August 2013
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tag:Authorship and sources
Papias tradition
I agree with you. It seemed reasonable remove the Papias material which says "Matthew composed his Gospel in a Hebrew dialect" from this article . . . until I checked the references. The scope of an article is the topic or subject matter, which is defined by reliable sources. WP:SCOPE Deleting the Papias tradition from our article is simply not supported by the reliable sources. See List The reliable rources on the Canonical Gospel of Matthew devote a section to Papias. To delete Papias from our topic would go against Wikipedia policy.
I have also gone to the seminary library in order to comply with synopsis request (above). I checked the encyclopedias and other tertiary sources ranging from the New Catholic Encyclopedia to Blackwells and found that all their articles on the Gospel of Matthew delve into the Papias issue. Quite honestly I could not find a source that did not refer to Papias. My synopsis or outline would be as follows:
OUTLINE
1 Composition and setting 1.1 Authorship 1.2 Setting: the community of the Gospel of Matthew 2 Structure and content 2.1 Structure 2.2 Prologue: genealogy, nativity and infancy 2.3 First narrative and discourse 2.4 Second narrative and discourse 2.5 Third narrative and discourse 2.6 Fourth narrative and discourse 2.7 Fifth narrative and discourse 2.8 Conclusion: Passion, Resurrection and Great Commission 3 Themes in Matthew
4 Comparison with other writings
This is pretty standard stuff. What is important to note is that the sections on Authorship have Papias included. Although I looked at many many sources on the Gospel of Matthew, the four that I based my outline on were The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church 2013, Encyclopaedia of the historical Jesus 2008, New Catholic Encyclopedia and Blackwells. Also I am flexible. Hope you find my outline a step in the right direction.
The striking and incontestable fact!
The Blackwell Companion series in its study of the historical evidence re Matthew, now points to a "striking and incontestable fact. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship and composition of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was the first written, that it was written in the Hebrew language," Blackwell (2009) p 602 and even in the subscriptions to Arabic and Syriac manuscripts of Matthew, we find consistent corroboration, Blackwell (2009) p 602 for example:
- Here ends the Gospel of the Apostle Matthew. He wrote it in the land of Palestine, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the Hebrew language, eight years after the bodily ascension of Jesus the Messiah into heaven, and in the first year of the Roman Emperor Claudius Caesar. Blackwell (2009) p 602
The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. Blackwell (2009) p 602 In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these two facts. Edwards (2009) p 259, p 102 & p 117.
- Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! I have a slight issue with this section in how it is worded and sourced. The text in question is this:
The historical data is both "striking and incontestable". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another."
- My issue is that the article is presenting this as a "striking and incontestable" fact without referencing possible bias in the source. When I read the paragraph, my immediate question was, "According to whom?" When I looked up the source, it turned out to be a book on theology, and given the subject matter, it is easy to assume that the authors would have some motivation for putting forward this particular model for the origin of the New Testament. That being said, I don't think it is a bad source necessarily. My opinion is that we should add an in-text attribution to make it a bit more clear (as per Wikipedia:INTEXT). Ideally, we could cite an opposing view concurrently, to give the full breadth of thought on the issue. Honestly, I have the same issue with citation 16, but that will be for another time.
- Thanks - Ljpernic (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Most interesting!...at first I agreed with you. However, it is not possible to reference a "possible bias" or "cite an opposing view", because it is a "statement of fact". To your question "According to whom?" the answer is everyone. No scholar has opposed the "striking and incontestable fact! The statement is supported in a detail by James Edwards who does the math! In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these two facts. Edwards (2009) p 259, p 102 & p 117.
- Conclusion: Some scholars such as Casey and Ehrman (see above) argue that the facts show that Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel while other scholars have yet to be won over by the New Scholarship.
- However, I do agree that the following from the Blackwell Companion series has no place in the article: To those cynical of excavations of imaginary strata in an imaginary source document, the external evidence looks like a rock in a weary land. And indeed, if we go back to the door of that library at Harvard and listen closely, we can hear a few ... is POV and probably contains original research. I do concur that it has no place at Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Conclusion: Some scholars such as Casey and Ehrman (see above) argue that the facts show that Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel while other scholars have yet to be won over by the New Scholarship.
- Most interesting!...at first I agreed with you. However, it is not possible to reference a "possible bias" or "cite an opposing view", because it is a "statement of fact". To your question "According to whom?" the answer is everyone. No scholar has opposed the "striking and incontestable fact! The statement is supported in a detail by James Edwards who does the math! In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these two facts. Edwards (2009) p 259, p 102 & p 117.
Translation verses Composite Authorship
Some, including the Roman Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission, believe that the Gospel of Matthew is simply a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. However there are real problems with this position. First the subscriptions to the early MSS are more consistent with composite authorship than a translation. Jerome confirms this, as there are discrepancies between the Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew. In a letter to Pope Damasus, Jerome explains I will now speak of the New Testament, which 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.
Today, most scholars embrace composite authorship (See Two-source hypothesis, Four document hypothesis & Diagram) Since the publication of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, and a variety of other Aramaic documents written in the ancient world, this "present generation of scholars have had the opportunity to make massive progress." Casey (2010) p 108. We now have a much clearer idea of the " the nature of authorship in Second Temple Judaism. Composite authorship was common, and so was the attribution of documents to the fountainheads of traditions." Casey (2010) p 88. As Jerome testifies the Apostle Matthew was the fountainhead of the Greek Gospel of Matthew which is of composite authorship in the same sense as many ancient Jewish works, such as the books of Isaiah and Jubilees. Casey (2010) p 89 (See also Fountainhead and Sources of Matthew) - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Toned down the anti-Semitism
I had difficulty with this statement in the lead "Israel's Messiah, having been rejected by Israel (i.e., God's chosen people) passes judgment on those who had rejected him (so that "Israel" becomes the non-believing "Jews"), and finally sends the disciples to preach to the gentiles. "
I think the editor misread Luz who is actually talking about the "leaders" and the "judgment on Israel's leaders". In any event I toned it down. Please let me know if I went too far. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Composition and setting
Although the Gospel of Matthew does not name its author, Blackwells points out that the early MSS have the following citation:
- Here ends the Gospel of the Apostle Matthew. He wrote it in the land of Palestine, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the Hebrew language, eight years after the bodily ascension of Jesus the Messiah into heaven, and in the first year of the Roman Emperor Claudius Caesar. Blackwell (2009) p 602
The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey b. 63 A.D). His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius, generally "held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." Blackwell (2010) p 301 Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic. Blackwell (2010) p 302 Indeed, leading British historian Maurice Casey has gone so far as to say, "It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew" compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able. (See also Casey 2010 p 86)
Bart Ehrman and James Edwards now support Casey and argue that the Papias tradition "is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves." Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101 (ie the apostolic fountainhead) "It is in any case very early, within living memory of the apostolic age." James R. Edwards, 2009. pp 2-3
Indeed there can be no denying the striking and incontestable fact that the Apostle Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. Blackwell (2009) p 602 In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these two facts. Edwards (2009) p 259, p 102 & p 117.
Modern scholarship: translation verses composite authorship debate
Some, including the Roman Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission, believe that the Gospel of Matthew is simply a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. However, there are several historical problems. First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (see The Synoptic Problem). Blackwell (2010) p 302 Also the subscriptions to the early MSS are more consistent with composite authorship than a translation. Jerome confirms this, as there are discrepancies between the Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew. In a letter to Pope Damasus, Jerome explains, "I will now speak of the New Testament, which 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." James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009 p 33
Most contemporary scholars embrace composite authorship (See Two-source hypothesis, Four document hypothesis & Diagram) and believe the Gospel of Matthew is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (Greek primacy). Raymond Edward Brown, An introduction to the New Testament, Anchor Bible Series, Doubleday, 1997. p. 209-211 Since the publication of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, and a variety of other Aramaic documents written in the ancient world, this "present generation of scholars have had the opportunity to make massive progress." We now have a much clearer idea of the " the nature of authorship in Second Temple Judaism. Composite authorship was common, and so was the attribution of documents to the fountainheads of traditions.". As Jerome testifies the Apostle Matthew was the fountainhead of the Greek Gospel of Matthew which is of composite authorship in the same sense as many ancient Jewish works, such as the books of Isaiah and Jubilees. Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, 2010. p 89
The scope of an article is the topic or subject matter, which is defined by reliable sources. The extent of the subject matter identifies the range of material that belongs in the article, and thus also determines what does not belong (i.e., what is "out of scope"). The reliable sources See List on the Canonical Gospel of Matthew such as Blackwells 2010, The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church 2013, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia of the historical Jesus 2008, and New Catholic Encyclopedia devote a section to Papias, translation and composite scholarship. For more in debth look at some of this scholarship the following links have been added: the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, the Two-source hypothesis, the Four document hypothesis & Diagram
It is also important to note, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Tertiary sources may be used but with care. Encyclopedias etc. cost a great deal to produce. At Wikipedia we are producing our own encyclopedia based on secondary sources, not copy editing the costly work of others. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Continued WP:FRINGE
I've reverted the addition of Hebrew Gospel hypothesis as the "main" link for composition, but what is the solution to these continued edits? It seems evident that Ret Prof is determined to push what is only notable as WP:FRINGE view into this and other high visibility articles? What's the solution to this? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide some reliable sources to support your edit that the Hebrew gospel hypothesis is fringe. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problem:
Pheme Perkins Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels -2007 Page 197 "The hypothesis that a Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew tradition has been detected in new Gospel fragments continues to surface on the fringes of scholarship today. It was first proposed by the second-century Christian author Papias, who ...
- Now, other editors, what is the solution to the continuing edits on this article? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is good enough to support your edit. For my full response please go Hebrew Gospel hypothesis where must try to work through this topic from a NPOV. There are reliable sources on both sides of this issue so we may need outside help. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- NPOV means keeping fringe material out of a major article like Gospel Matthew - none of your material has any place in this article. Yourself and previous advocates of "Original Matthew" theories have tried repeatedly to insert the theory into this article and it has been repeatedly removed. And yet here you are filling the Talk page with more advocacy for this theory. What will it take to stop this? Are you ever going to accept that this fringe theory does not deserve a prominent place in major New Testament articles on en.wp? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is good enough to support your edit. For my full response please go Hebrew Gospel hypothesis where must try to work through this topic from a NPOV. There are reliable sources on both sides of this issue so we may need outside help. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Now, other editors, what is the solution to the continuing edits on this article? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
So we're back at this game are we? What has changed since the last time we reviewed the question at hand (see the archive for relevant discussion? Are we doing the old, look at all these wonderful WP:RS which exempts the material from the WP:FRINGE requirement again? That dog won't hunt and since we have been over this extensively before, rehashing old arguments is a variant of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which is in turn a form of WP:DISRUPT, which leads us all traipsing over to WP:ANI to ask for a topic or article ban. OTOH, if there has been a shift in the scholarly consensus that now accepts the Hebrew hypothesis (of which I am unaware), then the article should incorporate the theory. Eusebeus (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- User:Eusebeus, exactly. Unfortunately with User:PiCo semi-retired, User:History2007 retired, User:DougWeller on leave, I'm not sure how we can do this. One thing is clear, RetProf's firm conviction that the WP:TRUTH is that the "real" Gospel of the "real" Matthew is lurking in Hebrew fragments is just not going to go away. This is more than adequately covered in the article on the fringe theory, a single link is sufficient, but will RetProf accept not making a case for the theory in Gospel of Matthew article itself? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't looked over the previous discussion, so I refrain from commenting on it. However, there doesn't seem to be anything in this thread itself which seems to remotely indicate that the theory meets WEIGHT requirements for this page. Eusebeus said above that there seems to be good cause to think that this qualifies as Disruptive or Tendentious editing, and, based on the material presented here, I would have to probably agree. FWIW, I tend to think that the best way to proceed is to review the other extant reliable sources of a type similar to wikipedia itself, which generally means "reference" works of a dictionary/encyclopedia type, and see how much weight they give the material in the main article for this topic itself. If it is mentioned at length in other articles there, that is another question irrelevant to the discussion for including material on this topic in this article, but is relevant to inclusion of such material in articles of a similar subject as those articles in those books. Yeah, I have seen some articles in some encyclopedias run to 40 pages or more in print, and no, not everything in those hugely long articles necessarily qualifies for inclusion in our shorter articles here, although they might be relevant to other articles here. If the proponents of this change can produce evidence which clearly indicates that this topic has received coverage in content directly relating to the Gospel of Matthew itself, like encyclopedic articles in print sources, that it might proportionately merit the same rough proportional level of coverage here, that would seem to me to be the way to indicate the material should be included here. Can anyone point to evidence of this topic getting enough attention in other sources to meet WEIGHT requirements here for this particular topic and article? John Carter (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
?????????????? Now I am a really confused old guy! I remember Casey, Ehrman etc being debated "as fringe" in Oral Gospel traditions, the heated discussion on the talk page as well as the fringe notice board discussion (consensus Ehrman not fringe) and I even remember some discussion with User:Smeat75, User:Paul Barlow User:Salimfadhley, User:IRWolfie-, User:Eric Kvaalen, User:Shii and User:Stephan Schulz, BUT I have no recollection of a "Fringe debate" on Ehrman, Casey, Blackwell etc re the Gospel of Matthew?? Nor was it ever brought to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ?? In any event see below. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI, a query about this topic has been raised on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- It was you who raised the query. I am just alerting other editors here about a discussion in another place. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Bromiley source
I don't have time to go into this, but from the few checks I've made, the page numbers given for Bromiley don't match up with the passages sourced from him in the article. PiCo (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Glad that you came out of retirement! The Bromiley ref was essentially correct but whoever did it was a bit sloppy. I fixed it and hope that the editor who first cited it does not take offense. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I fixed the reference. I promised myself I would avoid this article, but I couldn't stand it. Please use proper citation formatting. Ignocrates (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
You have made a number of good points. Indeed I agree with most of what you have said. I particularly appreciate your statement "OTOH, if there has been a shift in the scholarly consensus that now accepts the Hebrew hypothesis (of which I am unaware), then the article should incorporate the theory." Being open and fair-minded is so very important to working through a difficult topic! The Fringe issue seems to revolve around the following sources:
- David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303
- William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602
- Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101
- Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88
- James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3
One group of good faith editors feel so very, very strongly that the above scholars are wrong and push what is only notable as WP:FRINGE view and that NPOV means keeping fringe material out of a major article like the Gospel of Matthew - the Blackwell Companion, Ehrman, Edwards and Casey have no place in this article! This scholarship represents a dog that won't hunt and therefore such scholarship was rightly deleted from this article.
vs
The other side believes that the Blackwell Companion (2009 2010), Ehrman (2012), Edwards (2009) and Casey (2010) represent the best and most up to date scholarship on the Gospel of Matthew. All are respected in the academic community representing the cutting edge of critical studies.
I think we all agree with In ictu oculi that the time has come to resolve this conflict.
- Are the Blackwell Companion (2009 2010), Ehrman (2012), Edwards (2009) and Casey (2010) fringe?
- Does the scholarship re the Hebrew (Aramaic) authorship of the Gospel of Matthew fall under the category of WP:Fringe theories?
Accordingly I have posted a request on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard to guide us through this challenging topic. Thanks again for all the good work you do.- Ret.Prof (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- On the question of fringe theories, I think the problem is in the written article text, not the sources used to support its claims. The references are properly cited, and none of these experts are fringe writers. It is the use they are put to that is a fringe view, and their use to construct an argument is original research.
- Craig does not have much weight in this argument. He is an apologist, not a biblical scholar, and he supports a highly conservative view that argues, using Papias, that the Gospel of Matthew was either composed by, or directly based on, this "Hebrew Gospel". None of the other scholars agree with this, and Casey describes it as 'complete nonsense'.
- Aune summarises the consensus view - that the early Christian movement, following Papias, believed the Gospel of Matthew to be the same as the 'Hebrew Gospel'. It is clear that he does not agree with this: “Papias’ description does not correspond well with the New Testament”. There is nothing to suggest that he believes the 'Hebrew Gospel' was an actual document.
- Casey, as noted, dismisses the traditional authorship of the Gospel of Matthew as complete nonsense, but he appears to be open to the idea that the Q source used by both Matthew and Luke included elements written by the original apostle, and that Matthew had, or made, a better translation of it from Aramaic into Greek.
- Ehrman, again, summarises the consensus view, that the attribution of any part of the Gospel of Matthew to the text mentioned by Papias is simply false: "there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. … he appears to be referring to other writings”. He leaves open the existence of a lost 'Hebrew Gospel'. He makes the point nevertheless that Papias claimed to have met people who knew the historical Jesus (which is what his book is about), and that much is probably true.
- Edwards argues that the Papias account is so widely reported that it is probably correct, that the Hebrew Gospel existed, and that it was used by Luke, not Matthew.
- How anyone can imagine that any of this supports the theory that there has been a profound shift in biblical scholarship is beyond me. Aune and Ehrman represent the mainstream view, and where Casey and Edwards may differ from this, they come to very different and contradictory conclusions. I cannot see why any of this would be relevant to an article about what we call the Gospel of Matthew. None of these writers suggest that if the document Papias says Matthew wrote existed, it forms a part (except indirectly) of our modern Gospel of Matthew. I can see no reason to include this reference in the article. This is why I have reverted the large section that was there - a plain reading of which would suggest that modern scholars had changed their mind and now thought the tax collector Matthew wrote the Gospel. Which is, as Casey says, complete nonsense. --Rbreen (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have no problem with your revert! And I agree with you that Casey, Ehrman and Edwards now accept that Papias was correct and Matthew composed a gospel in Hebrew! This is truly a major shift in the scholarship. I also agree that they do not believe that the Canonical Gospel of Matthew was a translation of theHebrew Gospel as some conservatives still argue. Casey in particular makes the case for composite scholarship which Matthew was the fountainhead! Re the Gospel of Matthew, most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. They present both those who support and oppose Papias. We should follow the reliable sources and also write our article from NPOV Google Books Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- You're making points out of thin air. You should draw conclusions from what mainstream scholars say, not from what you would wish that they say or from what they don't say. You have misrepresented the sources and pretended that they say what they actually disagree with (with the exception of the apologist). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please read carefully what I have written. I DID NOT write that "Casey, Ehrman and Edwards accept that Papias was correct and Matthew composed a gospel in Hebrew". Edwards thinks the original Matthew wrote a text, which was substantial enough to be called a gospel; Casey seems to think it possible that Matthew's text was a part of Q, but that implies a collection of sayings, not a gospel; Ehrman doesn't say either way. That is very different to what you claim, and certainly does not amount to a major shift in scholarship. That is just YOUR interpretation, and it is original research.--Rbreen (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
In any event, Papias does not seem to provide us with the kind of information we can place a lot of confidence in. I should point out, in this connection, that scholars have almost uniformly rejected just about everything else that Papias is recorded to have said in the surviving references to his work.
...
If scholars are inclined to discount what Papias says in virtually every other instance, why is it that they sometimes appeal to his witness in order to show that we have an early tradition that links Matthew to one of our Gospels, and Mark to another? Why do these scholars accept some of what Papias said but not all of what he said? I suspect it is because they want to have support for their own points of view (Matthew really wrote Matthew) and have decided to trust Papias when he confirms their views, and not trust him when he does not.
The result of this quick examination of Papias is, I think, that he passes on stories that he has heard, and he attributes them to people who knew other people who said so. But when he can be checked, he appears to be wrong. Can he be trusted in the places that he cannot be checked? If you have a friend who is consistently wrong when he gives directions to places you are familiar with, do you trust him when he gives directions for someplace you’ve never been?
Papias is not recorded as having said anything about either Luke or John. I’m not sure why. But the bottom line is this: we do not have any solid reference to the authors of our four Gospels in which we can trust (for example, that the author is actually referring to our Matthew and our Mark) until closer to the end of the second century—nearly a full hundred years after these books had been anonymously placed in circulation.
— Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 107-110
- Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Casey says that the composition of the Gospel of Matthew was 'composite' - not an especially controversial or innovative suggestion; he does not say that 'Matthew' was the "fountainhead" - that is your interpretation. Edwards says that if the John that Papias mentions was John the Apostle, then the testimony of Papias 'comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead' - and then says he thinks that unlikely. You are simply cherrypicking words and ideas to fit into your own view, which is not expressed by any of the sources you cite. This is original research.--Rbreen (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. Ehrman 2013 p 100 Quoted by Ret.Prof (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)