Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

An early date for Matthew

(For the convenience of editors, I'm dividing the thread "What does Casey 2014 say about a Hebrew Gospel?" in two because it began as a discussion of whether or not Casey mentions a Hebrew Gospel and ended with RetProf saying he no longer wished to support that argument. With that behind us, we're now talking about the date of Matthew - RetProf's comment, the first in this thread, leads on directly from the end of the previous thread) PiCo (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Let us do things one at a time. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok. With Casey a recognized WP:RS, even granting him a great importance, the book is new, and the importance of the early date in his book has yet to have time to make the impact it could given a little more time. At this time, even 50 AD (much less 40 AD) remains a minority view, even east and west. It seems reasonable that the article ought to continue to reflect that fact until it changes, if it changes. When Casey's book, or any other matters, have caused enough scholars to reconsider and move to an earlier date, that would be the time for the article to change. And if the date is important to Papias' reliability, we can only assume other scholars will pick up on that as well. But WP is reactive, not proactive. We must wait here until it happens. Evensteven (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Evensteven Casey 2014 puts the date of composition between 50& 60 ce. Where did the 40 come from?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

40 is Crossley's number, presented in the quote you provided from Casey in #What does Casey 2014 say? above. It is apparently the (or one) reason Casey gives for establishing his date of 50-60. Is that correct? 50 is still a minority view. I'm sorry if I have offended in any way, but I did not say that your edit was not within guidelines, and I did not delete it. I also did not call the early date issue a red herring. I merely said that it is not an established majority view, and that is why I think the dates given in the article must not be changed at present. Evensteven (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL I was not referring to you. The 40 date was only addressed to you. Sorry! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The article says 70-110 and pre-70 date is a minority view, but Casey says 50, so it seems reasonable if Casey is a reliable source to change the first number to 50 without changing the second number. I don't see a need to call Casey out by name. If you don't agree that this is reasonable I would be interested to hear why not. Andrevan@ 08:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It says Matthew is "generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110". That obviously doesn't mean everyone. Casey is one of the minority. I think there is a misunderstanding over two distinct uses of the phrase "reliable source". StAnselm (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, 50 is also the early date generally mentioned in eastern (Orthodox) sources, and there seems to be a pretty general agreement that anything earlier is likely to be greeted in scholarly circles as difficult to defend. So putting this in as an early date instead of the vaguer "before 70" (but without needing specific attribution) seems to me a tad clearer. I tend to think that the late date of 110 is rather along the same lines as 50 is for early, and have not heard of eastern scholarship suggesting something that far out. But perhaps it has a somewhat greater following in the west. It would do to examine that date (lightly) also and try to make it clearly match the phrase "generally believed". I don't think 50 falls in that category, which is why we use 70. But are there that many who seriously contend for something after 110? Evensteven (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Andrevan, it would be entirely unreasonable to change 70 to 50. The sentence we have, "The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110," is based on Dennis Duling's short commentary on Matthew in the Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, and changing the year would (a) attribute to Duling something he doesn't say, and (b) be untrue, since "generally" means "by the majority", and Casey himself says it's a minority view. Incidentally, I see, now that I look at Duling, that he actually says "the range of posibility" is 70-110 - I'd support a change to that wording. PiCo (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

But PiCo, doesn't that undermine the "generally" or "by the majority"? The "range of possibility" is just Duling's, yes? Does he say "most scholars" prefer 80-90? If so, let's use him to back that statement. If 50 is outside his own range of possibility, it is apparently within others', even if theirs is a minority view, and I think we can see where the borders of minority view come into play by contrast to the majority preference. Evensteven (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a very good point. 90-110 is also a minority view. We should either say the range of possibility is 50-110, or just drop that bit entirely. In fact, I am boldly making a change here, which also has the advantage of removing the passive voice. StAnselm (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have the same sense of the literature (80-90), but I think PiCo is attempting to avoid a synthesis by almost literally quoting Duling's review. Maybe he can elaborate when he returns. Ignocrates (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I like StAnslem's edit. It mostly begs these minority views and sticks with the core, which is what the intro to the article is all about anyway. If Duling doesn't suffice, it would be nice to find another summary to back this type of wording rather than the former. Evensteven (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are we going with Duling , anyway? R. T. France says says the "majority view" is "fourth quarter of the first century", but then says "probably around 85" (still referring to the majority view). David Sim says the "consensus of opinion" is prior to 100, and notes that there is an "overwhleming probability" that Ignatius knew the gospel, which rules out a 110 date. StAnselm (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No idea about Duling, but France concurs quite directly with the summary of Orthodox views in the OSB, even better than Duling. So there we have two sources, east and west. Seems pretty comprehensive to me. Evensteven (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@StAnselm, that edit looks fine to me. PiCo (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

An aside

@All, please read this before you get in much deeper with this guy. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I consider myself to be "in" with everyone here until they tell me otherwise. Evensteven (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear; by "this guy" I meant Andrevan. I feel there is a bit of misrepresentation going on here. Andrevan is here to "mediate" whatever solution Ret.Prof wants. Ignocrates (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you weren't directing anything at me. But I think it would be a mistake to reject whatever Andrevan is doing out of hand. There is no official mediation going on here. He is present simply as an editor. His skill as a mediator could come in handy, but it is his right to be here in whatever capacity can contribute to the article. And frankly, contentious discussions go on all over WP all the time and have gone on here before. So anything that can be done by anyone to quiet that kind of thing is constructive for the article, even if he never adds a word to it. Evensteven (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about this again, but please note the missing parts of that conversation: diff1, diff2. I asked Andrevan to keep it all together on his talk page, but he refused to do that. Hence, the diffs to fill in the rest. He has made it clear that he is not acting as a normal editor to contribute content; he is here to enforce policy, and therefore, implicitly using his authority as an admin to do that. Wearing that admin hat requires that he stay "uninvolved"; however, as this thread shows, he clearly is involved in determining the specific content that is going into the article. It is considered misconduct for an admin to do that; he can't have it both ways. I'll stop with the aside now and let you get back to improving the article content. Ignocrates (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Ignocrates. I do see the "informal mediator" role. I saw earlier that that's what he's been doing in effect. I just haven't seen an abuse of authority, not in my eyes anyway. Sorry, the role he has taken can still be a help here. And I can't see anything to argue about in the edits made in the last two weeks. There is a variety of editors involved in them, too. Situation stable, I'd say. Evensteven (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What does Casey 2014 say about a Hebrew Gospel?

RetProf, you don't need to tell us what Casey says about his preferred date for Matthew, we already know. What we need is where you find Casey talking about a Hebrew Gospel.PiCo (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean you are in agreement with my edit re the earlier dating of the Gospel of Matthew?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No. The article already says that an early dating is a minority opinion.PiCo (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Then we have a NPOV disagreement for Casey's support of the 50 C.E.- 60 C.E date is very, very important to the reliability issue of the Gospel of Matthew. Readers should be aware of this scholarship from an important historian! (Who is a reliable source) Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no NPOV disagreement. Your suggestion is that we say, in effect, "a minority of scholars support an early date, and so does Maurice Casey," but there can be no reason for giving Casey a special mention. Where is your evidence that Casey talks about a Hebrew Gospel? PiCo (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as the Hebrew Gospel is concerned you have made some good points and I am having second thoughts. I may just leave the article as is. However as far as the early date for the Gospel of Matthew I feel I am solid ground. See discussion above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof, the discussion began on 3 Sep 2014 with this diff about Casey 2014 and a Hebrew Matthew. Now, after repeated, unanswered, requests for source information, you seem to be having second thoughts. Should we close this discussion about a Hebrew Matthew and focus on the question of an early date for Matthew? Ignocrates (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel we should focus on the question of an early date for Matthew. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad we are putting the Hebrew Gospel issue to rest. Surely the early date issue is a red herring also. There are lots of excellent scholars who hold to an early date, but it remains a minority opinion. The fact that Casey has published a book which opts for an early date makes no real difference to that. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

See ‘chutzpah’ above! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ret. Prof, you are essentially conceding this point and PiCo is right. Casey doesn't say there is a Hebrew Gospel. So we can't write that even if it is implied or somehow an underlying idea of Casey's unless he spells it out. If you have a source, then go ahead, there are no sources so the issue is over. This can go any way at any time but is nothing until then. Andrevan@ 07:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have carefully read through the arguments presented on this page and some very good points have been raised. I am now in the process of preparing my edit re Papias. As a sign of good faith I will not use the term “Hebrew Gospel”. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Compromise:50-60 CE

• Reliability of Casey 2014: PiCo states that "Casey is a reliable source, based on his academic record and the way other scholars treat him with respect." He is a "leading expert" on the Historical Jesus and deals extensively with the origins of the Gospel of Matthew. Indeed, it would be fair to say Maurice Casey, is one of the most important Historical Jesus scholars of his generation and we seem to have consensus that Jesus: Evidence and Argument Or Mythicist Myths? complies with Wikipedia policy on reliable sources.

• What does Casey 2014 say? Casey throws his support behind what up to now has been the minority position! We have seem to have consensus he has clearly put forward 50-60 C.E. as the date for the composition of the Gospel of Matthew which he supports in scholarly fashion. Casey 2014 p 90

Therefore I am willing to support the compromise put forward by Andrevan: "The article says 70-110 and pre-70 date is a minority view, but Casey says 50, so it seems reasonable if Casey is a reliable source to change the first number to 50 without changing the second number. I don't see a need to call Casey out by name." Also this proposal has no problems with Fringe or Synthesis. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's discuss within the discussion that's going on above. StAnselm has made a chance which actually narrowed the range in the lead. That seems to be consistent with the source info for the "majority" position. I think perhaps the way forward is to talk about Casey's earlier range elsewhere in the article. Thoughts? Andrevan@ 21:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That works for me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I concur with that. For the lead paragraphs, the majority position tends to be enough for clarity and orientation, and also because the minority positions stretch the range a fair distance further, which takes explanation. Evensteven (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@PiCo & StAnselm... excellent work. The lead must be short and to the point! @Andrevan, I think you are moving us in the right direction. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no need to mention Casey at all. The article already says that pre-70 is a minority position, and that's sourced from France who's more reliable on this than Casey. (France's commentary on Matthew is a scholarly work used in most if not all universities and seminaries, while Casey 2014 is a popular work that just states an opinion without arguments). PiCo (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with PiCo. The current phrasing works well. Besides, even if Casey was producing a scholarly work, it's too soon to see if such a radical viewpoint has influenced the consensus - the book was only published this year.--Rbreen (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't care whether Casey is in or out, but if Casey is reliable and he is saying something slightly different from the established majority position, NPOV demands we mention that somewhere in the article. FRINGE will not apply if Casey is basically still in the mainstream of positions on this, and WEIGHT doesn't allow you to exclude reliable sources because you don't personally see a need to include them. I'm certainly not going to insert the new reference, but if Ret. Prof wants to clarify the 50-70 range you would probably have a tough argument to make against it. -Andrevan@ 16:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

(I'll have to re-write my earlier post in this place because I think I badly misread what's being proposed). RetProf, could we just clarify what's being proposed - are you accepting the opening sentence of the 2nd para of the lead as amended by StAnselm? If the answer is yes, what exactly are you proposing? PiCo (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Casey is (was) an idiosyncratic scholar; he advocates for a view that is uniquely held by him among contemporary scholars. The only reason he is even considered a RS is that his work was reviewed by a few mainstream scholars who are heavy-hitters in this field, most notably Dale Allison. In order for Casey to get his idiosyncratic conjecture about Aramaic sources to work out, he needs an early date for Matthew (and Mark). Thus, his advocacy of an early date is not an independent appraisal of the primary literature. Rather, it is entirely dependent on a highly speculative conjecture about Aramaic source documents that is his alone. If this were a probability distribution of modern scholarship, his work is 3-sigma from the mean. Ignocrates (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You'll have trouble convincing RetProf on that one :). But you make a very good point: being an authority on historical Jesus doesn't carry over into making one an authority on Matthew. The RS for this article are people like Allison, France, Luz, et.al. - the names in the bibliography.PiCo (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Well, Ret.Prof is also a die-hard fan of James Edwards. I would describe his work as 4-sigma from the mean (defective as well as idiosyncratic). His relentless civil POV pushing has to end somewhere, so it might as well end here. Ignocrates (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

RetProf is certainly sailing closer and closer to something definitive. But let's see what he says he wants for the article. In his first post in this thread he said he wanted to change the lead, then Andrevan said we'd gone beyond that and in his next post he seemed to be proposing something in the body of the article. I'd like to see his position clarified, and a concrete proposed edit. PiCo (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

So I take it that both of you are again arguing against Casey as a WP:RS? It seems the main point of contention always goes back to this. I agree waiting for a proposed edit is a useful approach. But please, whatever your opinion of Casey, I don't consider the comments directed at Ret.Prof to be well taken or helpful. So I don't see how a proposed edit is going to help unless there is acceptance of Casey as RS. Let's please focus. Evensteven (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right of course. But just on Casey: sure he's an RS, it's just that he isn't an authority on Matthew, and France, Nolland, Luz, Allison, Davies, and the others in the bibliography, are. Anyway, I'm going to bed. See you all in the morning. PiCo (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Casey is notable as a scholar. He has previously written scholarly books on the Aramaic sources underlying Mark and Q. These two books have been reviewed by at least two mainstream scholars (Allison, and Delbert Burkett) who have presented alternatives to his ideas. Casey's two recent books are about Jesus and are targeted to a popular audience. I don't have any trouble with any them as reliable sources. Casey was a meticulous scholar who proceeded from some starting assumptions that many in his field consider arbitrary or unwarranted. Not everyone follows the herd instinct. Ignocrates (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent; thank you both. So then it's appropriate to call him RS, and a scholar. Yet I agree that scholarly authority wrt Matthew is the critical point here. That's the thing I really dislike about all these "most"/"many"/"majority"/"minority"/"some"/"virtually all" characterizations we hear about all over WP. It really isn't a "poll the scholars or RSes" contest, nor is it a vote. Quality of scholarship must count heavily, and close, prolonged study counts for much as well. (Although "specialization" can also create tunnel vision.) So, given the excellence of awareness about Matthew scholarship we have in this community, the bibliography should be a pretty good resource from which to identify the prominent dates. I'm hearing that 70 is about as early as those sources go - so I ask, why have we been mentioning "pre-70"? Either Casey is alone there, or someone else is in that category too. That's important for establishing proper weight in the article.

But given Casey's recognition as meticulous, one question I'm not clear on is how closely and meticulously he examined this composition date for Matthew in his research. I don't think it's enough just to look at his conclusion. It's important to see how intermingled that date is within his other theses, and how much attention it receives among those considerations. Especially because his scholarly area was outside the "Matthew expert" arena, it may be that he has some insight to offer to those inside that arena, because of related matters they might not have considered in the same light. On the other hand, it may not be that significant to his work, and his whole book may then have been peripheral to this matter. I think it's quite early to know anything beyond an initial reaction to the book here and there. It will get continuing attention (or it won't) in unknown measure. This community can get a feel for all these questions, but in the end, there's not a lot we can do about the need to wait for more thorough looks. Criticisms or possible shortcomings are quicker to get to print (like sugar to digest), while scholarly challenges or insights take more time for everyone to absorb (like protein). What we want to know is the nutritional content, and the metabolism can't say yet.

So I return to my opinion that it's too early to enter Casey into the article. The jury is out. Evensteven (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Maurice Casey is the author of An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and over the years has written extensively about the Gospel of Matthew. He is a "leading expert" on the Historical Jesus. Indeed, it would be fair to say Maurice Casey, is one of the most important Historical Jesus scholars of his generation. Casey 2014 pp 93-96 in a meticulous and scholarly fashion puts forward solid arguments for dating the Gospel of Matthew between 50 and 60 CE. Although he is not the first to support a date as early 50 CE for the Gospel of Matthew there is none with a more solid reputation! He is a reliable source and to delete his scholarship because a handful of User Accounts have a different point of view is a clear NPOV violation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, the statement that Maurice Casey "has written extensively about the Gospel of Matthew" is bullshit. Casey is one of the few advocates for a chaotic model of Q, and the only one who sees a substantial Aramaic component to that model. The extrapolation of his work on a source document to a commentary on Matthew is a leap of transitive logic. It's also insulting how you link to puffery that's used to sell books (puff1, puff2) as though it is an obvious historical fact. How do you live with yourself doing these kinds of things? Just wondering. Ignocrates (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm a bit confused now. I just went through Casey's book on Aramaic Q (2002), and Burkett's review of that book (2009), and I don't see anything about a date for Matthew, early or otherwise. It seems like Casey is merely citing the dates from Crossley's work in his popular books on Jesus, saying in effect, "Crossley argues for this early date, and I agree". If that's the case, we should be evaluating Crossley as a source rather than Casey. Ignocrates (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm have you read Casey 2014, pp 93-96? In any event sorry for upsetting you. BTW Have you ended your break. Your tags are really, really confusing! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Reading your excerpted quotes is meaningless, and I don't have time to hit the library right now. Btw, I'm not upset. And why are my tags and break or lack thereof a topic for this page? Ignocrates (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

When you finally read Casey 2014, pp 93-96 you will see that I am solid ground. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC) PS as for the above, I do not believe it is "puff". Casey is truly a recognized scholar!

The argument could be made that James Tabor is a truly recognized scholar, but his book The Jesus Dynasty is fringe. So "recognized scholar" does not imply "cannot write fringe books". In Casey's case, it is not fringe, it is minority opinion, so it does not pass WP:UNDUE, an essential part of WP:NPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly right. And where to draw the line with respect to WP:UNDUE can only be determined by WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the above. We seem to agree that Casey is a reliable source and he argues for a 50-60 date. The issue is one of weight. Does this diff work? Note, I am flexible as to the wording and as to the location of this material in the article. However to delete Casey 2014 totally would be a NPOV violation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work, because it puts words into R.T. France's mouth. You have yet to prove that we need Casey.PiCo (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

(For everyone's information, RetProf proposes replacing the clause "a pre-70 date remains a minority view," sourced to France, with "a 50-60 date [3] remains a minority view.[4]" where [3] is Casey and [4] is France - it seems to ascribe to France something he doesn't say, it's a synthesis, and it's completely superfluous. PiCo (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

This is lifted word for word from France "a pre-70 date remains a minority view" A pre-70 date for Matthew remains a minority view, but one which has been strongly supported," This is not acceptable! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note the blatant POV pushing: "remains a minority view, but one which has been strongly supported". Distorting the meaning of a reliable source in not acceptable at Wikipedia! We can and must do better! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Next step

I don't think further argument is going to be fruitful. What should we do? PiCo (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. We have resolved a number issues. However help from Andrevan would be useful. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We have not come close to resolving the central issue, which is your determination to have a minor, popular book shoehorned into the article. Andrevan is present here simply as another editor, not as a mediator, and so far, to be frank, he/she has been a rather controversial figure. I repeat, I see no point in continuing with this apparently endless process of back-and-forth, and I believe something more is needed. I'm asking other editors if they agree, or if they wish to keep on slogging through the swamp.PiCo (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a slog. We do have a serious disagreement. However we agree that Casey is a reliable source. That means his material is in. The next issue has to do with weight and and wording. This is not only to avoid copyright concerns but solve NPOV concerns. I am willing to be flexible. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

RetProf, there are hundreds of reliable sources, and merely being one of that number doesn't mean Casey's automatically in.PiCo (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Remember, Andrevan is a respected Mediator, Bureaucrat & Admin. He is a non Christian so has little or no bias. His only concern is Wikipedia. Therefore, he can be of great help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, this is nothing to do with Christian bias, non Christian bias, or any religious preconceptions whatsoever. It is simply about the consensus of scholarship. It doesn't matter what people's beliefs about religion are here - my impression is that there is a wide range - but about acknowledging the scholarly view of the subject. My impression of what you are saying - feel free to correct me if I am wrong - is, "people here are reverting my edits because they see me as having Christian bias, but now I have found a non Christian who agrees with me, so that should be okay". But it's not personal, and it's not religious. It is simply a concern for application of proper standards. I am sure that Wikipedia is the chief concern of us all.--Rbreen (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

PiCo, I don't agree that Andrevan is here as an ordinary editor, based on what he told me here. He is here as an admin, and therefore WP:INVOLVED applies to his oversight of the article. I personally don't care if he mediates, as long as "mediation" doesn't mean shoehorning Ret.Prof's preferred version into the article. As far as next steps for me, it's a fools errand to keep playing this game. Let me know if you want me to prepare a case for arbitration, and I will do that and file it. Otherwise, I'm done here. Ignocrates (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why

Some of you may be wondering why I believe Casey 2014 is so very important. Many other scholars have over the years argued for an early date for Matthew. It is not just that Casey is a respected historian. It is that he is a non-Christian. Therefore, he has no bias toward an early date (as some conservative scholars). He has done an excellent job of weighing the evidence and coming to a scholarly conclusion! Please read Casey 2014 pp 93-96! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought we agreed this minority position doesn't belong in the lead section as this would ascribe it undue weight. I have added it to "Setting and Date." Please consult writing for the opponent. If you disagree with my wording please be bold and modify it, but if you remove this POV altogether you are dangerously close to POV-pushing, and certainly edit warring. The issue of Christian bias in sources is also quite relevant here. Andrevan@ 16:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Andrevan, I don't think there is agreement that Casey's is a minority position. I think we're seeing arguments that it is a fringe position, or at least that it is not prominent enough within the academic community to warrant mention in the article. On the other hand, Ret.Prof has argued "many other scholars have over the years argued for an early date for Matthew." Perhaps if we had a few more names of those who have argued for an early date, it would be easier to settle the weight issue. Evensteven (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not what a FRINGE position is. Fringe is flat earth type stuff. The source is more than sufficient. This edit warring is on dangerous footing. I will do some poking around in the literature to shore it up, but this article ownership is in stark violation of policy. Andrevan@ 22:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven, the list you're after is here. StAnselm (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, StAnselm. Andrevan, I did not say I thought the 50 date was fringe, but that some arguments bordered on saying that. Davies/Allison was published in 2004, and without listing Casey produced a substantial list for dates before 70 (going back even to 40), a list they called "a weighty minority" that was "presently" "pushing" for a date earlier than that of the majority. I do think that effectively undermines any implication that nobody is in that pre-70 camp anymore. It looks to me that 50 is as good an early date as 100 is a late date (post-100 ranks with 40 on this list!). Well, I am less familiar with these names here than others are. But if I were to begin an in-depth investigation, I'd be looking primarily for why these scholars disagree as to the dates. Dates may easily underpin other arguments being made, and represent only a small surface of differences of approach, to the gospel, and to related Christian studies of many kinds. In any case, I still see no reason now why 50 should not be mentioned explicitly as an early date, whether or not Casey is used to back that date. Anybody care to make a case against Davies/Allison? (I'm assuming not.) Evensteven (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess the main arguments for a pre-70 date are that (a) it is written as if the temple had not yet been destroyed, since there is no mention of it as a past fact, but only as a future prophecy, and (b) it is written before the Book of Acts, which appears to be written before Paul's death in c. 67. A push back into the 50s would normally be because of a belief in Matthean priority. StAnselm (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that fits my guess. The Orthodox Study Bible is very sparse in its comments about the dating, but there are two elements that often come up in these matters. The first is that the early church was much concerned about apostolic testimony in writings being considered for adoption as scripture, and was particularly insistent on that for the gospels. Hence, when it identifies Matthew as the gospel's author according to church tradition, it is done with affirmation of how seriously the early generations would have been in verifying that authorship. Of course, as I have said, authorship did not exactly mean the type of individual authorship we think of automatically today. They would have been looking for Matthew as (at least) the primary source for the unique material from which the text was generated, and probably for his blessing upon the final text as well. So all that does point to first-generation involvement, perhaps also with second-generation Christians.

The second concerns the Jewish/Hebraic flavor of the gospel itself, imagery used, Aramaic expressions, details of Jewish religious observances, a Jewish style to the forms of argument. One can even consider the Old Testament quotations, how they appear to be taken from the Masoretic text (or something like it), rather than drawn directly from the Septuagint. Yet it was written in Greek! That may be one reason Orthodox look hard at the time of Matthew's residency in Antioch, where there was a mixed Jewish/Gentile Christian community. And again that business about authorship, if not required to be restricted to an individual, provides some suggestions of community involvement directly with Matthew in producing a Greek text he may have had difficulty producing all by himself.

Certainty about the details is gone, lost to history, leaving my statements as speculative. But I see nothing in the eastern traditions that is outside the bounds of the dating by western scholarship. I expect there would be some Orthodox reluctance to accept theories that rely too heavily on second-generation authorship though, depending on what is meant by authorship. Evensteven (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What it comes down to is that there's a fundamental misunderstanding here of the role of a minority POV, which must be reflected to maintain the NPOV of an article, versus the idea of a fringe position. An example of a fringe position on Biblical scholarship would be New Age, ancient astronaut/UFO type stuff. The fringe is not just something slightly different from what most people think - it's crazy stuff! As we've established the source is reliable and part of the fold on this, and all reliable sources are valid for inclusion - "too old" could be a case but "too recent" certainly not! The way these sources are reflected may need qualification and appropriate (non-zero) weight in a subsection or other article) provided they don't otherwise violate a policy. In this case we are talking about an equivalent logical construction with a different date range! It is not for us to cherry-pick the narrow set of POVs which reflect the orthodoxy within Christianity. You all arguably have conflicts of interest and are pushing POVs here unless you can explain to me why this reliably sourced, 20-years-distinct POV is somehow not reasonable to include. Now, as I mentioned, I don't know anything about Christianity and am an atheist. However what I have understood from this mediation and interaction is that we are dealing with a POV-centric, possibly pro-Christian and maybe anti-Eastern Orthodox or anti-Semitic consensus which will certainly not fly.

Quoting from WP:RNPOV: Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else."

Quoting from WP:RS/AC: The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Therefore I would say we need to invest in a significant overhaul and re-representation of these minority positions in a variety of articles!Andrevan@ 06:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

France is a much better representative of the pre-70 position. It seems that the consensus is not to mention Casey. StAnselm (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not either-or - we can, and must to meet our NPOV prerogative, include all appropriate reliably sourced info. Casey even has his own article. He is notable, reliable, and the edit warring is seriously problematic. Andrevan@ 08:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please stop your edit warring. You should obtain consensus here first. The key word is "appropriate" - as discussed at length above, Casey is not an appropriate source. StAnselm (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Admittedly I just provoked you into it, but we are both edit warring now. The difference is, I have an argument and the means to pursue the accomplishment of policy-driven goals. You need to explain why the source isn't appropriate using the Wikipedia policy pages, not simply your opinion. You say this is discussed at length above, but in fact there is no discussion at all of my proposed edit per se nor why the source is inappropriate outside of opinions. I have explained some of this above, but you are simply blinding reverting, not contributing to the discussion. If you and your sock/meatpuppets keep this up I will have no choice but to pursue other means. Yes that is a threat - a threat to engage in the mechanisms which enforce policies like those quoted above. Andrevan@ 09:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

France

The way the article reads is a total misrepresentation of what France says! It is blatant POV pushing! He believes the early date for Matthew remains a minority view, "but one which has been strongly supported". Distorting the meaning of a reliable source in not acceptable at Wikipedia! We can and must do better!- Ret.Prof (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

But the context of France's comment (indicated by the footnote) is "strongly supported by arguments", rather than "strongly supported by people". And obviously he thinks that because he is arguing for a pre-70 date. StAnselm (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute and edit warring

There clearly is a serious edit war breaking out here. I think it would be a good idea for the parties to step back and take a dispassionate look. Andrevan and StAnselm, could you both state your opinions - just opinions - on what the problem is? PiCo (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinions? Actually what you need to do is explain in policy terms why sourced, valid information is being deleted. Andrevan@ 09:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

My issue is that Casey, as a popular book that is not specifically about Matthew, is not a particularly good example of the early date. France 2007, for example, would be much more appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There are no Wikipedia policies being cited here. It's not either-or. Casey's book does not need to be specifically about Matthew nor does it need to be a "scholarly" work, it merely needs to conform with our policies. Do you have a policy-based reason why you believe Casey is not a reliable source that would lead to your revert? This is not a valid reason to revert my changes. Andrevan@ 10:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Came here because I saw the thread on ANI, The source Andrevan is adding seems legitimate to me. The only policy I could see coming into play, because of my lack of knowledge of the area in question is WP:Weight vs WP:Fringe. Are there many authors at all who hold to Casey's interpretation of 50-60CE, is hilighting his aramaic interpretation undue over other interpretations? SPACKlick (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it is. By the way, the edit I reverted was poor in other respects. It said, "This could also represent an interpretation of the Augustinian hypothesis". Well, the "could" indicates original synthesis. Does it represent that or not? StAnselm (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You think what is what? Use complete sentences and logical ideas. I don't know who SPACKlick is but he should re-read the policies on WEIGHT and FRINGE which, as I've explained before, do not apply here. Anyway, if you didn't like the sentence about the Augustinian hypothesis, you could have just reverted the second edit which added it, or better yet removed the sentence without reverting at all. That you assume revert is the correct way to proceed is a flaw and a sign of combative, tendentious editing. Andrevan@ 10:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"I think highlighting Casey's Aramaic interpretation is undue over other interpretations." StAnselm (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That sentence doesn't parse very well. What I think you mean is that we're giving undue weight to Casey. However what you are missing is that if we don't include it at all we are violating NPOV. The policies for weight do not allow you to delete alternate POVs that you don't like or agree with. Andrevan@ 10:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I am very familiar with the two policies I listed but as I mentioned I'm not familiar with this subject area. I suggested these seemed to be the two policies being vaguely alluded to. It seems from others' responses that is correct. I don't know whether or not these theories are minority of one or mainstream however you haven't yet defended the theory proposed by Casey as anything other than that of a single author and if it is that rare, I think the original insert overstates it somewhat. If however this is a case of wide ranging dispute among the relevant academics then that needs to be shown. Rather than snapping people's heads off please consider taking a break. SPACKlick (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Casey, France, James Edwards and the adherents of the Augustinian hypothesis are not represented. It is not one author but a significant minority position. Andrevan@ 17:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• To editor Andrevan: You've admitted above that you provoked St Anselm, you're now continuing to provoke editors by attacking their grammar and prose style. Take a break, you are not helping your position by your combative stance - nor are you making it likely that anyone else would want to get involved in editing this article.DuncanHill (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Andrevan, please state why you think there's a violation of NPOV. Just to focus the discussion, NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." What significant view regarding the date of Matthew do you think has been omitted, or represented unfairly, or disproportionately, and in a biased manner? On the other hand, if you've changed your mind and no longer want to edit this article (several voices above are advising you to take a step back), then please remove the tag. PiCo (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As I've explained your throwing out of sources violates WP:RNPOV and WP:RS/AC. Andrevan@ 17:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to explain where you feel the existing article violates NPOV. We can get to RNPOV later if it turns out to be necessary, but for now please let's stay focused. PiCo (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you not seeing how these ARE that? RPNOV is a subsection of NPOV and it's extremely relevant. WP:RS/AC says you can't cherrypick majority positions unless explicitly explained in sources that most scholars think something. We need to represent the notable minority viewpoints of James Edwards, RT France, Maurice Casey, the adherents of the Augustinian hypothesis, etc. and explain how they interact with the majority position. There is a significant minority here which believes that Matthew was written earlier, based on Aramaic sources, etc and we don't talk about this at all. It's not FRINGE, and the due WEIGHT is not 0 weight. Andrevan@ 18:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please understand what I'm asking. I'm asking you to explain where you feel our current treatment of the date of Matthew violates NPOV. NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Our article says that the majority of scholars hold that Matthew was written after 70 AD, and a minority think it was written before. The question is, why do you feel this fails to represent general scholarly opinion in a fair, proportional, unbiased manner? You still haven't done that. We can progress to the details of RPNOV and RS/AC when we have the basics settled. PiCo (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You can pretend that I am not answering the question, but I am doing so. The reason why the current article is flawed is that it has a pro-Christian orthodoxy bias, and therefore does not represent AT ALL a significant group of minority views. The details of RNPOV and RS/AC are always relevant and you don't get to temporarily exclude these core content policies from the discussion. What we have here is the idea that Matthew was written as early as 40, 50, or 60, as appears in Crossley, Casey, and France. Casey and Edwards appear to tie this idea to the Aramaic source position. We also do not link to or mention this Augustinian hypothesis which is relevant. This is POV-exclusion and bias. Cut and dry. Question has been answered and now you need to counter or respond to it, not simply repeat yourself. Andrevan@ 18:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so you're saying that the two sources we use for our statement that a majority of scholars support a post-70 date and a minority support a post-70 date are biased and pro-Christian (at least that's how I read what you say). For the statement that "Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90" we use Dennis Duling's short commentary in the Blackwell Companion to the New Testament. For the statement that "a pre-70 date remains a minority view" we use R.T. France's commentary. RS/AC says "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors", which of course these two statements are. Why do you question the use of Duling and France as reliable sources? PiCo (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, why is it so hard to communicate with you? I have no problem with these sources, but other POVs exist. I am trying to add more to the article, specifically Casey, Crossley, Edwards, and a link to the minority theory's article. Why do you feel that they are not valid for inclusion? Andrevan@ 18:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Casey and Crossley are included in "a pre-70 date remains a minority view". Do you feel they're not?

Incidentally, you've got the Aramaic source hypothesis wrong: Edwards thinks there's an Aramaic gospel behind Luke, not Matthew, and Casey doesn't think any Aramaic gospel ever existed (he thinks there were some Aramaic verses in the Special M and Q material). But that's just by way of clarification, please address the point about why you feel Casey/Crosley aren't adequately covered by the statement from France.PiCo (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Has Crossley written much about Matthew - as far as I know his major work has only been on Mark. He doesn't seem wedded to a very pre-70 view.--Rbreen (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems from that link that Crossley dates Matthew "close to 70 CE (before or after)." Of course, an early Mark doesn't necessitate an early Matthew. PiCo (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary editing break

(Added the break to make editing easier) Andrevan, since the NPOV tags are yours, I think it's reasonable to ask you to explain and defend them. That's what this thread is about, please don't be quite so defensive. So, following on from what's been said immediately above, I understand it that you feel that "sourced, valid information is being deleted" (to quote your first post in the thread). Presumably this is a reference to this edit of yours in the Setting and Date subsection (your edit in bold):

• The majority view among scholars is that Matthew was a product of the second generation of Christians, those active after 70 CE, although some hold to a pre-70 date.REF Davies/Allison|2004|p=127 /REF 'For example, Maurice Casey, who has been a proponent of an Aramaic source for Matthew REF An Aramaic Approach to Q : Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. /REF, believed it was written in 50-60 CE. REF Maurice Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, A&C Black, 2014. pp 90 & 93-96 /REF This could also represent an interpretation of the Augustinian hypothesis (i.e. Matthean priority versus Mark).

You feel (correct me if I'm wrong) that this must be mentioned in the article because Maurice Casey is a reliable source.

I and the majority of editors feel this is faulty reasoning, and I'll run through the reasons:

• Casey's view is already represented in the first sentence, "...some [experts] hold to a pre-70 date." You haven't explained why you feel Casey's view needs special mention (not necessarily Casey, but his view).
• Adding some 40 words about the minority position when the majority position is covered in 20 is undue weight.
• We come now to the use of reliable sources. "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability," but Wiki policy states that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. ("While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.") In other words, the mere existence of Casey's book does not mean it must be included. (His view, as distinct from his book, is already included).
• You say that " throwing out of sources violates WP:RNPOV and WP:RS/AC." This is not so.
  • WP:RNPOV relates to popular beliefs and practices - "what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, [as well as] how such beliefs and practices developed". Our article is entirely about the history of how a religious text developed. As such, the question of individual motivation, beliefs and practices doesn't arise.
  • WP:RS/AC says that "the statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." This is not relevant to the question of whether Casey's book should be mentioned in the article. (Incidentally, we do use direct explicit sourcing where we say that a post-70 date is the majority opinion and a pre-70 date the minority).

Now a slightly different matter. Your rejected edit states that Casey "has been a proponent of an Aramaic source for Matthew." This isn't quite true. Casey believes that fragments written in Aramaic are to be found embedded in the Q source and the Special M source, and also in Mark. Fragments are not sources. The sources of sources, but not in themselves sources - rather like your grandfather not being your father. The comment about the Augustinean hypothesis seems to be entirely your own.

If, after reading the above, you take off the tags, I think that would be the best outcome. If, on the other hand, you remain convinced that policy has been breached, then we have to proceed to arbitration. PiCo (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, now here seems like a few reasonable points. I think you are right that there was nuance lost in my edit, probably due to my limited background on some of this. The point about Aramaic source documents being sources of sources and not themselves sources is going to require me to read more of Casey to see what he actually meant about that, but as I told StAnselm, the pieces of my edit were severable and reverting it outright was the wrong approach. WP:RNPOV applies since we are dealing with "beliefs," beliefs about who wrote Matthew, the relationship with Jews, etc. are certainly at play here, as is the Christian bias. RS/AC applies because you can't paint Casey et al. with the brush of others unless they appear explicitly. What does seem clear is that the article treats the existence of the minority position that Casey apparently holds regarding the timing of Matthew as though it is "covered" in the idea that a "pre-70 date is a minority," when in fact we seem to have an entire group of people who have specific ideas about what that pre-70 date might be and how it relates to the order of the gospel-source-writing as it were. 50-60, or even 40, is totally different from pre-70, and has a whole set of different implications. This depth is glossed over and does not appear in our article. Since this is the part of my edit that seems on solid ground, let's discuss that, and I will try to figure out what the story is with the Aramaic sources in the meantime. I think it's clear that there's more depth to the pre-70 idea that is being lost. I do not think we can remove the NPOV tags, nor is there any basis for arbitration here. Mediation could certainly still be useful, obviously another mediator would be needed since I am now a participant. Andrevan@ 08:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Some policy matters: Due Weight and avoiding unintended impressions

Just thought I'd clarify a policy point. On 14 September one editor reverted this passage which had been added to the "setting and date" section, with the edit summary that it was a point of view that had not gained academic traction:

"A minority position advocated in 2014 by Maurice Casey is that Matthew was composed earlier, in 50-60."REF Maurice Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, A&C Black, 2014. pp 90 & 93-96 END REF

The original poster then put this comment on that editor's user page:

"Your revert is on dangerous footing. The statement is properly attributed to a reliable source. "Traction in the academy" is not a policy."

I regard this as important for two reasons. First, "academic traction" is indeed a policy - it falls under discovering and assigning due and undue weight. Second, warning another editor on his user page about "danger" can be misinterpreted - it should be avoided. We need all the editors we can find, and we shouldn't be warning anyone like this. PiCo (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Due weight pertains to the proportional representation of a point of view in sources. It does not distinguish between academic and popular sources, or traction within the academic community subsequently. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." Our problem is that there is a viewpoint that appears in a number of sources which we are glossing over entirely. I've noticed there are a number of outdated or otherwise unaccepted yet significant minority theories regarding the composition of Matthew: Augustinian hypothesis, Griesbach hypothesis, Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, Q+/Papias Hypothesis. Due weight is not no mention. We need to give a brief explanation and link to these in the main article. WEIGHT means we don't go in depth, but still mention them. Casey's (and Edwards') theories are echoes of an earlier tradition that needs relevant discussion here. They were clearly better-accepted in the past so a historiography of the viewpoints regarding Matthew's composition might make sense if this emerges in the source material. What we are doing now with recency- and academia-bias is a synthesis, which also has the effect of creating a Christian bias. As to my talk page comment's appropriateness, it does not pertain to this article so is better discussed on my user talk space, but suffice it to say "dangerous footing" involves bad logic and revert-happiness being anti-wiki, and not a threat to block or ban. Andrevan@ 19:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to ignore who of all editors of this article has the real (fundamentalist) Christian bias. Just because one atheist scholar supported a theory championed by Christian fundamentalists, it does not make it the official view of atheism. Bart Ehrman is an atheist and in his popular books he sought to render precisely what is consensual among Bible scholars in respect to the books of the Bible. You may want to read some of his popular books. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Fringe theories still get some mention, especially if notable, acceptance != notability

See Evaluating claims and Notability vs. acceptance. Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context – e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight.... Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. Casey and Edwards are two leading academics, not wacko prognosticators on some fringe website. Their views are in a long-standing historical tradition as documented in our separate articles. The main article deals with this and needs to cover this. Andrevan@ 02:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I read this editorial in the context of Casey and Edwards and see an image of WP:RANDY. When you don't know anything about a subject, there is a tendency to weight all sources equally. This is the "indiscriminate aggregation" of sources that Nishidani put so well at ANI. Casey is an Aramaic specialist who has never written about the Gospel of Matthew. He wrote a book on possible Aramaic sources underlying Q, which, according to the two-source hypothesis, is a source document for Matthew, and he wrote two popular books about Jesus. Likewise, Edwards has not written about Matthew. He postulates a Hebrew source document underlying parts of the Gospel of Luke. Shoehorning these sources into the Gospel of Matthew at any cost is only meaningful to a religious fanatic desperate to push a POV and his/her enablers. Ignocrates (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

We have literally had four years of disruption by an editor who has openly declared his intention to use "passive resistance" for the "good of Wikipedia". This is a textbook definition of tendentious editing. It's time to put these chronic behavioral issues to rest via arbitration. I'm letting everyone know well in advance in order to have time to prepare their statements. Ignocrates (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was about four years ago that I was told that you were going to run me out of Wikipedia. It has been four years of harassment, personal attacks, insults and belittling. You have followed me to every topic I have tried to edit. You even harassed me on my userspace. You have also bullied everyone from DavidBena to Andrevan. My response has been "as follows". Your newest threats re arbitration are really, really inappropriate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The only problem with making sweeping statements like this one is that you have to back them up with evidence. There will be plenty of time for that later. Ignocrates (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I won't take up anymore article talk page space discussing this. Please check my user talk page periodically for updates. I think this is the most open and fair way to proceed. Ignocrates (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk of Arbitration

User: Ignocrates ! User: Ret.Prof ! Both of you appear to be stubbornly ignoring the clear statements of User: Guy Macon, the dispute resolution moderator. You are both talking about arbitration and the timetable for arbitration, as if dispute resolution and arbitration can run in parallel. You appear to be ignoring Guy Macon’s clear statements that he isn’t planning to moderate content dispute resolution while other remedies are in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates: Is there a reason why you still think that arbitration will be necessary? Have you concluded that dispute resolution will not work, or that you will cause dispute resolution to fail, or have you decided that Ret. Prof will cause it to fail, or is there some other reason why you both think that arbitration will be in order and why you have decided that it has to be scheduled to get a timely resolution before the arbitration election? What will you be requesting in arbitration? Will the benefits to you of arbitration exceed the risks to you of the boomerang on arbitration? Ignocrates: Please re-read your 24 September statement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGospel_of_Matthew&diff=626923016&oldid=626921939 and let us know whether that really is what you mean. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is my reading, and Guy Macon can correct me if I am mistaken, that Guy Macon will shut down dispute resolution if the discussion of arbitration continues. One likely eventual outcome in that case could be that the content dispute resolution could be archived, and resumed after the arbitration is complete, minus any parties who were topic-banned, including for failure to cooperate with dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If this case does go to arbitration, two likely outcomes are discretionary sanctions, a form of draconian restriction on editing, and topic-bans. While it does appear to me that arbitration is likely, everyone should be trying to avoid that last stop by other remedies, rather than insisting on factoring it into a timetable. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears that considerable progress has been made in dispute resolution. More progress can be made if certain editors will, at least for the time being, stop dragging their dislike of each other into the arena. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I probably would avoid shutting down a DRN case just because arbitration is being discussed, but I would ask those discussing it to delay doing that. It only takes one to stop a conversation.

If someone actually files a case at arbcom, ANI, etc., I usually ask the venue they filed at to reject or delay taking the case until the DRN case is resolved. The other venues usually respect DRN and grant my request. In areas where immediate action is required (copyright or BLP violations) I put the DRN case on hold. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw my name pop up, so I am responding here. I just recently became aware of Guy Macon's post to the DRN talk page, and responded to him there. Of course, we are going to give DRN every chance to work. I'm not going to discuss arbitration any further here, or at all per Guy's request until we take DRN as far as we can go (hopefully to a successful resolution). Robert McClenon, thanks for weighing in. You appear to be genuinely concerned, and I appreciate that. Ret.Prof previously bugged out in the middle of his own formal mediation, so this disappearing act is nothing new. We will get through it. Ignocrates (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent academic source regarding proposed dating

I have checked the essay "Determining the Date of Matthew" by Donald A. Hagner in Jesus, Matthew's Gospel, and Early Christianity ed by Daniel M. Gurtner et al ISBN HB 978-0-567-50085-4, published by T & T Clark in 2011.

According to page 76, "'Everybody knows' ... that Matthew was written in the 80s.... This is a matter of critical othodoxy." It mentions other proposed dates, including one proposal in a 1912 book placing it a few years before or after 70. It also indicates other proposals made since the mid 1980s roughly since Graham Stanton's "The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel," published in 1985, which lists the then current proposals. Among the proposals mentioned on pp 76-78 of Hagner's 2011 essay, are proposals placing it as early as 40, 50s or earlier, mid to late 50s, 58-69, late 50s-early 60s, circa 60, 60s (2 different proposals), 65-67, and before 70.

Page 78 discusses a proposal placing it in the 90-100 period.

Page 82 discusses a proposal placing it at some time after 70.

Therefore, I think that recent scholarship can be said based on this material, to have a fairly clear acadmic consensus for around the 80s (as a "matter of critical orthodoxy") and other recent proposals placing it some time between the 40s and the end of the first century. I could check Stanton's essay as well when I find it but I doubt that it will expland the period of proposed dates much. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The dating of Matthew is directly linked to the dating of Mark in mainstream academic scholariship

As an edit summary this is inadequate. You can't 'date' Matthew from Mark, and the link is indirect, consisting of weighing the pros and contras of 'priority', which means, determining which was earlier. That Mark looks earlier doesn't help us 'date' Matthew, in any other sense than saying the latter is 'later'. But when ('dating')is something determined by internal analysis of Matthew. Nitpicky? Yes, but that's how scholarship works.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani; The dating of Matthew according to the Marcan hypothesis has been the established scholarly approach to Matthew for at least the last century. It looks like a oversight that this page has not included a short section on this topic. you may contact other editors such as @Andrevan@ if this subject of the established Marcan hypothesis is not known to you. The quality of writing at this page, which you mention, is not at peer level quality by Wikipedia standards and it should be improved with a short section on the Marcan hypothesis and the introduction of the question of the harmony of the canonical Gospels with Matthew. FelixRosch (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the article. I'm familiar with the scholarship. Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani; Your comment suggests that the section written regarding the Marcan hypothesis is not literate and that you are aware of what the Marcan hypothesis is. Why are you removing the reference to a book length study regarding the centrality of the Marcan hypothesis to dating Matthew? FelixRosch (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because if one reads the section 'Sources' and clicks through it, everything you added can be followed up via the links. It's ironical that privately I happen to be writing an article precisely on this topic, and it deals with many sources precisely on the ordering of both gospels, from John M. Rist's、On the Independence of Matthew and Mark, Cambridge University Press,(1978) 2005 to David Neville,Mark's Gospel--Prior Or Posterior?: A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order, Sheffield Academic Press/Continuum 2002. Touch anything in this area and you open up numerous controversies, and to avoid complications, good editors focus on a neat, simple yet comprehensive outline of the topic. Since the text states that there is a consensus that Mark precedes Matthew, we do not need expansions here on that. You need an expansion when there is no consensus, and controversy rages. There is a respectable if minor opinion, retaken up in recent decades, that Mark doesn't necessarily precede Matthew, and a short note to that effect would not encounter any opposition from me. Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani; The edit you propose is even more difficult since it is far from the opinion represented by both E.P. Sanders in the British school and Martin Hengel in the German school more recently than your citations. The point of my edit also differentiated existing manuscripts from the scholarly reconstruction of estimates based only on fragments and secondary sources. If you wish to bring in a counter-Marcan hypothesis source (it is not the mainstream scholarly version) perhaps you can think of a way to introduce it by way of discussing scholarly reconstruction of dates from fragments. The short section which I proposed with commented support from @Andrevan should not be deleted, however, since the article does not adequately address the question of existing full manuscripts, dating estimates based on fragments alone, and any important interpretations of the Marcan Hypothesis for Matthew research. FelixRosch (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Several hundred books and articles are published touching on these issues every year. Naming one or two scholars gets one only into a citation game that draws the text away from fundamentals. I don't have a decided 'opinion' on priority. I made a suggestion, and did not push an edit. I don't even see the point of you citing E. P. Sanders, in your view 'of the British school' (?), or Hengel as 'more recent' than the books I named, among many. Hengel died in 2009, Sanders is a rough contemporary of Rist. And none of them can be said to be at the cutting edge in contemporary terms. There ar few hobbies I enjoy more (as much as least as Sanders enjoys his favouritee book in world literature, the Letter to the Galatians) than reading manuscript research in the area of Greek, but none of that is helpful to a general article on Matthew (or the others), and once you get into it, the complications are immense and beyond the average reader (and editor). We are writing an encyclopedia, and stay at the generality you get in recent works like Hatina on Mark and Gurtner on Matthew in Craig A. Evans (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, Routledge 2014 (see pp.248-261). Neither divagate on 'existing full manuscripts'. That stuff must go into articles like Canonical Gospels or Development of the New Testament canon. It is supererogatory here.Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's good to see you here Nishidani. What have I gotten myself into this time? :0) Ignocrates (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What it's about is that Felix added a huge amount of text to the article, got reverted by me, and then reverted my revert. Then Nishidani reverted him again, which brings us at last to the Talk page. Nishidani was quite right to revert him (but I would say that, of course), as the addition was redundant where it wasn't irrelevant and badly written throughout. Why Felix feels he needs to jump into an article under active dispute resolution I don't know.PiCo (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you two learned stakhanovites haven't wholly abandoned wiki. I know it's tough and exhausting at times but, nihil illegitimus carborundum, as Cicero no doubt said in his drunken sleep. Felix. All three of us have a history of disagreement ,but our reciprocal challenges have left many articles significantly improved.Nishidani (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your participation at dispute resolution is open

For all three editors above; @Nishidani, In the above note I had assumed that you knew of the extensive discussion on the dating of Matthew currently taking place here [1], and that the edit posted was in agreement with Andrevan's noted there. @Ignocrates, The purpose of this edit was for readers to gain a clear picture of the difference between existing manuscripts on the one hand, and scholarly estimates of dates in the absence of manuscripts on the other hand in a "Background" section which currently does not exist on this page. The editors here [2] at dispute resolution know the difference, readers generally cannot be assumed to know the details of the "art" of estimates as a general rule. @PiCo, The poor wording you indicate in your reference is adapted directly from the FA for "Jesus". If you feel the FA at "Jesus" is illiterate and ready for a de-listing then you can nominate it for de-listing. A short section of this Background here is still justified in some form if you have a suggestion. Note that this is Background of what manuscripts and dating practices are for Matthew; it was meant as a short supplement to the discussion of "majority estimates, minority estimates, and fringe estimates" currently taking place (as they should) at Dispute Resolution, and not to replace them. A short edit for a small Background section would be useful for readers. FelixRosch (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this edit was for readers to gain a clear picture of the difference between existing manuscripts on the one hand, and scholarly estimates of dates in the absence of manuscripts on the other hand.

I simply don't understand what this means.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani; It's not clear where the ambiguity is here. There exists no autograph of the complete Matthew Gospel from the first century in existence. There is no autograph of the complete Matthew gospel from the second century in existence. There is no autograph edition of the complete Matthew gospel from the third century. By scholarly inference, then, it is only an estimate (or best academic guess) of when such a complete Matthew gospel may have first come into existence based only on fragments of the Gospel or quotations from the Gospels found in contemporaneous works in the first century or second century AD. This difference between actually having an early complete Matthew gospel in hand today, and not having one which requires estimating a date for when a copy (which no longer exists) might have been written is a distinction lost on the average reader of the article. This ambiguity can be clarified in a short Background section for this article. FelixRosch (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no autograph of any ancient book, neither are there autographs, with one possible exception, of Shakespeare's works. I thought this is obvious. If you read Homer, or Plato, or Chaucer etc., you are reading what editors redact as the probable form of the text when it left the writer or composer's hand. Even if you had an autograph, it would give no sure date for its composition, and to think that the lack of an autograph means we must make inferences as to its date from external sources is meaningless. Internal criteria are fundamental to dating: a half a century ago in English courses at University level, you were given 10 anonymous passages arching over 4 centuries and told to date them, and it was expected that you should get within 10-20 yrs of their actual known date, purely on stylistic grounds. You were also asked to identify the author in each case.

To a textual critic, the following is incomprehensible:-

There is no autograph (copy) of the complete Matthew gospel from the second century in existence. There is no autograph (copied) edition of the complete Matthew gospel from the third century.

The autograph of Matthew once existed, sometime in the 2nd half of the Ist century C. It is absolutely meaningless to speak of 'an autograph of M from the 2nd or 3rd century', for the simple reason that the unicum of an autograph disappears the moment it is copied for circulation, which must have happened with all of the Gospels (as it did to all other surviving ancient books), and the moment it was copied (and subsequently translated into Coptic, Latin, Armenian, Syriac, Georgian, it no longer existed, but rather 'Matthean manuscripts' each with its tradition of distinctive changes caused by things like scribal homoeoareton and dittography circulated. It's even more complex than that because an ancient writer can make an autograph, have it copied, then reetouch his earlier draft, and circulate that in copies. Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani; The sense of my edit is clarified parenthetically and I think was already known to you. The distinction is still an important one to clarify for readers. When you state,"sometime in the 2nd half of the Ist century C," this leaves all the questions currently being debated at Dispute Resolution which I urge you to participate in. You will need to indicate how you construct your 50-99AD date, a very broad range. Your point here was previously to note arguments for Matthew predating Mark based on scholarly estimates and academic speculation. Such a view would meet sharp response at the Dispute Resolution page. The average reader is not aware of the issue of "estimates" and "speculatively" reconstructed dates, nor do they know why they are extensively debated. A short Background section clarifies why the estimates take place, and why they are so extensively debated since they are based on only fragments and contemporaneous reports. Why object to a short Background section which clarifies this for readers. FelixRosch (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You didn't address the points I raised about your odd notion that 'autographs' have anything to do with dating.

I said 'presumably'. I don't think any of these questions of dating can be determined. You hav a choice between strong, good, mediocre and bad conjectures, none of which is verifiable, as is the norm in ancient history. All you have is likely stories constructed according to given conventions, which vary from scholar to scholar and school to school. My opinions have no relevance. The article, I repeat, is about Matthew. Your argument is about the whole Gospel canon, not about Matthew, and ipso facto should be put on a page dealing with the transmission of the Gospels. The general reader has been adequately informed in the source section about scholarly consensus, and a minor view. It can be tweaked. There's no need for extra luggage. I could do even worse, and demand that I be allowed to divagate for a paragraph on the differences between the Alxandrine, Western, Ceasarean and Byzantine textual transmissions, and their interrelationships regarding the readings in Matthew. It's far more important than just mentioning the Codex Vaticanus. It's when I saw your suggestion highlighting that that I realized the potential mess we would get in, because name that, and you need to name the other manuscripts, and you get immdiately section bloat.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani; You appear to be over-reading my simple comment that the oldest known version of the complete New Testament is the one at the Vatican from a copy well after the Nicea Councils. Mentioning the oldest version of Matthew currently in existence is appropriate for an article on the Gospel of Matthew. A small Background section could adequately cover this, without including every variant version, just the oldest complete one still in existence. FelixRosch (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not overreading, but seeing, between the lines, that you don't know the subject. My impression is that you are completely out of your depth with the topic and its complexities. There is no such thing as a 'complete New Testament'. The Codex Vaticanus, dear fellow, lacks quite a bit of stuff, not least Apokalypsis, and several canonical letters. If you take just the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus's two versions of Matthew, there are six hundred and fifty six textual disagreements between them. Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If the above is sourced reliably it belongs in the article. What is "section bloat"? Wiki is not paper. If we split off additional extra articles they should be linked in the text. Andrevan@ 00:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Andrevan, Felix's edit was uninformed and badly written,but at least he provided one. You've been asked to do likewise at the DRN.PiCo (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I've examined the content of Felix's diff, and rewritten it as what he probably intended to write, had he been more familiar with the topic. This works out as:-

Autographs do not survive for ancient books. They survive in scribal copies propagated over time. In the process of recopying, variations slipped in, different regional manuscript traditions emerged with multiple streams of transmission, and corrections and adjustments were made, for theological reasons or to iron out incongruencies between copies or different translations into numerous languages. The editions of biblical and other ancient texts we read today are established by collating all major surviving manuscripts, using also the evidence from citations of them in Patristic writers, in order to produce a version which, by the consensus of scholars of textual criticism, most likely approximates to the form of the lost autographs. In the case of the New Testament, the oldest exemplars of relatively complete manuscripts are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Most scholars agree, following what is known as the "Marcan hypothesis", that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 AD).

There's no need to bloat the text with volumes of academic links, when the substance of the requested edit is obvious, or can be quickly glanced at by interwiki links in the text.Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that's probably what Felix meant, but it has no direct relevance to this article. As you say, readers should be given a hyperlink to the relevant article. PiCo (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. Sorry for the tedium, but translating it into the above form shows why it is unnecessary, because obvious.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Adding the missing final sentence to the Andrevan adbrigment

@Nishidani, My addition of the final sentence to the @Andrevan abridgment which we had previously discussed shows the importance of the edit for a Background section. The Background section is for readers using Wikipedia, and not for editors who have participated in the discussion and may or may not be familiar with it. The readers is why the short section on Background is useful. In comment to your question about a source for the Marcan hypothesis and the Marcan priority theory, this material is of high importance and you may read it in the Stoldt book on the subject. No matter how you date Matthew, early or late, it infers that you must give your case for an earlier date for Mark along with whichever date is presented for Matthew [Stoldt, Hans-Herbert, History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis, Hardcover, 302 pages, Mercer Univ Pr; First Edition edition (October 1980), ISBN 978-0865540026]. @PiCo, My edit as adapted is directly from the FA article for "Jesus", if you need to state that it is poorly written or illiterate you need to nominate it for de-listing there, at that Page, since most believe it to be well written and useful as it is now. FelixRosch (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

New RFC, maybe

The dispute resolution moderator, User:Guy Macon, has said at the dispute resolution noticeboard that it appears that there is disagreement, and that moderated dispute resolution will end and an RFC instead will be used to obtain consensus. The issue appears to have to do with exactly what to say about the 50-60 AD theory. What are the two or three proposed wordings to be offered in the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof indicated on his talk page that he now supports the compromise wording agreed to at DRN, so this dispute comes down to Andrevan against ??? the world apparently. Andrevan has already indicated at DRN that he will not respect a consensus no matter how well it is established here (please read his opening statement at DRN). Therefore, I'm not sure what it will accomplish as far as dispute resolution. I still think it's a good idea to have one though. The more participation and transparency the better. Ignocrates (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Rather than lay out the "two or three proposed wordings to be offered in the RFC", I recommend you open up the RfC first (you have to tag the top of the page). There's no point in preemptively choosing what the proposals will be. Let's let the community have their say. Ignocrates (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with simply opening the RFC without having the alternatives identified is that the RFC fills up with comments. Although RFC does stand for Request for Comments, it is really used as a Request for Consensus. The problem with an RFC that doesn't have alternatives is that it becomes extremely difficult to close. What can be done is to open a preliminary RFC to request statements and note that a new RFC will be issued shortly. Is that what Ignocrates wants? Before I do that, what is the apparent-consensus position and what does anyone else think it should say? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's do it your way. I assume Plan A is to abide by the compromise wording we just achieved at DRN. What is Plan B? Ignocrates (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There's dispute over the 50-60 AD date - Ret.Prof was the one worried about that and he's accepted the consensus we reached at DRN. Andrevan's concern is different. PiCo (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If we're not having an RfC over the date, I wouldn't bother because Andrevan's "concern" is too nebulous to define as discrete proposals. Frankly, by the end of DRN, it appeared to be tendentious, at least to me, with the ownership issue over the tags being like a dog pissing on a fire hydrant. Ignocrates (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is a pretty blatant civility violation, and you are looking for the word "territorial" not "tendentious," which would be a much better descriptor of the behavior of those who revert any change to the article. Andrevan@ 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I struck the naughty part; there's no need to be uncivil. It was a poor choice of words on my part, but that doesn't make them untrue. Ignocrates (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think wanting to keep the neutrality tags on the article is territorial. If anyone is being territorial it is those who revert any change to the article or who want to remove the tags. This is in no way my territory, nor do I see them as "my" tags. So I would say your claim is wholly without weight, and your rhetoric betrays your bad faith in quite a dramatic way. Andrevan@ 02:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think the bad faith is to be found in the secret SPI investigation you have been conducting here. Ignocrates (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Huh? It's not a secret; obviously, since you can link to it. Callanecc reopened the SPI after the other guy closed it. So I was trying to figure out why he did that; I had given up the SPI after it was closed. I still think the IP activity was strange and there's a good chance that someone is socking here. Another IP edited a page recently, I haven't bothered tracking it down, but it was a 203 something IP which I also saw in the contrib history for that 100 something range previously. As should be painfully clear from the outcome, I have no special ability to get sockpuppets investigated. Andrevan@ 03:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

All I know for sure is that PiCo just retired. I hope this SPI fiasco wasn't the reason. Ignocrates (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've made an edit to the article. Since there are 3 or 4 people reverting each other it seems unlikely to stand, but it should give you an idea of where my head is with respect to the direction of the article. Please note it should be stated that I am not "beyond reason" nor is it the case that I won't respect a consensus - but a number of editors forming a consensus that policies regarding NPOV do not apply to this article is not a consensus that has power. This article presents speculation about the authorship of an ancient document without qualifying it as speculation or explaining where it came from and how it evolved over time. That means it is not NPOV. Andrevan@ 00:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

History of the scholarly dating of the Gospel of Matthew would be an article in its own right. Take a look at Authorship of the Bible, it just states the vanilla theological view and then states the mainstream scholarship dating for each book of the Bible. When describing Abraham Lincoln there is no history of historiography about Lincoln, the article just assumes that recent mainstream scholarship renders the facts about Lincoln. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not looking for an exhaustive rendering of every scholar's view - or any particular scholar's. Just some acknowledgement that it's not so cut and dry. The article about Lincoln does indeed talk about his legacy and how he is viewed over time, as well as controversies about him. From Abraham_Lincoln#Historical_reputation: Schwartz argues that Lincoln's reputation grew slowly in the late 19th century until the Progressive Era (1900–1920s) when he emerged as one of the most venerated heroes in American history, with even white Southerners in agreement. By the 1970s Lincoln had become a hero to political conservatives[283] for his intense nationalism Randall emphasizes his tolerance and especially his moderation By the late 1960s, liberals, such as historian Lerone Bennett, were having second thoughts, especially regarding Lincoln's views on racial issues This is how articles are written to conform with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As to other bible articles, I would hazard a guess that many of them have systemic bias issues. Andrevan@ 02:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It often happens that someone posts an RFC and then someone else claims that the wrong question was asked. One way to avoid this is to post a proposed RFC wording and let someone on each side of the issue (there may be more than two sides) write up specific wording. It may seem silly spending time agreeing on what you disagree on, but it can save a lot of effort and misunderstanding in the long run. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Summary Again?

Focus on content and not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Does anyone have an alternate idea for what the wording should be about the dating of the book? Clearly the current wording, usually thought to be 60-70 CE, with a minority for earlier, is one of them. Does anyone have any specific ideas for an alternate lede sentence about the date of this book? If no one really has an alternate idea, then do we really have a consensus, or do we need an RFC? I don't want to go to an RFC until we know what the ideas are for the lede sentence. The current wording is one version. Is there another, or are we willing to agree that the current wording has consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert, where are you getting 60-70 CE? Do you mean that's the minority view? The majority view is last quarter (or 70-100 CE) of the first century. I guess you could say 60-70 is the largest minority view with very small minority views being pre-60 and post-100. This is more or less a question of where to cut off the tails on the bell curve. The most significant source of disagreement is whether the temple was still standing when Matthew was written, or if Matthew is looking back on the destruction of Jerusalem during the first Jewish war. That is the principal event distinguishing the minority from the majority view. Ignocrates (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know if the minority positions belong in the lead section - I haven't advocated this nor have I edited to add this in the lead. I would like to see the detailed sections and chronology of the article fleshed out, see my edits to the Date section. I also think it's problematic that we don't attribute claims to their authors/proponents very often in the text. Andrevan@ 03:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant that the majority is 80-90 CE. (My fingers inserted my own Roman view.) I will write an RFC if two or three well-defined positions can be stated on the date. If someone wants an actual Request for Comments without saying what the choices are, they can write that as an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't make a new RFC on my account. Assuming that the recent changes stand, I think we are in much better shape, so I took the NPOV tags off. Andrevan@ 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be preferable if instead of continuing this argument a standalone article on the Origins of the Gospel of Matthew (which would presumably including authorship, date of writing, and location of writing, all of which are disputed in recent scholarship) and once that article is rather fully developed basically use the lede of that article or a shortened form of it here. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andrevan that we are in better shape. However I disagree that a standalone article on the Origins of the Gospel of Matthew would be a better approach. I also believe an WP:RFC on Andrevan's account is not helpful. I believe the NPOV noticeboard is the way to go. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Which source does this quotation from?

In Gospel of Matthew#Author, there is a quotation about the book showing no telltale signs of translation, but this is followed by two refs side by side. Which one does the quotation come from? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Minority view

Conservative evangelical scholars (read: fundamentalists) are a minority in the Bible scholarship taught at the main US universities. I have restored WP:RS/AC claims and reverted WP:UNDUE violations, for the reasons mentioned. The term "liberal", as was used in the article, is a misnomer for non-fundamentalist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I mean: whoever did not subscribe to biblical inerrancy got smeared as "liberal". Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That is most assuredly NOT what I wrote. It was a simple attempt to inform readers that there is another perspective that is well grounded in evidence that holds a completely different opinion. Though the use of terms such as "liberal" and "conservative" was undoubtedly a mistake on my part, it was not done out of malice, but simply a desire to present each authors biases to the readers.

On a final note, I am genuinely puzzled why you flagged my edits as "original research" when in fact they were citations from a well known, highly respected scholar in the field writing an introduction to the book of Matthew. Perhaps you can explain what is so original about that.Eric the fever (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The term "liberal" is original research (without providing a source for it). But you do have to acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of scholars from all US major universities teach the contrary of the inerrantist story. That's what WP:UNDUE means in this context. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Majority is simply called majority, not "others". Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not opposed to quoting Wallace, but you have to tell the reader that his views are not mainstream. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

See e.g. [3] and [4]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I would strenuously object to any attempt to label "consensus" in the article unless a specific citation of a field survey published in a reputable journal indicates that the view is consensus per WP Reliable Sources. We can claim scholarly consensus on topics such as evolution, global warming and such because those studies of scholarly consensus have been done and are public record. there has not been any such study in this case.Eric the fever (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Read the germane WP:PAG at WP:RS/AC. You are expected to abide by it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

And majority might simply not mean consensus. It just means majority. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Eric the fever, for the lead and the date of composition, we have as our source Dennis Duling, who says: "Most scholars prefer a date for Matthew ... about 80-90 CE"; R.T. France is the source for the parenthesis to the effect that a pre-70 date is a minority view, which in effect simply makes explicit what is implicit in Duling. This sentence therefore gives a sourced statement of the state of scholarship on dating, and your suggested additional sentence is unnecessary.

Regarding your wish to include a sentence about a "vigorous debate" on the date, I haven't been aware, reading the literature, that such a debate exists - France, I believe, admits as much in characterising his own conclusion (he favours a pre-70 date) as a minority one. However, if you can find a sourced statement that such a debate exists, certainly I'd try to work it into the article, although not at such length as you had in your edit (my ideal is to use as few words as possible).

And no, I don't think you're a fundamentalist or a loonie :) PiCo (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

(P.s. - when giving sources, it might help to use the sfn format (sfn means short foot note) - this lists the author, year and page number. I can't work out from your tag where in Wallace I should look to check your information. Also, Wallace is the editor of that volume - you need to find and note the author of the individual article, not the editor).PiCo (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I see ow you were using another source by Wallace, on the website bible.org. Wallace is putting position which is not accepted by the majority of scholars - our article's section on the composition of Matthew and lists several works that are relevant.PiCo (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

In order to give you an example, Bart Ehrman states on YouTube that he knows all the (full) professors of Bible scholarship from major US universities. He knows what they are teaching. So it isn't far fetched to claim that other full professors know many of the full professors from other universities. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gospel of Matthew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050413192315/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Matthew.pdf to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Matthew.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is it Gospel or gospel? Gentile or gentile? We're a bit inconsistent on this. 2602:306:CFEA:170:7028:87D2:559A:EC4F (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

proposed Messiah

Who would have thought one little word could cause so much trouble! I should note that I am not a Christian pushing my personal beliefs, but interested in maintaining the integrity of the article.

User:Stevenmitchell wants to add "proposed Messiah" to the lead. I believe this is inappropriate because:

• 1. the article is not about whether or not Jesus actually was the messiah or not.
• 2. the article summarizes the Gospel of Matthew and Matthew states unequivocably in 1:1, "Jesus the Messiah" - whether or not this is a true claim is outside the scope of this article, it is what Matthew said and the gospel is written from that point of view.
• 3. "proposed" is a weasel word like supposed, purported, alleged, so-called and as such is best avoided - MOS:ALLEGED.
• 4. the article is about what Matthew wrote and to add "proposed" is editorializing, adding an interpretive viewpoint - WP:EDITORIALIZING.
• 5. no citation is given for adding the modifier "proposed" so this falls under opinion, original research - WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY

I changed "proposed" to "promised" as Matthew presents many examples of Jesus fulfilling messianic prophecies from the Old Testament. I would like to know how other editors feel about this - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Copies of copies of copies ...

The following view is the view of skeptics — that we don’t have the originals, we have only copies, and that thousands of copies have thousands and tens-of-thousands of mistakes.

And this is also the view of non-skeptics. It’s the view of every scholar who works in this field.

Everybody agrees we don’t have the originals, we have thousands of copies, and the thousand copies have tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of differences among them.

Are any of these differences important?

— Bart Ehrman, [5]

First of all, I believe that when Dan kept saying “radical skeptic” I think he was referring to me. [audience laughter] I’m not completely sure about it but I think that’s what he had in mind. The term radical refers to… a radical view is a view that is so extreme that very few people hold it.

The views I laid out for you are not radical in that sense at all. In fact, the are widely held among scholars in this field. Arguably the most erudite scholar in North American in recent decades is the lately deceased William Peterson whose book Collected Essays came out two weeks ago, who argues in essay after essay that it does not make sense for us any longer to talk about the original text.

The senior person in the field of New Testament textual criticism in North America is named Eldon Epp. He teaches the text criticism seminar at Harvard University. He also has written essays arguing that it no longer makes sense to talk about the original text. The chair of the New Testament Textual Criticism section of the national Society of Biblical literature meeting is AnneMarie Luijendijk who is a professor of religion at Princeton University. She also does not think that it makes sense to talk about the original text. Her predecessor was Kim Haines-Eitzen who’s chair of the Department of Religion at Cornell University. She also does not think that we can talk about getting back to the original text. The leading scholar in the field in the English speaking world is David Parker who teaches at the University of Birmingham in England. He’s written an entire book arguing that you cannot get back to the original text and it doesn’t make sense to talk about the original text. These are not extreme views. These are the views of the leading scholars in the English speaking world.

— Bart Ehrman, [6]

About William L. Petersen, Eldon J. Epp, AnneMarie Luijendijk, Kim Haines-Eitzen and David C. Parker. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Help with Gospel

The article at Gospel could do with more people to come and help it out please. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Referenced Source is Unreliable - "Rabbinical Translations of Matthew"

Some lines from this Gospel of Matthew Wikipedia article were plagiarised directly from Chapter 2 of the publication shown in a slideshare article "Rabbinical Translations of Matthew" without citing the author's works (in violation of the terms of use). The Wikipedia article here also dishonestly points to Luz 2005 as the direct reference source. That article references Ulrich Luz, which does not use "Israel" in the sense portrayed by the slideshare article's author (e.g. pg 42 of Luz 2005: "The kingdom [of Israel] will be taken from the leaders of Israel because they have rejected and killed the 'highest cornerstone', Jesus" / pg. 164 "[The people of Jerusalem, representing the Israel that has rejected Jesus...]"). The slideshare article is an unreliable source: it takes Luz 2005 out of context and is contrary to the content of the Gospel of Matthew, in some cases.

Actions required:

1) Provide citations and links to satisfy the article's Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) license terms and conditions.

2) Remove/correct poor quality and biased content.

Without corrected citations, any of the content plagiarised from the slideshare article ought be removed entirely. Ephemerance (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I can assure you that the source is Luz, not the slideshow, although possibly the slideshow is based on this article. Luz is no longer available on google books, which would mean a trip to the library to check. Can you provide details so that this check can be made? Achar Sva (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm particularly curious about your addition to the effect that Matthew is "informed by oral traditions" (which you source page 577 of Luz); of course, all the gospels are "informed" by oral traditions to an extent, but since Matthew's main source for the career of Christ is Mark, it's quite clear that these traditions have had their impact elsewhere in the book. (It's also rather odd that a supposed disciple of Christ would use a non-disciple for his source material).Achar Sva (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The source points to ISBN 978-0-8006-3770-5 (there are two Luz-2005 sources, but this is the source indicated in that portion of text). Luz was established as a reputable source.

1) Speaking strictly to Luz's interpretation: Luz does discuss the influence that Mark has on Matthew (pp 576 for example), but he also notes that "agreements show that the evangelists do not simply write individually but that they collect general tendencies of the church's tradition" (pp 577) and that some agreements between books are "almost certainly to be explained by the influence of oral tradition" (pp 577). The concept brings attention to the idea that two people may have observed the same event but one party might find the other's phrasing more effective for the purpose of spreading/retelling the story.

Proposal 1: include section describing oral tradition, as discussed by Luz.

2) Wrong pages cited. It is possible that "pp 249-50" was intended to be from ISBN 978-0-8028-3964-0 (Luz 2005) instead of ISBN 978-0-8006-3770-5 (Luz 2005). Let's call them Luz-2005A & Luz-2005B, respectively, for ease of reference. Luz-2005B pp249-50 contains a discussion about money and has nothing to do with a synopsis of Matthew. If the intended source was Luz-2005A, the citation is currently incorrect and should be addressed.

Proposal 2: A note added to the cited pages stating the discrepancy. Determine where the mix-up is later.

3) "Israel" in this case has a very specific meaning within Luz. Luz discusses that a vocal majority within Jerusalem represented Israel and rejected Jesus (e.g. pp 504). Those Pharisees, scribes, and leaders representing Israel are discussed in more detail later in Jesus' Trial before the Sanhedrin (pp 438). Part of the summary that Luz gives (pp 503-4) is that Matthew alleges that these leaders are false. Luz (and the Gospel of Matthew itself) explains that some cities of Israel accepted Jesus (did not reject). There is a subtle distinction but an important distinction, that Luz noted several times: an authoritative body rejected Jesus on behalf of all of Israel, but Israel did not wholly reject Jesus. This may not be readily understood by casual readers unfamiliar with the political structure of 1st century Israel. There is nothing lost by mentioning the Sanhendrin.

If a country's supreme court rejects a person's claim, but that verdict has mixed reaction from the general population, it would be misleading/confusing to say "the country rejected the person" without context.

Proposal 3: Specify the Sanhendrin (or the "people of Jerusalem"). Ephemerance (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The proposed edits are based on the source that is currently referenced in the Wiki (and has been for years). I will give this another day and then undo your revert if there is no objection. If there is strong evidence to suggest that these proposed changes are unjustified, I will gladly continue this conversation to reach an objective consensus. If you are waiting to search your library for the sources before commenting, you can revert the changes at a later date if you have found something that compels contrary conclusions. Ephemerance (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edits by User "Roman J. Lane, Esquire" (January 3rd, 2020)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&diff=933939838&oldid=933919183

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source

Good courtesy is to open a discussion about revisions. Discussions help limit disputes and misunderstandings. I have added this section in hopes of reaching consensus for the aforementioned January 3rd edit.

From what I can see on the reliable sources guideline, the cited source is reliable. Can we have input to clarify why it was perceived by @Epinoia to be unreliable? Thank you in advance. Ephemerance (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

- the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry is a self-published source (WP:RSSELF) as Matt Slick writes and posts the articles himself and is questionable as there is no editorial oversight (WP:QUESTIONABLE) - Slick has an MA, but is not a reputable academic - as the website is dedicated to apologetics, the neutral point of view is questionable (WP:BIASED) - the edit also removed citations to Luz, Duling, Burkett, and France which User:Roman J. Lane, Esquire considered unverifiable although they are all from reputable publishers - Epinoia (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Matthew's Account of Rejection and Crucifixion

Phrasing of section at the time of this post: "[The Gospel of Matthew] tells how Israel's Messiah, Jesus, rejected and crucified by Israel, sends the disciples to preach the gospel to the gentiles instead.[1]" Ephemerance (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

1) The Gospel of Matthew's account of Jesus' rejection is by people of Jerusalem (including by Pharisees, elders, chief priests, etc) and not by all of Israel. Secondary literature, including Luz-2005A, states this as well as previously discussed in the Talk section. The current phrasing appears to be intentionally construed to imply whole rejection for editorial reasons that aren't entirely clear.

2) The Gospel of Matthew states that Jesus was crucified by Pontias Pilate (a Roman governor), to appease the elders, chief priests and multitude which demanded Jesus' execution. Whether we are using 'Israel' in the context of the people of Israel, the religious leaders representing Israel, or as a political state, Jesus was not crucified by 'Israel' in the Gospel of Matthew.

3) The Gospel of Matthew states in 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". "To the gentiles instead" is blatantly false; if the Luz-2005B source claims this, it is unreliable and should be removed. Matthew 28:18-20 is an explicit instruction to teach and baptize all nations under Trinitarian Christianity, including Israelites such as Jews and Samaritans. Ephemerance (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

We have to stick to sources. You object to two sentences, so I'll lay out the sourcing for each:

• It tells how Israel's Messiah, Jesus, rejected and crucified by Israel, sends the disciples to preach the gospel to the gentiles instead. The source is Ulrich Luz, Studies in Matthew, 2005, (2005b in our bibliography), pages 233-34. That says: The evangelist tells of the activity of Israel's messiah among his people (p.233). This supports the article's reference to Jesus as Israel's Messiah. It goes on: At this final point the whole people reject Jesus - this supports the statement that Jesus is "rejected" by "Israel", the identity of the Jews as Israel being implicit in the earlier reference to "Israel's Messiah" and "his people" (p.234); it concludes: This is why after his resurrection Israel's Messiah sends his disciples to the Gentiles, which supports the final part of the sentence in the article. You say that Matthew's Jesus is not rejected by all of Israel, but this source says quite uncategorically that he is. If you wish to dispute Luz you need to produce clear quotations to support your claim.
  
• The second sentence to which you object is this: Prior to the Crucifixion the Jews are called Israelites, the honorific title of God's chosen people; after it, they are called "Ioudaioi", Jews, a sign that through their rejection of the Christ the "Kingdom of Heaven" has been taken away from them and given instead to the church. The source is Georg Strecker, Theology of the New Testament, 2000, pp.369-70. Strecker says: Matthew ... [uses] the term Israel in his Gospel for the Jewish people, i.e., a title of honour for the chosen people of God, but after the Crucifixion he replaces it with the term "Ioudaioi" [Strecker has this in Greek], a term used elsewhere by Gentiles to designate the Jewish people... (p.370). This supports the first half of our sentence; he also says (p.369), The kingdom of God has been taken away from the Jews and transferred to another people, the church. This supports the final part of the sentence. Again, if you wish to dispute sourced statements, you need to show that the source is not correctly reflected.

Your remaining two bullet points represent your personal interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew and of theology. I repeat, we can only proceed on the basis of reliable sources. Achar Sva (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The primary source of the Gospel of Matthew is the Gospel of Matthew itself. If Matthew and a secondary source disagree, Matthew takes precedence.

:1) "this supports the statement that Jesus is "rejected" by "Israel", the identity of the Jews" -- This is your personal opinion and has no business here on the Wiki unless it is backed by a source. Even standing as your opinion, please explain what you mean by "Israel": the people? the representatives of the people? The state? Does it refer to a single tribe of Israel (Jews are of the tribe of Judah) or of all twelve tribes referenced in Matthew? Would a casual reader be able to understand that "Israel" is referring to representatives speaking on behalf of the tribe of Judah whom are in turn speaking on behalf of all of Israel? Luz makes the distinction clear. You have chosen to obfuscate and cherry-pick to suit your opinion, irrespective of what Matthew or Luz say. This is not to say that you couldn't make a proper rebuttal, and if you can, please do so. If you cannot, please refrain from constant roll-backs without consensus. "you need to show that the source is not correctly reflected." Please refer to my previous remarks and citations which you have chosen to ignore.

:2) "Two bullets represent personal interpretation" No they do not. They are directly and explicitly from the Gospel of Matthew itself. Ephemerance (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC).

:2.2) Matthew 27:27-35 "Then the soldiers of [Pontias Pilate] took Jesus ... [a]nd they crucified him". Ephemerance (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:2.3) Matthew 28:19 "[T]each all nations" Ephemerance (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:3) "sends his disciples to the Gentiles" does not equal "to Gentiles instead". And if this was the context, it is incorrect. Ephemerance (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:4) "The source is Georg Strecker" You have misquoted Strecker. Everyone can view this in the preview of the source. He says the Greek term but does not state "Jew" beside the Greek, but in an early page he references a Judean King becoming Israelite (in the context that a Judean isn't necessarily an Israelite / "God's chosen" Ephemerance (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)). Judean is the more appropriate addition, but if you want to follow true to the source, no term should be provided at all. (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC) The Greek term translates to either "Jew" or "Judean", with an understanding that Jews are Israelites through the tribe of Judah, and a Judean is resident of Judea. The author is expressing that the Greek term was used as attempt to strip the context of "God's chosen" from Jewish Israelites to express disinheritance. Judean is more fitting for the passage, given the context from the source. Ephemerance (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

=== See above for unresolved Ioudaioi "Jew" vs "Jew or Judean" conflict. Strictly to the source, "Ioudaioi" should be mentioned only, as written by the author (see the source material p370). Please resolve in the Talk Section before further Article editing.

:5) "At this final point the whole people reject Jesus" Without seeing the source directly, I can't confirm the context that is being drawn here. However, if it is similar to his other work Luz-2005 commentary on Matthew ISBN 978-0-8006-3770-5, he elaborates on the political structure of the day and speak of Israel as a spiritual people represented by the people of Jerusalem. '...the people of Jerusalem (representing the Israel that rejected Jesus)'. In pp 42, Luz goes into the greatest detail "Thus in context, '[the kingdom will be taken] from you' initially refers to the Jewish leaders who are addressed." he continues with his interpretation and the context for which he uses "Israel" and leaves his interpretation as a question: "However, the idea of the entire nation is not far removed ... Does this not mean, therefore, that the issue is not only Israel's leaders but the entire nation?" Because Jesus was an Israelite, under the Luz interpretation you can say that "Jesus rejected himself" and it makes sense when the reader is made aware of Luz's interpretation. The problem is that without the explanation and context, "Israel rejected Jesus" is ambiguous and arguably dubious when left unexplained. Stating "Israel, as represented by the Sanhedrin and the people of Jerusalem, rejected Jesus" would unambiguously be in proper context that Luz lays out. There are other ways to phrase this, but the context from Luz ought be retained. Do you have a rebuttal to this?

So far, to summarise: "Israel crucified Jesus" and "to gentiles instead" are 100% unjustified as they are factually incorrect and not reflected by the quotes provided from the source (nor by Matthew, nor by Luz 2005, ISBN 978-0-8006-3770-5). "Israel rejected Jesus" is just ambiguous with poor phrasing that does not provide context for how "Israel" is being used. Ephemerance (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It's now a few days before Christmas and New Year, and therefore not a good time for Wiki-editing. We'll take this up again after 1 January. Achar Sva (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Good New Year, Achar Sva, and anyone else reading. I will make an edit on the main article as discussed above and see where the feedback takes us. If there is a reason why the edits shouldn't take place (based on the sources), I look forward to continued discussion to work out the wrinkles. Thank you for your efforts in advance. Ephemerance (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings also. I recognise that you're editing with good faith, but we need to reflect sources, and if the source says the disciples were sent to the gentiles (not the world) that what we have to say. Nor can we use the gospel itself as a source, because, after all, we're not using the gospel, we're using an English translation plus we have no knowledge of the context of any given passage. But, you are a very sincere person and I appreciate that/ Achar Sva (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have two quotes from the referenced Luz 2005 Studies in Matthew source for consideration (viewable in the google preview):

1) "... a new commission, extending the exclusive mission to Israel (10:5) to the nations and thus canceling its exclusivity." - page 25;

2) [Regarding a synopsis of Matthew...] "The core of its content is how Jesus, rejected and executed in Israel, pronounces judgment on Israel's leaders and the people itself and becomes the salvation of the Gentiles" - page 17

1) Based on the source, I propose changing "by Israel" to "in Israel" and including reference to Jesus pronouncing judgement on Israel's leaders and people. 2) Based on the second quote from the source, I propose correcting the "Gentiles instead" to match Luz's expression of 'extending the mission from Israel to include Gentiles'. "Whole world" captures this, but perhaps there is a more suiting phrasing? I haven't seen the pages of the source that "Gentiles instead" is supposedly drawn from. Is there something on page 233-34 that states this explicitly?

"[We can't] use the gospel [by] itself as a source, because [it is] an English translation [without context]."

Some bibles have annotated sections that give additional context. I agree that it's good to be mindful about taking a translation at face value without the context of surrounding text, but looking for contradictions between an analysis and the source text is a good sanity check. Luz has an excellent breakdown of the texts, but I have no reason to believe he ever argued that the Matthean "to all nations" means "to Gentiles only". Ephemerance (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

How would you feel about this change: "...and sends the disciples to focus preaching the gospel to the Gentiles instead." ? It is a closer proximity to the context I see from Luz. Ephemerance (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

How about this change too: "It tells how Israel's Messiah, Jesus, rejected and crucified in Israel ..." ? It would match the Luz page 17 quote. Ephemerance (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I've re-read Luz 2005b (Studies in Matthew) in view of your comments. The line in the lead you dispute is this: "It (the gospel) tells how Israel's Messiah, Jesus, rejected and crucified by Israel, condemns Israel, and sends the disciples to preach the gospel to the Gentiles instead." The pages cited are 17 and 233-34.

Page 17 has this: "The core of its content (the gospel's content) is how Jesus, rejected and executed in Israel, pronounces judgement on Israel's leaders and the people itself and becomes the salvation of the Gentiles." Pages 233-34 is an expansion on page 17: "The Evangelist tells of the activity of Israel's Messiah among his people ... The division within Israel becomes acute ... [ultimately Jesus is executed] ... [A]fter his resurrection Israel's Messiah sends his disciples to the gentiles."

None of this says that the disciples were sent only to the gentiles, simply that they were were sent to the gentiles instead of to Israel. I don't believe the sentence you reject to does say that the disciples were sent to the gentiles only. If, however, it disturbs you, I suggest taking from Luz the sentence on page 17 beginning "The core of its content is how Jesus.." and quoting it, with an in-text ascription to Luz ("Scholar Ulrich Luz comments: 'The core....": the source cited would then be page 17 alone). If you find this acceptable you're welcome to make an edit. Achar Sva (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Mark's Christology

@Achar Sva: Our article says that Mark's Gospel sees Jesus as not himself divine.This source and this source state that the meaning of the title "Son of Man" (a title used for Jesus in Mark) and to what degree it describes a divine status is still debated. And just for clarity, here is blog post from an eminent NT scholar, Bart Ehrman where he argues that Mark does portray Jesus as divine. Here is a video where he states that in Mark, Jesus himself claims divinity. Now, I realize that a blog post and a YouTube video may be a bit out of line for an Encyclopedia article, but I think they illustrate rather well the kind of diversity of opinion that exists among scholars when discussing Mark's Christology. With all this in mind, why are we presenting only 1 view as if it is a default position, when there is so much diversity of opinion on all sides? --AntoniusFelix (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The question of the meaning of "son of man" is indeed complex and debated, but this is just a brief article to introduce the general reader to this specific gospel. Adding a sentence at the end saying that "son of man" is a debated title really doesn't tell him/her much - if they want more they should go to the relevant article, and if they want more than that there are books. Our article here says that "As Son of Man he [Jesus] will return to judge the world...", which would seem to be enough to tell the reader how Matthew's gospel uses the figure.

As for the broader issue of the son of man title, Dunn is probably the leading expert, and if you want to know more for your own curiosity he's probably where you should start (or perhaps a good bible encyclopedia like Eerdmans would be better?). My own understanding is the "son of" part identifies the person referred to as belonging to a certain group or class - so Arab tribal names to this day are very frequently in the form "Beni Something", the people of Something (in the Bible the tribe of Benjamin is an example of this - Ben Yamin). It's the "man" part that's problematic - a "son of man" is simply a man (you could also say Beni Adam, the tribe of Adam, the first man); but in Daniel 7 there's "one like a son of man", clearly meaning having the form of a man, but also clearly divine in some sense, since he comes from the throne of the Ancient of Days - so a man who comes from God - did Jesus and/or his followers see himself as Daniel's man from God? That's the question Dunn and others try to address.Achar Sva (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)