Talk:Aramaic Matthew
Latest comment: 12 years ago by In ictu oculi in topic Past history
Past history
editThis REDIRECT was created in relation to Gospel of Matthew during a clean up by several editors in early 2011. Please see Talk:Gospel of Matthew. The redirect is being retained because of duplication - the mainstream article on Matthew is at Matthew and should mention Aramaic/Hebrew in relation to Matthew. Though the main fork for that is at Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- The current Gospel of Matthew article doesn't even mention "Aramaic". "Aramaic Matthew" is a standard term in Matthean scholarship, it is not a fringe theory as you seem to suggest. I'm being bold and redirecting this article to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis which is more relevant to the topic of "Aramaic Matthew". WIkipedia tends to dumb down articles, so Gospel of Matthew is unlikely to ever discuss this topic, at least for long, before some zealous editor deletes it. 75.0.11.75 (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also, I would like to point out that "Aramaic Matthew" is not a pov fork nor is it a neologism. It's a commonly used scholarly term, just as Q source and logia. The German term is "Ur-Matthew". 75.0.11.75 (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine. I have now (belatedly) added "or Aramaic" to Gospel of Matthew but you are right Hebrew Gospel hypothesis may well be a better REDIRECT. The making of the New Testament documents Edward Earle Ellis - 2002 speaks of "the Aramaic Matthew Hypothesis" and it looks like the Independence of Matthew and Mark John M. Rist and Aramaic sources of Mark's Gospel Maurice Casey - 1998 may have useful source material. And yes, you're correct it isn't a povfork, just a content fork not to overload the main Matthew article with a subset of Aramaic/Hebrew related hypotheses. Cheers. (btw please consider the benefits of registering, cheers!): In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I made some changes to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, hopefully useful. Maybe that article should be retitled to "Aramaic or Hebrew Gospel hypothesis"? Most scholars think Aramaic is more likely, as in Aramaic of Jesus, but Hebrew is possible and closely related. Even the Jewish Bible has some Biblical Aramaic. 75.0.11.75 (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine. I have now (belatedly) added "or Aramaic" to Gospel of Matthew but you are right Hebrew Gospel hypothesis may well be a better REDIRECT. The making of the New Testament documents Edward Earle Ellis - 2002 speaks of "the Aramaic Matthew Hypothesis" and it looks like the Independence of Matthew and Mark John M. Rist and Aramaic sources of Mark's Gospel Maurice Casey - 1998 may have useful source material. And yes, you're correct it isn't a povfork, just a content fork not to overload the main Matthew article with a subset of Aramaic/Hebrew related hypotheses. Cheers. (btw please consider the benefits of registering, cheers!): In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis - continued there. : In ictu oculi (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)