Archive 4 (2011)
.
Many administrators will be happy to give you a copy of your deleted article, either by putting it on a special user page for you (a process called userfication) or by e-mailing you a copy.
Once you have the article, you can try to resolve the issues why it was deleted.
If you've repaired the article, or you believe the reasons for deleting the article were in error, you can dispute the deletion at Deletion Review. Generally, you must show how the previous deletion(s) were in error, but this is the place to resolve disputes about whether a deletion was wrong.
When a person goes through the time and effort to write an article or to research sources or whatever, he or she is going to have some emotional attachment to it. That's natural. Personally, I like it when someone takes an article and improves it and expands it. But if there's a danger of the hatchet coming down in the form of aggressivedeletion monkeys, then why should I put my time and mental equanimity on the line? I'm a professional writer and editor. I get paid to do this stuff. I'm less willing to write and edit articles on a voluntary basis when those contributions aren't welcome. -- Acsenray
The Guardian, Thursday 26 November, Jenny Kleeman: Go to an article on a current event, or a celebrity, and you're likely to find that it's been "protected" from tinkering by newcomers. But it could be that the collaborative aspect itself is driving people away. Disenchanted ex-volunteers say they are burned by squabbling with established editors over their contributions, and some claim the site is run by an impenetrable inner circle that controls all its content. "It's colloquially known as the cabal, although it's more like a hierarchy of power cliques, each one staking out its territory," says former contributor Barry Kort.
I seem to have pissed really upset an editor at Gospel of the Hebrews and the Jewish Gospels. I tried work to out a compromise which seems to have upset him even more. Before it gets really ugly, I have decided to step back and ask for Admin. support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems one "old guy" is getting badly beaten by the Oculi dude. Time to take some time to heal. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, I hope my edits speak for themselves. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have considered your proposal and will assume good faith. Therefore I will step back. Starting now we will abstain from editing this topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resumed editing to join scholarly debate. Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed you have made very brief comments at several AFDs recently, this one [1] being a representative sample. Please keep in mind that AFD is supposed to be a discussion. Merely asserting something with one word is not particularly helpful, and such comments are routinely ignored when evaluating consensus. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. This is not intended to discourage you from participating at AFD, but rather to encourage you to make arguments of substance rather than bald assertions with no real analysis or commentary. Thanks for your time. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Panyd has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}
Thank you for your well-wishes. They were very much appreciated and made me feel a lot better during my time off. For your kindness I present you with a kitten! May it love you and keep you. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thank you for your recent support in my last RFA. I have unfortunately had chosen to withdraw my RFA with a Support of 7 and Opposition of 26 and 0 Neutral. I am in good sprites to attempt a possible RFA in a later time with more experience. This seems one of the main concerns expressed by the Wikipedia community as well as fixing my grammatical errors.I hope you support me in my discussion to withdraw and I am looking forward to your support in a future RFA's and other edits made by myself here on Wikipedia.
Thanks Again,
Staffwaterboy Critique Me 00:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ret.Prof. I moved your comment directly below Logan's because it seemed like you were asking the question of him, and not me. If that was a mistake on my part, please revert me. It's a pretty confusing thread given that I disagree more strongly with Logan than I do with you, despite the fact that he and I are both opposing and you are supporting. I suspect that you are right, and that the candidate is being judged too harshly on superficial concerns. 28bytes (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Kenny. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. v/r - TP 21:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some opinions for Delete has been raised. Perhaps if you feel like it you could specify why you voted Keep on the articles Afd. Or give an argument for why it should be kept in discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A request for arbitration on the Ebionites article has recently been filed. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Ebionites_2 Please feel free to add any comments you believe appropriate. Ovadyah (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've currently got 2 !votes in there - 'weak support' and 'weak oppose'. Chzz ► 03:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ret.Prof. I see you have !voted twice in this RfA. I'm taking the liberty of indenting the second one. 28bytes (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Ebionites mediation has begun. Please make your opening statement at Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of trying to create a discussion page for religion articles in general for use in April and May, something like maybe a "religion summit." The first draft can be found at User:John Carter/Religion meeting. You clearly have advanced degrees which would qualify you for inclusion as some form of expert in your specific fields of study, and I for one would love to have a list of such experts to use in the event of controversy. One of the things I am considering is trying to create some sort of "expert" section to list "go to" people for various topics as required.
There is, unfortunately, one rather serious problem with this. I'm not sure if you are acquainted with the Essjay controversy, but it does demonstrate that at least some people are willing and able to falsify their credentials around here, and do so successfully for a rather extended period of time. Once burned, several times shy, as it were. And, of course, there is always the possibility (unlikely, but possible) that someone might have a degree from a diploma mill, unaccredited institution, or clearly and obviously extremely biased institution. Granted, I can't think of any of the last right now, but there might be some school similar to Bill's College of Streetcorner Evangelism out there.
Like I said, I very sincerely doubt if any of those reservations apply to you, but they might be grounds for others to question your status as an expert. If, and it is entirely your call here, if you were to want to be added to such a list, I think it might work if you were to just contact OTRS here and indicate to them your name and credentials in some verifiable manner. Once that were done, I don't think you would even necessarily have to indicate your "real" name.
Anyway, thank you for your contributions and input on our articles. I note that User:Pastordavid, one of our earlier leaders (and one the best informed Christian editors we had - a Lutheran minister with a MA in a relevant topic) indicated that a lot of the content regarding early Christianity in particular was weak. Myself, I knew then (and still now) bloody little myself about the era, and am very grateful for any efforts to improve it, and very appreciative of your efforts in that matter. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Religious articles tend to be areas of conflict and POV pushing. My project is to explore the Historical Jesus from a strictly neutral point of view. I will start with the earliest sources and try to leave my 50 years of scholarly baggage behind and see where the reliable sources lead me.
Christian: The first "hat" is that of a Christian. I am a priest and pastor who has a real relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I am in many ways a pretty Orthodox believer. I have found such persons as Francis of Assisi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and President Obama to be a source of inspiration. (Yes, I am one of the few people happy to see Obama take a stand against the wave of bigotry sweeping America although it was not in his political interest to do so and I find crazed pastors burning the Koran particularly offensive.) Indeed I would call myself a "born again" Christian, yet not in the way that Glen Beck or Sarah Palin are born again. Not only do I not hate other religions, but have studied them and they have helped deepen my faith. For example, Gandhi, a Hindu, has helped remind me how far we as Christians have drifted from our core beliefs.
Biblical Scholar: As a professor and Biblical scholar I have been able to distinguish between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History. The Historical Jesus is a composite based on historical evidence. Every time a new Gospel fragment is found or a new scroll unearthed, the Historical Jesus changes. Indeed, unlike the Christ of Faith, the Historical Jesus is constantly changing. Historians and Biblical scholars must accept that over the past 2000 years much has been lost and the Historical Jesus is but a poor reflection what once was , is, and will be.
Wikipedia editor: This "hat" is radically different from the aforementioned. I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions. The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic.
In the quest for the Historical Jesus, much has been learned over the past 100 years. Yet the topic is a difficult one because religious people tend to be people of strong convictions. In this first part I plan to work on sources outside the New Testament.
The first problem we face is the Sitz im Leben. Early Christians & Jews worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This Oral Tradition interpreted the written Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.
When the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70, that this Oral Tradition was no longer viable and this midrash was written down. Scholars believe it formed the basis for the Gospels.
With the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem many written sources were lost. Also when Christians and Jews were persecuted by various groups whole libraries were destroyed. Only a very few works survived this period of upheaval.
By the time of Constantine much had been lost or destroyed. However as Constantine tried to establish orthodoxy throughout the Empire, even more works were "lost"
The writing materials of the day were fragile and primitive. The archetypes or originals of early authors have almost all been lost. What has survived are copies of copies. Into these copies crept errors additions and "improvements".
His is the earliest reference to the historical Jesus, written about 20 years after the Crucifixion. Thallos details the Crucifixion of Jesus but explains that the darkness that fell over the land at the time of Jesus' death was not a supernatural miracle, but an merely an eclipse. This would establish a pre-Markan origin for the story spoken of in the Gospel of Mark.
The James Ossuary is a 2,000-year old limestone box used for containing the bones of the dead. Researchers uncovered it in Israel in 2002. The Aramaic inscription on the artifact read: Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
It is significant because this archaeological evidence establishes that there was a historical person named Jesus whose father was Joseph and brother was James as written in the Bible and in the works of Jewish historian Josephus.
However, the authenticity of this artifact has been contested and is the subject to ongoing scholarly debate. It is presently before the Courts who are about to rule on the authenticity of the inscription.
Mara bar ("son of ") Serapion, sometimes spelled Mara bar Sarapion was a Stoic philosopher from ancient Syria. He wrote an eloquent letter (c.75) in Syriac to his son, who was also named Serapion. This writing is said to be one of the earliest non-Jewish, non-Christian references to a historical Jesus.
(Born 37 AD) Josephus , also known as Yosef Ben Matityahu (Joseph son of Matthias) and Titus Flavius Josephus, was a renowned first-century Jewish historian. Josephus writes of a Jewish sect, whose leader was James the Just (the brother of Jesus). Josephus' history includes sections on John the Baptist, the High Priest Annas, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus called the Messiah.
The Caiaphas ossuary is said to be the tomb of Joseph, son of Caiaphas, commonly known as the High Priest Caiaphas in the New Testament. He was the Roman appointed leader of Judaism at the time of Christ and is said to have organized the plot to kill Jesus. Caiaphas is also said to have been involved in the trial of the "King of the Jews".
According to the Gospels, Caiaphas was the major antagonist of Jesus. However Biblical scholars argued against the historicity of such a person. Archeology ended this debate when the ossuary of the high priest, Joseph Caiaphas, was found in Jerusalem in 1990
(Born AD 56)
Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. His writings cover the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in AD 14 to the death of emperor Domitian in AD 96. Tacitus' work called the Annals (written c. 116) is important to Christianity because it confirms the historicity of Jesus. Book 15.44 mentions Christ as a person executed by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius' reign.
The Pilate Stone is the name given to a block of limestone with a carved inscription attributed to Pontius Pilate, a prefect of the Roman-controlled Judea from 26-36. It has been deemed important, because Biblical scholars believed that he was a mythical character. Then, in 1961 an inscription with his name was found confirming the historicity of Pontius Pilate, and adding to the credence of Josephus on Jesus and the Biblical accounts.
(Born 61 AD)
Pliny the Younger, was Governor of Bithynia as well as a priest, lawyer and author. He is known for his hundreds of surviving letters, which are an invaluable historical source for the period. Of particular interest to Christians are his references to Christ.
(Born 69 AD) Suetonius was a Roman historian belonging to the equestrian order in the early Imperial era. He is important to Christians because of his reference to the Historical of Jesus. The topic is notable enough to warrant a separate article
The reliable sources all confirm the saying of Monsieur Renan: That in the history of the origins of Christianity, the Talmud has hitherto been far too much neglected and the New Testament can only be understood by the light of the Talmud.
Paul possessed a copy of the small "Testimony Book," more popularly known as the "quelle" gospel (shortened in all reference books to the "Q" source) which is thought to be the "lost gospel" and which formed the basis of later gospels. It was a collection of sayings. Google link Google Link Google Link
Bethesda, is the name of a pool in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem, on the path of the Beth Zeta Valley. The Gospel of John describes such a pool in Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. It is associated with healing. Until the 19th century, there was no evidence outside of John’s Gospel for the existence of this pool. Scholars argued that the gospel was written later, probably by someone without first-hand knowledge of the city of Jerusalem, and that the ‘pool’ had only a metaphorical meaning, rather than historical, significance.
Then in the nineteenth century, archeologists discovered the remains of a pool exactly matching the description in John’s Gospel. Thus, archeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of John’s account.
Lucian of Samosata (Born 115 AD) was a well-known Greek satirist and traveling lecturer. More than eighty works bear his name. He mocks the followers of Jesus for their ignorance and credulity, although he does credit Christians with a certain level of morality. He is considered important to Christians for giving insight into the Historical Jesus.
Celsus was a 2nd century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity. He is known for his literary work, The True Word which is the earliest known comprehensive attack on Jesus.
Celsus explained that Jesus came from a Jewish village in the Holy Land. Jesus' mother was a poor Jewish girl. This girl's husband, who was a carpenter by trade, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to the bastard Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return made himself out to be a god. Celsus confirmed the Historicity of Jesus but not the Virgin birth. Celsus also confirmed
Important to the topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An important area but a difficult one, as people have strong convictions. I too have strong convictions which I have tried to put on hold. Much evidence has been lost. Some evidence has been doctored by Christians and non - Christians alike. As to the basic question as to whether Jesus was a "Man' or a "Myth" the evidence clearly indicates the answer is "YES"-
The Sitz im Leben of Roman occupied Judea makes it highly unlikely that the Jews would create a Jewish mythical God as in Greek mythology or Roman mythology. Indeed none of the historical sources from the time of Christ to Constantine ever argue that Jesus was a mythical creation. The sources both Christian and non Christian are remarkably united in their portrayal of the Historical Jesus:
The non Christian historians such as Josephus, Thallus, Celsus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion confirm the above in varying degrees. So do several sections of the Talmud (these sections have been removed from modern editions). Of equal importance is the fact that no early historical source, Christian or non Christian, disputes the historicity of Jesus.
However, the evidence does point to a Christ myth being developed sometime after Paul's ministry to the Gentiles. The Sitz im Leben would be Roman and Greek. This mythical Christ bore remarkable similarities to the gods of Greek mythology and Roman mythology. It was developed by Gentile Christians and was eagerly accepted by "Pagan" Christian groups. They eventually prevailed over Jewish Christians. The following is a summary of the Gentile Christ Myth:
This "myth" has nothing supporting it from the early historical sources. Indeed, the eyewitness testimony referred to by the Church Fathers i.e. (Peter's Gospel of Mark, Matthew's Hebrew Gospel and John's Signs Gospel) records that Jesus was anointed Messiah and becomes a child (or son) of God at his baptism.
I am a Christian, who will celebrate Christmas and will say the creeds. The foregoing is simply an "objective evaluation" of the historical evidence. It should not be viewed as Truth or the full story. Indeed, the only thing that can be said with certainty is that more evidence will be discovered and our understanding of the aforementioned will change. For example, the criminal, scholarly and scientific implications of the verdict in the James Ossuary trial are immense. Historical scholarship and Faith are two very different topics.
There is a theory started by Jerome that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is the Authentic Gospel of Matthew and it was an eyewitness account of the life and teachings of a Jewish rabbi named Jesus. This Gospel was discarded by the Church as Christianity moved away from its Jewish roots and developed the Gentile doctrines of the Virgin Birth etc. I am now reading through the massive amount of material on this topic which includes:
Now I am working on those sources that make up the Christian Canon.
Here I am running into the same difficulty as I did at the Gospel of the Hebrews. I have now completed my review of WP policy on duplication. It appears to me that Ictu may be using duplication as a cover for POV pushing. Over the past several weeks he has visited many many many articles and removed all material from Edwards, Parker, Nicholson, Butz etc.
However, there are some legitimate Duplication concerns. The problem is that sources explain that during the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non-Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link
Letter to Pope Damasus Jerome, 383 A.D. The labor is one of love, but at the same time both perilous . . . I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judæa in Hebrew characters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead.[1]
Letter to Pope Damasus Jerome, 383 A.D.
Nicholson, Parker, Edwards, Bütz and others agree with Jerome. Thus the Hebrew Gospel is the basis for a number of topics. How do we go back to the fountainhead without duplicating material? The matter is further complicated by the fact that the Catholic Church and a number of scholars believe that Jerome was wrong and that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible was written by Matthew. As a sign of good faith I have removed most of the material objected to until we work out a solution. Ret.Prof (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I offer a simple observation, born of my personal experience. There are TWO WAYS (see the Didache). One path leads to assumptions of WP:AGF on the part of all editors and a focus on improving article content. The other path, the dark path, leads to arbitration. Once you start down the path of poisoning the well, you will end up drinking deeply from its water. Hang in there. Ovadyah (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While we're talking generalities, my further observation is that I don't think you understood my "blending" point about NPOV. Trying to judge and weigh sources often leads to unintentional synthesis, which is forbidden. Even experienced editors often do not understand this point, and attempt to suppress POVs that are, in their opinion, out of favour, to the detriment of the readers. As I said, all significant views should be represented. From your response I'm not clear that you understood that. If you did, my apologies. I would hate to see you sanctioned in any way (and this is not a threat from me, BTW, but an observation about what others may do), but you need to familarise yourself more with the Wikipedia policies, or else you are likely to be be reported at ANI with undesirable consequences. It takes awhile to get into the Wiki-style. If another editor reprimands you, claiming that you are in breach of policy, it would be a good idea to presume that they are correct for the next 6 months or so. There is a lot more to policy than just avoiding content forks. For instance, reacting to an edit war by reverting is not the answer, but would be judged as edit warring itself if you were reported. And that's the sort of thing that gets editors' nuts cut off..... which you would find painful, I assure you!
Time spent reading and digesting the policy pages would not be time wasted, since it would save you much more time later that would be otherwise be wasted in fruitless disputes that you would ultimately lose. Once again, let me emphasize that this is meant as a constructive advice - I don't want to see your enthusiasm and scholarship broken on the wheel. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 09:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi friend, if you feel like it please participate in this articles Afd. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just read your response to PiCo on the Book of Matthew Talk page and I have to say I'm pretty impressed. Not that I followed "all" of it, but I have to say that that was one of the most honest, logical, well documented arguments that I've ever read. And this is independent of whether I agreed with your argument. Hoping not to give you a big head, but - Good Stuff!
I also liked your brief in the "Reflections" section. As a recent Wiki editor (7 months ago I changed jobs and have had a little more time on my hands), I'm (fortunately) not well versed on the tactics that people use in order to further their insertions (at the detriment of others), since I've spent most of my time expanding/editting pages on sports figures and other non-critical subjects. As I have bookmarked many of the books of the Bible and major biblical figures, I am aware of the sniping and how it can get. Good or bad, I try to stay away from controversy - so if someone violently disagrees with something I've added/deleted, I usually let them have their way as I consider my Wikipedia edits to be a relaxing side-line and not a life and death undertaking. If someone HAS TO have it say "Yes" rather than "Affirmative", it isn't worth fighting over. However, if it's a right/wrong thing - well, then we may have some little back and forth (I am an engineer after all). Above all else, I feel that if I'm not having fun and feeling like I've left Wikipedia a little better at the end of the day, I might as well find something else to do. Anyway... Take care -Ckruschke (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
The Jeffrey Butz book has arrived. Looks good! -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for a discussion on changes to the article - since then almost 3 days have passed, and you've said nothing. Do you want to contribute? PiCo (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't had enough on the Book of Matthew page, you might stroll over to Thomas the Apostle and weigh in. Besides the fact that the page needs a major edit bad, I've done some minor things but someone needs to start using a sword, there is the on-going issue about whether Thomas made it to southern India and how much to say about this. You know, if you haven't been stoned by then... Ckruschke (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
If you haven't had enough on the Book of Matthew page, you might stroll over to Thomas the Apostle and weigh in. Besides the fact that the page needs a major edit bad, I've done some minor things but someone needs to start using a sword, there is the on-going issue about whether Thomas made it to southern India and how much to say about this. You know, if you haven't been stoned by then... Ckruschke (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Now for some lighter entertainment! :0) You might want to leave your comments for and against inclusion of sources if you have any. We have a bit over a week to go before the jaws of arbitration open. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RetProf When you did this merge 3 Oct 2010 where did this content come from?
Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ret.Prof Please answer the question NB As proposed by other editors removing duplication requires deleting the entire large section you have composed/edited on Gospel of the Hebrews and cut and pasted into Gospel of Matthew and other pages.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Until these issues are resolved, I do not see any way forward. Still keeping an open mind. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty nice work you did on 'Suetonius on Christ' as well as the page on 'Mara Bar-Serapion'. It was about time to get those in. Köstenberger specifically says that the Bar-Serapion letter was 73AD. Also Van Voorst and Evans. Your opinion? Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear RetProf. Since this concerns duplicate contributions to Talk:Gospel of Matthew, Talk:Canonical gospels, Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus, Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament I make the comment here (as per archive) to make it clear, the concern is twofold: 1. Some of the claims in the below section [e.g. most easily identifiable that the Acts church "revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php "] were introduced into the text of Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews on a claimed "merge" of Authentic Gospel of Matthew - yet the content is not found in either article. 2. Re the duplication of this section verbatim on several pages:
There is no need for this to be duplicated verbatim on several Wikipedia pages. I suggest in the friendliest possible manner than perhaps you first decide which page this content belongs on, and then submit to the review of peers there. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ictu has been dramatically saying that he is upset over what he calls "cut and paste concerns". As a good will gesture, I was going to replace the "material he found so very upsetting" with the material from Blackwell's article on the Gospel of Matthew as it covers the same points as in the article but with different wording. He rejected this compromise. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that most of his concerns, even those that "sound good" are a cover for his POV pushing. This is not acceptable for Wikipedia articles must be written from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that my position is being misrepresented (See reflections). My primary concern is that the Gospel of Matthew must be written from NPOV. This is not happening! There are several different aspects that come up when writing about this topic:
First Issue - Duplication or Back to the Fountainhead Jerome explained "The New Testament, was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who was the first in Judea to produce a Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead. [1] [2] Cassels, Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker, Butz, etc., are agreed, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, under various names, such as the Gospel according to Peter, according to the Apostles,the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians, etc., with modifications certainly, but substantially the same work, was circulated very widely throughout the early Church. [3] [4]
First Issue - Duplication or Back to the Fountainhead
Second Issue - Matthaei authenticum Close to 75 ancient historical writings from the time of Jesus to the time of Jerome (c.385 C.E.), state Matthew wrote an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus called the Hebrew Gospel or sometimes the Gospel of the Hebrews. No ancient source either Christian or non-Christian disputes this. There are many scholars such a Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, who agree with the historical sources and explain why. Then there those who disagree such as Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.
Second Issue - Matthaei authenticum
Third Issue - Matthew and the Gospel of Matthew What is the relationship of Matthew to the Canonical Gospel of Matthew? The Roman Catholic position is that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible was written by Matthew and is authentic. Liberal scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew is a "false Matthew" written by an unknown redactor long after the time of Matthew. A third group believe the Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew (See Aramaic original) was used as one of the sources of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew.
Third Issue - Matthew and the Gospel of Matthew
We must work out these three issues. If we cannot, then we must seek outside help. We, as editors, must work together to compose a NPOV article. (See Reflections at User talk:Ret.Prof) Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ret.Prof The five paragraphs of duplicate material are now proposed for deletion at:
not counting Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament, and Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus which you have blanked. The section I removed at Gospel is a separate duplication.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I did not pay much attention to the first section of the Butz book, rather to the material which was mentioned in the reviews I found, which was the material about the subsequent history of Ebionite Christology. I take as a given your reference to material in Butz about Tabor's theories being squelched as some sort of academic conspiracy theory. That point does raise a question in my mind however.
Nishidani, among others, has said that there is abundant evidence that there were a number of books in early Christianity which were, probably, burned and otherwise destroyed by the "majority" Christians who disagreed with their content. Certainly, Hennecke/Schneemelcher's Neutestamentliche Apokryphen makes mention of a broad range of such works which survive only in brief citations or other references in literature. AFAIR, it might even be the case that those other references are only known by reference in tertiary sources, too. I would in no way say that such material did not exist. The question is whether we can say that some things which we don't know about today existed earlier (a point I don't think many if any people would dispute) is as per policies and guidelines something which can support the contention that certain specific, individual theories put forward by academics today about groups which may have used such documents should be considered sufficiently important to be included in articles about those groups. Basically, there seems to be lack of evidence in a lot of areas - the question is whether that lack of evidence is sufficient to prove as a form of evidence that these conjectures might be right.
Personally, I, at least as an individual, don't see how policies and guidelines would support such a conclusion, but I also acknowledge that there are serious questions about what kind of material we should include about subjects we only know about from the subject's enemies, and I don't specifically know how policies and guidelines deal with such subjects, or even if they really do directly.
The quote you gave from Butz did state that there is some sort of academic "conspiracy" against Tabor and his theories. We do have an article about Bible conspiracy theories, and, based on the Butz quote, there might be some reason to think some material on this subject could be included there. Maybe. I think, personally, that there might be a better place to put such material, but, as someone who personally doesn't work that extensively with Biblical material per se, I don't know where it might be. In any event, as someone who knows something about Biblical studies, I think you might be among the better people to perhaps assemble an article on suppression of material not in accord with the later NT canon. The theory that such material was destroyed wherever possible is itself one with unquestioned support.
Also, finally, one last point. On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting page, I raised a question about Biblical commentaries. I know that there are a large number of them, many of which disagree with each other rather regularly and in some cases seriously. Unfortunately, I am myself not so sure as to which commentaries are considered the most reliable for comparatively large or significant groups of Christians, Jews, etc., and which might be essentially required for articles on particularly NT material to be really balanced. If you have a clearer idea as to which commentaries do so qualify, I think that information would be very relevant for both that page, and, maybe, as a specific section in the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible page.
Anyway, thanks for your attention, and sorry if this seems excessively long. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RP, I deleted your edit to the dispute summary request I posted. We really - really - need to keep the page simple so external editors can review the problem. Please leave that section as it is so editors can have access to a simple overview of the issues. Thanks (and accept my apologies for the deletion). Eusebeus (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say that it's not my intention to be hostile towards you in my most recent comments on that Talk page. I find the exchange of views very enjoyable, and hope we can keep it going in a proper friendly spirit. PiCo (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you think they are primary sources? Why is not the Gospel text the primary source? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RetProf, to avoid cluttering up the Talk page, and in keeping with Eusebius's request, it might be better to take this to personal Talk pages unless it seems essential to the article. PiCo (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are not wrong but you simply are not right. Edwards, Nicholson and Jerome would agree that Matthew wrote the Hebrew Gospel. Now the role the Hebrew gospel played in the redacting of canonical Matthew is a) none b) a source c) a direct translation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I am off to the library to work on your questions. Have a great day - 02:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Display examples is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Display examples (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several months ago I started my edit quest. Things got ugly when I finally came to the Gospel of the Hebrews. I have read the extensive edit history and this edit war has been around since 2004.
Issue The Historical writings from the time of Jesus to the time of Jerome c.385 C.E., state Matthew wrote an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus called the Hebrew Gospel or sometimes the Gospel of the Hebrews. No ancient source either Christian or non-Christian disputes this. There are many scholars such a Lillie, Nicholson, Parker, Cassels, Edwards, Tabor, Schoemaker and Butz, who agree with the historical sources and explain why. Then there those who disagree such as Vielhauer and Schneemelcher.
Issue
There have been two different approaches to editing this topic.
According to this first approach Wikipedia is a game. It is an entertainment, played in moves, according to "rules", towards the goal of topic domination.
Now I must admit the above is but a poor reflection of this approach to editing. A detailed study of the edit history of the Revision history of Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews is necessary. I most strongly oppose this approach
No drama, no tricks, good natured scholarly debate and above all No personal attacks.
I support the second approach. It will result in better scholarship. I believe it more closely follows Wikipedia Policy. I am presently seeking Admin help to end this senseless edit war. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as though I have just stepped into somebody else's manic episode - Which may not be far from the truth. In any event I think Ictu has confirmed most of what I said on my talk page. See Reflections at User talk:Ret.Prof. For the record I am not banned user:CheeseDreams, user:-Ril-, User:Dylan Flaherty etc trying to evade a block. Nor am I suspect User:Melissadolbeer, User:Swift as an Eagle, User:Bearnfæder nor User:Matruman. I am a good faith user who believes in Wikipedia policy. It was User:Wetman who created the Gospel of the Hebrews, User:Peter Kirby who first introduced Matthaei Authenticum and Anon user who first introduced the Hebrew Gospel by James Edwards, none of whom are linked to me. Nor am I linked with any of these. I do agree with Ictu that something strange is evidently going on here. Since the Gospel of Matthew is an important Wikipedia article and it appears to have been compromised, I believe it should be subject to a full Administrative investigation. Also, I have counted close to 15 canvassing violations and suspect more via email. This article needs help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that John Carter, despite a complete lack of engagement on the matter, has raised an AfD on the demerged content / Ebionite Jewish Community, which is consequently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to offer comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination).-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good move. Editing Wikipedia should be a pleasure, not a battle. Have you told InIctu and asked him to do likewise? PiCo (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I owe you an apology about Oculi. You were right about him! -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 08:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of our gifted editors, know their 'areas of expertise' and the references connected with them. They actually look forward to scholarly debate. However, when they come under attack from skilled Wiki-Warriors, they simply do not stand a chance. How do we nurture an environment that keeps them safe? This is our Achilles' heel. It puts everything we are trying to at Wikipedia at risk. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A question: What would you name as the five most important recent commentaries on Matthew? PiCo (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Prof, can I bother you in your retirement? An IP has just added a section in Gospel pertaining to the Book of Mormon. Can you have a look to see if that's really appropriate for the article? I think it's too broad to really qualify for inclusion here. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a deletion review here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 18 that may interest you. Mathewignash (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see when you added the comparison chart to the Gospel of the Hebrews page, you filled a number of reference tags with "trite." Did you mean by that that we should check with the sources found in the beginning of the section? If so, it'd be nice to know which section is supported by which book(s). Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ret Prof: Thanks for asking me to look at the material you've gathered. At the moment, I'm taking a vacation from religion-oriented articles, so I won't be able to help. Good luck. --Noleander (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ret. Prof, you asked me for an evaluation of sources on your user page. I haven't read through all your sources in detail, but here are some initial thoughts:
1. According to Eusebius, our earliest primary witness is Papias c.125, who states that Matthew compiled logia in the Hebrew language. The first use of the term gospel to indicate a written source we have preserved is Justin in c.155, and Marcion was probably the first to use the term in this way to describe his Gospel of the Lord in c.140. Be careful about using sources that just assume it's a fact Matthew wrote something in Hebrew equivalent to what we moderns call a gospel.
2. By describing a Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew as being different from canonical Greek Matthew, there is an implicit assumption that Greek Matthew is somehow altered or a fake. That is what Symmachus claimed at the end of the second century. Any secondary sources making such a controversial (explosive) claim should probably cite Symmachus as a primary witness. I suggest you carefully weight such claims against the large number of counter-claims that Greek Matthew is genuine.
3. Although scholars can speculate all they want, there is no hard evidence that the GH is a Hebrew version of Matthew. This may be a case of extrapolating beyond the data to say what perhaps some wish to be true. Origen and Clement of Alexandria are the best primary witnesses for the GH, and I don't remember either of them equating that text with Matthew. You might want to be careful about citing sources that simply assume this equivalence without definitive evidence.
I have to run. Take care. Ignocrates (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks A Georgian (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is in reply to your e-mail: It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction. Please respond here; I don't normally communicate by e-mail. Sandstein 16:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in some new publications: here, here, and here. Best. Ignocrates (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:MatrumanUser:Bearnfæder
