Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews/Archive 3

You may notice that most of these discussion pages are personal attacks launched by an anonymous disruptive editor. Although wp:talk allows for these comments to be removed, I have decided to archive them.

Magnanimous in victory and gracious in Defeat

Well I must admit I was taken a back when Tim deleted all my edits and restored all Ari's. But I checked out Tim and he is a respected Admin. Therefore I will simply accept his judgement and wish you all the best in your editing. Cheers 96.22.215.70 (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You are a child. You have no right to personally rank bibliographical sources by which ones you personally like. Especially when the one at the top of the list is a fringe theory totally rejected by scholarship. --Ari (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Setting the record straight (Revised)

During this edit war Ari and Eusebeus have introduced a substantial amount of disinformation to the discussion and have even gone so far as to "refactor" my comments. Don't get me wrong, I am not accusing them of actual lying , rather that they have been taking liberties with the truth. Therefore I have decided to set the record straight.

Personal attacks

I do not make personal attacks. Nor am I rude and condescending. I never call people "childish", "immature", "idiosyncratic" or "churlish". Nor do I mock my fellow editors telling them, "No one cares" or "to grow up" "If you do finally calm down" or "go rant on your userspace or something". However if their edit history and their block log that shows that they have been guilty of wrongful behavior, I have no difficulty pointing out that a problem editor has been blocked for Edit warring, violation of the three-revert rule, personal attacks, and reposting possibly copyrighted material.

Meat puppets

I must admit I was not surprised at being accused of being a sock puppet. (I had looked at your edit histories). I have carefully read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and can thankfully say I am not guilty of any infraction. I did notice that Spigot was also a problem editor who had been blocked for edit warring, violation of the three-revert rule, uncivil edits and disrupting the editing process for others. Also it should be noted that we are not to bias discussions by asking for supporters from other places. Using or recruiting meat puppets to dominate an article is a serious offense

Oh dear

Oh Dear! I have been checking edit hists for what comes next? Not good! There will be a request for semi-protection. Since I am the only anon actively editing, that means me!! I will be effectively blocked without doing anything wrong!

Merge discussion

Both this article and Gospel according to the Hebrews seem to be talking about the same thing. I proposed that they be merged into this article (Gospel of the Hebrews), largely because this article has the Christianity Portal box (and pretty graphics, too). But I'm just a lay person :) , so I'm not likely to be involved in the actual merge process. Merry Christmas! --Robertb-dc (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely correct. The Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Hebrews are the same topic. The shortened name "Gospel of the Hebrews" is much more commonly used today. Actually, I had already started this merge, therefore I will be bold and finish it off. If I leave anything out, feel free edit. I do suggest because of the volatile nature of this subject that we take extra care to reference all material. 216.249.58.67 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Extremely Disruptive Behavior: Wikipedia the Game

I have taken the time to look though your edit history and found you actually surpass Eusebeus in regard to disruptive behavior. You seem to see Wikipedia as some sort of game and your block log shows you have blocked many times for Edit warring, violation of the three-revert rule, personal attacks, and reposting possibly copyrighted material. I will continue my edits in good faith, and try to ignore the fact that you delete just about everything... 96.22.215.70 (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No one cares about your ad hominems. Grow up and deal with the article at hand. --Ari (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop this churlish and adolescent name-calling now. Nothing that Ari or I have done warrants in any way these baseless and scabrous personal attacks. Eusebeus (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

NB I do not make personal attacks and nothing I say should be construed as such.96.22.215.70 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the time to look through your edit history and you appear to be a sockpuppet, who's gaming the system? SpigotWho? 14:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed

Are you being reasonable? I must hang my head in shame. I truly believed that your next move was an invasion of Meat Puppets. I am sorry I did not assume good faith. I totally agree that we must we should first seek consensus for out edits, then introduce them to the article. Restored article to beginning of May before Edit warring as per agreement. I agree only make changes after reaching consensus on talk page.96.22.215.70 (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring - 1 to 0 for the Nefarious Dudes. I must admit that I was taken in by your apparent show of good faith. I must say, I feel a little stupid... And very very disappointed. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep on discussion. No one cares about personal attacks. If you cannot backup your POV edits that have been objected to by multiple editors then work on it. I have carried over content and discussion waiting for you to respond but you refuse in favour of personal pointless and childish attacks. --Ari (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not make personal attacks. It is your edit history and particularly your block log that shows that you have been guilty of wrongful behavior, ie you have been blocked many times for Edit warring, violation of the three-revert rule, personal attacks, and reposting possibly copyrighted material.

Neutral header here

Now that Ari has been blocked, hopefully we can get back to editing this article. I have no desire to dominate this article, nor do I like edit warring. I am going to post my draft. I will not delete anything you add to it! All I ask is that we work toward consensus when deleting references. People should allowed to know the books that have been published on this topic. Believe it or not I am generally a reasonable person. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Eusebius, I got snippy because I thought DustForWorms was you. Please let's work together! 96.22.215.70 (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have already apologized to Eusebeus. It was an honest mistake. NB I made three edits and was going to make more, some of which I hoped would win over Eusebius. But I don't think I made 3 reverts. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DustFormsWords, I checked you edit hist. and block log and it is clear you are a good faith editor. Your advice is sound. The problem I have is that the bibliography is being stripped important books. What to do?? 96.22.215.70 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have expertise in this area, or frankly much interest in this article. Just in passing through, a quick look at the version you're reverting to shows it's got many of the danger signs of a POV article - subjective language ("the most important"), passive voice ("it is thought"), subjective summarisation ("scholars agree"), and synthesis of published sources ("if this be so"). I'd defer, and advise you to defer, to the opinions of experts in this area, but in short the best way forward is to stick to active voice, verifiable facts. Which scholars agree? Who thinks? If the scholars don't agree, or if there's a minority opinion, don't struggle to get it in the main article text - make a "dissenting opinions" section, say exactly who is making the opinion, and just say what they say, don't comment on it or its implications. Anyway, that's only on a quick read of the article with, as I say, no prior experience with the subject matter. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again and sorry for thinking you were Eusebeus. I have carefully reread your words on my talk page:

Please note the following items of Wikipedia policy:

1. Controversial major edits should first be proposed at the relevant talk page, where consensus should be obtained.
2. A neutral point of view is required for all articles, regardless of their topic or the sources underlying them.

Of course you are absolutely correct I will comply as follows

1. I will remove all controversial major edits made by myself, Ari and Eusebius, restoring it to the version before the Edit warring began.
2. All controversial major edits will first be proposed on the talk page, where consensus should be obtained.
3. I will work together with Eusebeus and Ari in good faith, to write this article from a neutral point of view. I will also request admin oversight for this page.

I hope this will solve our problems . . . NB Eusebeus and Ari you have my consent, 1) to add any material you deem is important 2) to remove subjective language ("the most important"), passive voice ("it is thought"), subjective summarisation ("scholars agree"), and synthesis of published sources ("if this be so"). 96.22.215.70 (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC) NB <Please do not edit this article> until consensus is reached on the talk page.

No one needs your consent to edit anything on Wikipedia. SpigotMap 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Reset?

I suggest resetting the article to the Feb 18, 2009 version, and adding any later (minor, constructive) changes. -- Alvanx (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Contents Section

I was unsure of this statement in the "Contents" section of the article:

Ironically, we know just how long the lost Gospel of the Hebrews was: 2200 lines, just 300 lines shorter than the canonical Greek Matthew. So it is an odd claim that the Hebrew Matthew is taken to be an 'embellishment' is some ways, since it is shorter than the canonical version.

The fact it is spoken of as an "odd claim" sounds like POV pushing. An equally valid scenario, if such were allowed, would be that the Gospel of Hebrews is shorter than Matthew because the author of GOH edited out certain key sections of Matthew he disagreed with. Of course, such a claim wouldn't be allowed in the article text itself, I am just stating how this claim seems (to me) to be fallacious.

BTW, 300 lines isn't much. :\ And I understand the arguments from the paragraph before this, as I have heard them applied to the canonical New Testament in Bart D. Ehrmann's book, "Misquoting Jesus", but I still think it needs to be cited. Drumpler 09:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

This article is poorly written, contains original research, lacks footnotes and sources. What I have done is merge the POV essay called Authentic Matthew with the stub class Gospel of the Hebrews and added citations. 216.249.58.67 (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Hebrew letters" (and "Aramaic dialect")

"written in Aramaic dialect but with Hebrew letters" is AFAIK a completely incoherent statement, and has been corrected. Aramaic wasn't/isn't a dialect of anything, and there's no such thing as "Hebrew letters"--the alphabet used both now and then to write Hebrew is in fact borrowed from Aramaic. (Hebrew was originally written with the Phoenician alphabet.) Adavies42 (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

the article seems biased

In several respects I found the article biased, i.e. holding views unsubstantiated and contrary to those held in historic Christendom. Also, it is very poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzvi44 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is pretty much the most biased article I've ever read, and also for a minority view... I'm not sure where to start with this one. You'd almost expect it to be written in first person... -Hrugnir, 00:31, 8 April 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.156.38 (talk)

Appendix should be transwiki'd to Wikisource

Raw content like this is not appropriate for Wikipedia; that is what Wikisource is for. It should be transwiki'd. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Far too often, this article degenerates into actual advocacy in favor of the view of Jesus supposed by certain editors to be expressed in this Gospel. It needs an extensive rewrite. 192.31.106.35 (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what is disputed? It's bad form to tag an entire article without comments and then leave. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Completed work and removed tag. - 205.210.143.51 (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It still needs NPOV editing96.22.215.70 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Views?

The section on modern scholarship is in bad shape and gives excessive weight to Edwards (2009). I cannot find a single scholarly review of this work, although it may be still early. Nonetheless, the absence of any scholarly review means it should not be given prominence here, especially since it contravenes well-established scholarship (on Q, etc...). I will remove it. Eusebeus (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... But is this a valid reason to delete a published source? He is a respected scholar who has published other works. Wouldn't this go against Wikipedia's NPOV policy? Also do you have authority that deems him a "fringe"? 96.22.215.70 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is, per WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. We reflect the state of the literature and if a position has received no scholarly attention or approbation it should not be included in a Wikipedia article. You can find more information at the WP:RS pages. If / when scholarly reviews appear that sanction his work within the larger body of scholarship, then his conclusions can certainly be considered for this article. A final point, WP:FRINGE is a guideline and WP:RS is a policy and as such are central to the standards we maintain (and in the case of RS, non-negotiable). It is not for any single editor to "decide" what is fringe, but rather to follow the standards laid out those pages in determining the validity for inclusion. Reviews in established journals provide an incontestable measure for evaluating scholarship per that process. Eusebeus (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You have misread WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Edwards falls clearly within their scope.96.22.215.70 (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's bad form to simply delete citations and material. Let's first try to see if we can fix the problem. If we fail then we delete.96.22.215.70 (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC) - - Post Script - - Can you be more specific about what is disputed? Citing specifically what in WP:RS needs to be dealt with, will help your fellow editors meet your concerns.
  • Two points. First, a procedural point. You made substantial changes to a stable article that were reverted per WP:BRD. You have repeatedly reverted back now, which places you at risk of sanction per WP:3RR. It is good to add material to articles, but if you are reverted (as in this case, by me), you need to discuss, not revert (note that 3RR can lead to a short-term editing block). Second, content. You are adding material from a book that has received no mainstream academic reviews, and that as best as I can tell (haven't read it obviously) inter alia refutes the Q theory (and hence the two source theory) and makes an argument for Matthean over Marcan priority. Now, that may indeed be true, but in the context of larger biblical criticism, it borders on WP:FRINGE. This article does not get a lot of eyeballs it seems, so I will seek assistance from some other regular editors and revert you again pending further discussion. Basically, you just need to make a case for why this material should be included with reference to larger body of scholarly consensus. Remember Wikipedia reflects the consensus views of its topics, not promotes individual theories. So if we can agree on that, I look forward to hearing why you feel this theory should be granted space in the article. Needless to say, if you can find a favourable review from a mainstream academic journal, that will make the case for you and obviate my objections. Note that I said I couldn't find any, not that they don't exist. (So maybe start there.) Eusebeus (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE CHECK YOUR FACTS - The material and citations you keep deleting were introduced by "this edit." last year. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that; the diffs are complex. At any event I have asked that some folks from the Christianity project to contribute their views. Let's hold off until further commentary is forthcoming. Eusebeus (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more eyes would be helpful. Let's first try to see if we can fix the problem. If we fail, then we delete. NPOV must be our priority. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I am with Eusebeus on the use of Edwards. WP articles are meant to be sober Encyclopaedic articles on the verifiable mainstream. Edwards' monograph goes against the verifiable mainstream, so it should be used in a way that reflects its place within contemporary scholarship. --Ari (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Eusebeus, you are now in breach of WP:3RR. This is a serious policy infraction. If you continue you will be blocked. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC) - - PLEASE NOTE - - Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus as to the right way to improve the encyclopedia. Please try to work with your fellow editors.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned editor, Eusebeus does have some valid points. Edwards dominates the section on ModernBiblicalScholarship. The section ignores the scholarly reviews that contest Edwards book. It needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Let's work together in good faith to improve this section of the article.96.22.215.70 (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)96.22.215.70 (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right that since you did not initiate those edits, I am at risk of 3RR. Now, I simply don't have time to review your changes at the moment, but I will note that this article must reflect scholarly consensus, which still rejects Griesbachian (or neo-Griesbachian) readings of Matthew and holds to Marcan priority, the Two-Source Theory, and Q. I am not saying that other views shouldn't be mentioned but it must be explicitly clear that they are not the scholarly consensus at the moment. Imagine if an uninformed reader were to wade through this page - what would you want them to know about this document as it is reflected in the scholarly literature? That the Hebrew Gospel has displaced Mark? That's absurd, of course, and would just bring the page into disrepute. Please note that you misunderstand what NPOV means. It means not promoting one view over another, yes, but that does not mean giving equal weight (WP:UNDUE) to a theory that is contrary to longstanding consensus. Your appeal to NPOV here is idiosyncratic. Eusebeus (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite & Revision Issues

This is pretty much the most biased article I've ever read, and also form a minority view. In several respects I found the article biased, i.e. holding views unsubstantiated and contrary to those held in historic Christendom and modern Biblical scholarship. Also, it is very poorly written. Far too often, this article degenerates into actual advocacy in favour of the view of Jesus supposed by certain editors to be expressed in this Gospel. Notwithstanding the bad form, Eusebeus does have some valid points. What I had hoped to do is move this article beyond a "stub" as I believe the "Gospel of the Hebrews" to be an important topic. Ari (and yes you too Eusebius), let us work together to upgrade this article. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Issue of language

I removed the issue of language from the Lead, and dealt with in the body of the article. I did a lot of reading and came to the conclusion we can never know for certain in what language it was composed without a copy of the text. I tried to be fair to the Church Fathers as well as Edwards and Ehrman. Ari, thanks for the good work you are doing and feel free to "adjust" the language issue re NPOV. Also Eusebeus, thanks for the good will you are showing. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Section Review (Former Summary)

Thus the most recent scholarship now points to the fact that the Gospel of the Hebrews is not a compilation from the canonical Matthew, but is at least as old as, and probably older than, our synoptic gospels, and this is now maintained by Nicholson, Edwards, Hilgenfeld, Zahn, Harnack, Handmann, Kruger, McGiffert and Ropes. It is quite clear that the Hebrew Gospel in its earliest form contained a tradition independent of both Matthew and Luke, and represented a primitive stage of the collected evangelic narrative. This gospel is at least as old as, and probably older than, the synoptic gospels of our canon; that it issued from the common early gospel tradition, and so may be a source of, or at least a concomitant of, our canonical Matthew and Luke.

This passage (most recent scholarship) is supported by a reference to Schoemaker!! Enough said. I also like the idea that this conclusion is "now maintained" by people like Harnack. I didn't realise he had aged that well. Anyway, I assume inclusion of this material was a subtle hoax, given the language. Eusebeus (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I must say I see your point. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Extensive ReWrite

I think this article needs extensive work to accurately reflect the the state of modern scholarship from a NPOV.96.22.215.70 (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Base edition

Let's be respectful to those editors who have done a great deal of work on this article over the past six years. The problem is not Wikipedia editors, but a very controversial topic with strong differences in scholarly opinion. The official Catholic position is the Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible was written by Matthew, but many liberal scholars have called this into question. Then to have scholars like Edwards say that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the true gospel of Matthew is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Lets build upon the base edition deleting only where necessary.96.22.215.70 (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Lead Section

This has to be the worst Lead I Have ever read . . . Boring Boring Boring! Are we trying to drive people away from Wikipedia?

A good Lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.

Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article. The lead in this article should be about four paragraphs, be carefully sourced, and be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

The Lead is the most important section of any article, yet can be the most challenging to compose.96.22.215.70 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We cannot have a great lead until the article becomes great as the lead reflects the article. The article is lacking in many regards. --Ari (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific in your concerns about the lead, particularly sources. I have a whole pile more to support my ReWrite.96.22.215.70 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

After working towards an imperfect yet appropriate lead, it has been flooded with non-NPOV statements and advocacy. Articles are meant to be impartial and reflect mainstream scholarship. Sadly, this lead does not reflect it. Please work on it here to fix some of the issues.

The Gospel according to the Hebrews, commonly shortened to the Gospel of the Hebrews, is a lost gospel preserved in fragments within the writings of the Church Fathers. The Gospel of the the Hebrews was by far the most important gospel in Early Christianity, aside from the canonical four and the Early Church Fathers believed this Gospel to have been written by the Apostle Matthew (Matthaei Authenticum). Presently, some scholars are going so far as to argue that the Gospel of the Hebrews (along with Mark) formed the basis of later gospels

This ancient gospel, often referred to and quoted by the church fathers of the third and fourth century has become an object of renewed and painstaking study. This fact is due in large part to the light which the Gospel of the Hebrews sheds upon the question of the origin and development of our canonical gospels.

As there is no text or a copy of a text, Biblical Scholars have been unable to agree on important issues such as authenticity, composition or even its proper name. Scholars even argue that the Hebrew Gospel may not be Hebrew, holding that it was probably composed in Egypt in the second century and originally in Greek although others maintain it was composed in Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

--Ari (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also something to note, as the lead is meant to reflect the article, that is meant to reflect mainstream verifiable sources it doesn't need to be extensively referenced. --Ari (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I will look at your concerns, do some reading and get back to you.96.22.215.70 (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Let it reflect that anon did not discuss the many issues here and restored the contentious lead. This was reverted by another user. --Ari (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical background

One of the better sections of this article. Barrie Wilson, How Jesus Became Christian & B. Pick, The Talmud: What it is and What it Knows About Jesus and his Followers are fantastic and should be read in their entirety. I added Ehrman for balance 96.22.215.70 (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"It is has been suggested that Matthew belonged to this group on the basis of the Gospels and later Jewish Talmud."

Please read the sources cited96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Composition

Contested96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

M source

M source: Verified Sources - all were good - - more would be better. I liked the EazyLink citations. I did not find them cumbersome. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Patristic testimony

The name change is good96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Modern biblical scholarship

Maybe somebody should summarize the scholarship in this area over the past 100 years? 96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"In "the place of honor" that should be given "the phantom Q" we find a Hebrew usurper. [42][dubious – discuss][non-primary source needed][43][non-primary source needed]" I checked this out and it was from Edwards.96.22.215.70 (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Language of the Gospel

This is a section was written by me to deal with the language concerns that have been raised.96.22.215.70 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Selected Bibliography

I have restored the selected bibliography back to its original form in accordance with WP policy. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you, but there is no policy behind your attempted bibliography. --Ari (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So, instead of attacking other editors - discuss why we should remove an impartial bibliography and replace it with one arbitrarily rated by some editor (you??) Maybe you could point to the policy that personal rated lists are in accordance with. Do tell. --Ari (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Tidying of bibliography to reflect works actually used. Those being removed will be placed here as I am sure they have potential for article expansion or as further reading. (Feel free to update list):

• Barnes, A.S. (1905) The Gospel According to the Hebrews, JTS 6.
• Dunkerley, Roderic, (1927-28) The Gospel According to the Hebrews, ExpT 39, pp. 437-42, 490-95.
• Trimm, J.S. (2009) Gospel according to the Hebrews, Lulu Publishing. [Self published so it shouldn't be here anyway]
• Dodd, J. (1933) The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Search publishing company.
• Crump, F.C. (1939) The Gospel according to the Hebrews, Catholic University of America.

--Ari (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference Sources

I cleaned up the bibliography a few days ago. This included removing the arbitrary ranking of sources (not sure who did that, but since when were idiosyncratic recently published monographs that go against the mainstream 1 of 2 of the most important works?), some generally obsolete works and a self-published work.

The article is meant to reflect the mainstream opinion of scholarship. This is reflected in authoritative contemporary scholarly works. We are not here to push a specific point of view we have picked out as our favourite. Some authoritative works I have brought/will bring into the article are:

• Hans-Josef Klauck, Apocryphal gospels: an introduction.
• Philipp Vielhauer and George Strecker, "Jewish-Christian Gospels" in New Testament Apocrypha. (Vol 1: Gospels and Related Writings) ed. Wilhelm Scheemelcher and R. Mcl. Wilson
• Ron Cameron, "Gospel of the Hebrews" in Anchor Bible Dictionary.

We include non-mainstream theories, but we do not let out favour for them dictate the article. --Ari (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS

Non-"mainstream" theories, must not dictate this article. We must carefully follow WP:RS. This policy takes priority in the event of a contradiction with other Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views have been covered. (Mainstream source is a POV misnomer) The statement that there is Academic consensus or most scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor!

Substantive scholarly books that are secondary sources and focus on the on the topic should be used whenever possible. They should be published by reputable publishing houses with high academic standards. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used. If a book has been published by a reputable publishing house, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars. Nicholson and Edwards fall into this category and should form the basis of this article.

Other sources such as small books, pamphlets, articles, papers etc can be very helpful if reputable.

However care must be used if the source is not on topic. Often looking at the title will give you a clue. Klauck's Apocryphal gospels: an introduction is not as helpful as Lillie's Gospel According to the Hebrews. However Klauck would be an excellent basis for the Apocryphal gospels. However, material from either Kluck or Lillie is acceptable and should never be deleted from the article.

Questionable sources should be avoided. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you are talking about here, as you seem to contradict the policy quoted and my earlier statements. We use mainstream verifiable sources. Klauck's source is verifiable, mainstream and authoritative. We do not let idiosyncratic views, such as Edwards for example, dictate the focus of the article. --Ari (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The real question here is what prominence to give that scholarship which uses the Hebrew Gospel to displace Marcan priority and the two-source theory (using Q). Absent scholarly reviews that assess its credibility, it is not our place to provide space in the article, since until confirmed by scholarly attention, such views must be seen as wel outside the mainstream and hence verging on fringe. In this instance, RS and NPOV are perfectly consistent, and indeed easily applied given the maturity of the scholarly discourse surrounding the synoptic tradition in general, and this gospel in particular. Ari and I are likely to continue to remove any content that places undue weight on such idiosyncratic hypotheses that fall well outside the mainstream academic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read sources more carefully. Edwards does not "use the Hebrew Gospel to displace Marcan priority". Indeed Marcan priority is affirmed by Edwards. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style

There seems to be some confusion in this article. Although we italicise The Gospel of the Hebrews and other apocrypha such as the Gospel of Thomas we do not italicise canonical books.

• Gospel of Matthew = correct
• Gospel of Matthew = incorrect.

--Ari (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Setting the record straight (Revised)

POV pushing and Edwards

The material and citations that they claim is POV pushing was actually introduced to the article by "this edit." last year. (NOT BY ME)

They took umbrage at this reference citing WP:FRINGE and WP:RS.

I checked WP:FRINGE & WP:RS and found that they were totally wrong.

First, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views have been covered. ("Mainstream" source is a POV misnomer) The statement that there is Academic consensus or most scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor!

Secondly, substantive scholarly books that are secondary sources and focus on the topic should be used whenever possible. If, (like Edward's The Hebrew Gospel) the book has been published by a reputable publishing house with high academic standards Ipso Facto it has been vetted by one or more other scholars and is a RS.

I further pointed out that care must be used if the source is not on topic. Often looking at the title will be helpful. Klauck's Apocryphal gospels: an introduction is not as helpful as Lillie's Gospel According to the Hebrews. However Klauck would be an excellent basis for the Apocryphal gospels. However, material from either Klauck or Lillie is acceptable and should never be deleted from the article. NB - There is now a mass deletion of the Bibliography & a mass doctoring of the citations!

Well, from there we took a stable article that needed some scholarly input and turned it into an absolute mess. I can honestly say I have been acting in good faith. However, I must admit at times I allowed them to get to me, and for this I apologize.

Reset to the beginning of May

The consensus of these discussions was against reverting to the problematic "base" article.

For several years now, this has been a stable article . . . at least until this month. I suggest we reset this article to before the edit warring began, and that all of us take some time to cool down. Then we should work by consensus. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC) * * Postscript * * * Don't you think referring to me as anon/sockpuppet is rude and condescending. I believe you are guilty of sock offenses but I don't address you as the Three Meatpuppets!

• No, I think it is quite reasonable, actually, given the points Spigot has raised. As for me, you can also believe the earth is flat, but your assertions are simply unsustainable and without any evidentiary basis. You are obviously familiar with Wikipedia procedures, but are editing under an anon IP. That's grounds for thinking something is amiss. Also, you seem to have little specialist knowledge of this topic and your edits are rather uninformed - mostly the product of searches on google books without apparent knowledge of the field or awareness of the literature. So your participation here is a regrettable mixture of fractiousness and randomness. You spend a lot of time making accusations, but have not been able to provide any substantive rejoinder to the comments that have been made regarding Marcan priority or Q. In fact, you don't even seem to understand what Ari or I are even talking about. Instead you keep adding material (repeatedly) that is demonstrably false. This verges on vandalism and, at this point, you should probably be blocked for the pattern of your behaviour. Eusebeus (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are destroying the structure of this talk page, making it very hard to comprehend for new editors wishing to review the questions at hand. Please read WP:TALKPAGE to understand how to properly use this page. Thanks! On the topic of you being a sock puppet, it has been brought up as to why you have jumped in to this article and discussion with this being the only article you have edited and have begun to edit war with obvious previous knowledge of editing Wikipedia. Your edits reflect the edits of several other POV pushers. The question is, which one? SpigotMap 12:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Active effort has been made to bring this article into line with WP requirements. From the basic manual of style, to the refocus of the article on the verifiable mainstream. I don't quite understand why you are suggesting people cool down when it appears that you are the only one going off at everyone. If you do finally calm down please join the useful discussions that are waiting for you above. Ignoring the issues in order to attack other editors is quite useless in achieving consensus. --Ari (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Echoing the above, I would note that giving prominence to a theory that displaces Marcan priority and maintains that Q did not exist via neo-Griesbachian hypothesising is demonstrably contrary to the mainstream academic literature. That the article persisted as long as it did before these problems were addressed simply reflects the larger problems that persist in an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and highlights the importance of having vigilant and knowledgeable editors to redress this kind of misinformation. As for the overall contributions of our friendly anon, what can I say? He has not engaged the substance of the problem nor provided any substantive basis to justify why this article should be a platform for proclaiming backdoor Matthean priority. I fear that User:SpigotMap may be right. Eusebeus

I have reverted the recent anon/sockpuppet version since it inexplicably restored information which I have indicated above is likely a hoax as well as the fringe Griesbachian theories. There may be some stuff in there that is well worth retaining - but it doesn't say much for the overall contribution if obviously false information is being included. Eusebeus (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And anon has restored willy nilly these inaccuracies - unbelievable. Per WP:BRD, please do not introduce your changes as they have been contested (viz, by me). Instead, let's discuss them individually here on the talk page. Thanks. Eusebeus (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You add new comments to the bottom of the appropriate section that you wish to converse in. How hard is that to understand? SpigotMap 14:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Strange!? I wrote a comment here and it has been refactored away? Why?? 96.22.215.70 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

link to gospel

The first occurrence of "gospel" (in the first sentence) should link there. (I can't do that currently because the page is protected.) Joriki (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. There are a number of changed to be restored once unprotected (e.g. that horrible bibliography ranked by an editor (against scholarly opinion, might I add)). Will be sure to make sure this gets done. --Ari (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Radical POV Changes

Anon, you insist on making radical POV changes, including those that have been individually singled out and objected to by multiple editors in these talk discussions. Do explain these edits, and why we should breach wp:npov in order to have your favourite fringe theory dominate an article?

When we have done this, we can incrementally add the useful information with sources in a neutral fashion.--Ari (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to list some of the new issues your proposed version has. You seem to believe that there is a conspiracy theory by the academic (and WP editors) to suppress your personal opinion. For example, Hans-Josef Klauck makes a comment on the academic consensus that the Gospel of the Hebrews is not "Ur-Matthew". After setting up the scene that there is a conspiracy by the "Catholic" church to suppress your personal thesis Klauck's sentences is changed to: "Hans-Josef Klauck, Shenstone Donnelley Professor of New Testament in the University of Chicago Divinity School, an ordained Catholic priest and a member of the Franciscan order, writes that the Gospel of the Hebrews is apostate not to be equated with an Ur-Matthew'." The so-called "Mainline position" which is meant to dominate the article is turned into a POV conspiracy theory; then you jump into advocating a fringe hypothesis at the expense of where scholarship actually stands. This gets even more ridiculous with the thousand word footnotes on why you believe Edwards is the best thing since sliced bread. --Ari (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ari please stop this editing warring. Last month you were blocked for a week. Next time it will be longer. You may even be banned. What you say about Pick, Lillie and Edwards proves you have not even read the sources you deleted! 207.81.154.64 (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Deal with the points or leave the talk page. It is simple, yet you refuse to follow WP guidelines. You have received your final warning from an admin about your disruptive behaviour. --Ari (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The page has now been protected in effect to force us to discuss the changes. I exhort you once again to join the discussions. Thanks. --Ari (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again you are trying to mislead people about my position.

1. I am trying to join the discussions! But you keep refactoring, not only my comments but the whole talk page to make it read in your favour.
2. Your personal attacks and slurs are completely unfounded (see my talk page)
3. I don't believe in conspiracy theories. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

When you are ready to discuss the actual article and the objections raised above just go straight ahead. --Ari (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Toxic talk page

The Talk page has been infested with trolls, meat puppets & sock puppets. Personal attacks, rudeness and all round bad behavior has prevailed. Almost every Wikipedia policy has been broken and many of the edits have shown bad faith. POV pushing is taking place in the extreme. Refactoring has corrupted the talk page to such an extent that it is totally misleading. REWRITING your opponents arguments is poor form... some would even say dishonest. Drama Queens prevail while scholarly discussion has gone by the way. I know this sounds harsh but unfortunately it seems to be factually correct. We must change the tone. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree..especially when you disagree. And never never corrupt a talk page by refactoring your fellow editors comments even if they seem harsh or unfair. (Please restore talk page.)

Wikipedia is not a game or a competition where editors win or lose. Nor does it even have rules. It is people of good will coming together to help create a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Those sockpuppets and extreme POV pushing has all been by yourself as numerous editors have pointed out, so I'm not quite sure who you are meant to be attacking here. Hopefully, it is you seeing the gross error in your ways. I hope for you it is time to turn over a new leaf and actually discuss the issue. Note, your post above was not dealing with the issues. --Ari (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

More trolling by Problem User (talk)who has been blocked edit warring, personal attacks, reposting possibly copyrighted material etc. Part of his edit warring technique is to post false sockpuppet tags. Many editors get caught up in this trolling. I have decided to ignore it and let editors decide who is the real sockpuppet. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Hint : It is not me!

Once again, please deal with the issues of the talk page and stop falsely attacking editors. --Ari (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't falsely attack editors. The fact that you have been blocked for edit warring, personal attacks, reposting possibly copyrighted material etc. is in your block log. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• This stuff again. You have exhausted the patience of other editors, refused to respond to the points raised and behaved in a way that runs counter to our fundamental editing principles. You should be blocked. Eusebeus (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC) PS: The good news: editor has been blocked.

Apology

I do apologize for losing my temper and breaking the 3RR. I got angry at the personal attacks. I was wrong and should have assumed good faith. Let’s examine the issues in a polite way. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Cdw1952, 8 July 2010

{{editprotected}} In the section Composition under the title Patristic testimony in the third paragraph the sentence that reads "This solution to the is known as the Two-source hypothesis." should probably have the word "origin" inserted to read "This solution to the origin is known as the Two-source hypothesis." I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That worked well, Thanks. I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of Term "Heretical" Unacceptably Biased

The Ebionites and other Jewish-Christians were heretical only in the eyes of what eventually grew into the Catholic church. At the same time, those same proto-Catholics were heretical in the eyes of the Ebionites/Jewish Christians. It is completely subjective, and labeling one group by contrasting it to what is, by an accident of history, dominant today, is grossly biased. If whoever locked this page won't fix it themselves, they should unlock it and allow people with respect for historical objectivity to make proper edits. 76.113.64.124 (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone can't use the {{editprotected}} template to suggest specific edits to fix an issue, then they should not complain in an inflammatory manner. Spacexplosion^[talk] 20:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing inflammatory about the remarks of 76.113.64.124. It would be a good idea to end the personal attacks, deal with the issues politely. There has definitely been some Catholic POV pushing which is evident on the "unedited' talk page. 128.100.151.113 (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 65.102.242.174, 10 September 2010

Please correct the error in the following paragraph:

Allegations of deliberate suppression of the Hebrew Gospel

It has been claimed that the rivalry between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians brought about the intentional destruction of Hebrew texts. The doctrinal reason centered on Adoptionism. This theology was a minority Hebrew Christian belief that Jesus was merely human, being born of a physical union between Joseph and Mary.[79] He only became divine, by adoption at his baptism, being chosen because of his sinless devotion to the will of God.[80] The Adoptionist view may date back almost to the time of Jesus reconciling the claims that Jesus was the Son of God with the radical monotheism of Judaism.[81][page needed] Both the primary gospels i.e. (the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Mark) had similar adoptionist views of the incarnation, but the Gospel of the Hebrews was the most radical. Jesus was seen to be "adopted" at his baptism when the voice from heaven declared: "You are my beloved Son, this day have I begotten you" [82]

By the end of the Second century, Adoptionism was declared a heresy and it was formally rejected by the First Council of Nicaea (325), which wrote the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and identified Jesus as eternally begotten of the Virgin Mary. The Roman Emperor Constantine,[83] fostered the faith as an imperial religion.

Specifically, in the second to last line, The First Council of Nicaea (325) identified Jesus as eternally begotten of God, not the Virgin Mary.

Simply read the creed which is not copyrighted and make the correction please.

Thank you, 65.102.242.174 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No Problem. Any other constructive edits from anons? I am always glad to help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and Related Writings, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher

The trouble with Schneemelcher as a source is that he only devotes pp 172-178 to the subject. "It is not that he is wrong . . . it is just that he is not right". In other words his focus is not on topic. Nicholson, Parker, Pick and Edwards have made it the focus of their works. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Am only making edits as a general reader with one eye on where text and refs do not immediately seem to match up. On a related page (yes I know, talk should be there) is it really true that "The Authentic Gospel of Matthew, (Latin Matthaei Authenticum) is the hypothesis or belief that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the true gospel of Matthew." i.e. is that capitalized article term really a definite hypothesis in any source? Maybe I'm being picky. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you are not being picky. Authentic Gospel of Matthew makes it sound like it is another Jewish Gospel while authentic Gospel of Matthew make it sound like Jerome and others believed that it was the gospel written by Matthew. There is a lot of confusion on the topic. There is still confusion in my own mind. In addition to Nicholson, Parker, Pick and Edwards, Lillie is helpful. This article has been the victim of edit warring, therefore it is important that we go slowly seeking consensus before making changes. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good advice. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of Kessinger Publishing etc. reprints

Wikipedia:Citing_sources indicates references give the year of publication. i.e. 1881, 1882,etc. not 2009. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

When dealing with reprints or later publications it is best to give date of edition or reprint you are using and the date it was first published. This shows that it is still in print and can be verified. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I do not think I have deleted any of the reprint dates. But in the process of going through the forest and trying to put the real dates on these 1880s sources it's possible that 1 or 2 of the 2010 dates fell off. If so unfortunate, but Wikipedia:Citing_sources indicates the real year as the priority In ictu oculi (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice Arthur Lillie's book on croquet?In ictu oculi (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as the year and publisher of the edition that is in print are in the reference, I have no concern about you adding when it was first published. Verifiability is the central issue for me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert by Michael C Price

This is still the 'official' position of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical Churches. Deleted <Thus it can be fairly be said that this is the opinion of majority of Christians today>

Reason given by Mike: (Very OR! Do most Catholics reject condoms?) While, I agree that most "scholars" doubt that the "Gospel of Matthew" is authentic, even Bart D. Ehrman in his introduction to "Misquoting Jesus" HarperCollins, 2009 admits most "Christians" still accept the Gospel of Matthew as Authentic. Please consider restoring my edit and please respect the construction tag. Deleting everything that goes against our POV will just lead to edit warring. All sides must be fairly represented in this difficult area. I have looked at your work and you are a great editor. I welcome your help in re writing this article from a neutral point of view. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me help you:

I removed the last sentence of This is still the 'official' position of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical Churches. Thus it can be fairly be said that this is the opinion of majority of Christians today. since the views of a congregation do not usually coincide with any 'official' position. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I will assume good faith and let the deletion stay. Your belief is that the sources state that the majority of Christians believe that the Gospel of Matthew is NOT authentic? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk)

(Added sig') The deletion was not meant to offend, but any statement such as "Thus it can be said..." raises a red flag with editors generally. I don't doubt that this is the official position of most churches, but it is a big stretch to project the offical stance onto their followers - most of whom will be so apathetic regarding their beliefs that they can hardly be said to believe anything. At least that is the impression I get from the UK, where most people are nominally CoE but only have the vaguest of notions about what they actually believe. (I would be surprised if most church-goers could actually name the four synoptic gospels, let alone profess belief in them.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope we have been fair to those who believe that the Gospel of Matthew was an eyewitness account written by St Matthew. Now I am about to shift into the scholarship of Ehrman et al. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Random thoughts

The article is continually confusing what the Church Fathers thought and what we "know" today. For instance the sentence:

Because of the writings of the Church Fathers we know a great deal about Matthew's gospel. It was composed in Hebrew

is flatly contradicted elsewhere, where we are told it may have been composed in Aramaic or Greek. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe it is what the Church fathers "knew" and what we "think". Remember the Church fathers actually had a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews and we do not! Humbling but true, Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We can't say X is true and then, say the opposite. Articles are meant to explain, not confuse. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I do not think the way you are phrasing this is constructive. I do not know if this is just what I perceive to be sloppy phrasing, or a substantive difference. First of all, there is no point in any discussion about what position is "true". Wikipedia is not about truth or being right, and in my experience even wondering what is "true" leads to nonconstructive, if not disruptive edits, or wasted talk or in the case of this article massive edit warring. It is not that you are wrong, it is simply that you are not right. Don't get me wrong. I agree with you, indeed you are noble and learned but that is the problem. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I put "know" in quotes to indicate precisely the point you're making here. But that point seems lost in the article at times. I can't correct all the points in the article because I can't read your mind. But if by "X" you mean the "the Church Fathers believed X" then you will just have to say it, but not in the form: "the Church Fathers knew a lot. X" where "X" might be "Matthew was composed in Hebrew", for example. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A NPOV article

The way we should approach this difficult topic and write a NPOV article is:

1. Fully and fairly present the scholarship of "the Church and conservative scholars" but fully referenced.
2. Then present why "critical scholars" believes this position is is not supported by the evidence.
3. Any other referenced scholarship should be added.
4. Try to find sources that fairly present all views. Take a broader, fuller view.

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. - Ret.Prof (talk)

I agree. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As this topic is so very difficult, I think it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source and a Google Link. Also references should be varied ie old, new, conservative, liberal, etc in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also keeping good humour and not deleting material until after a discussion would be helpful. By the way I now agree with your deletion. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking a break as I need to do more reading on this difficult topic. It is confusing to say the least. Trying to get it right is not easy - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts - it is quite an interesting and informative article to read. Don't take my minor stylistic criticisms too seriously; I'm generally sympathetic to your approach and contributions here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. The fact is I am an old guy who has been temporary overwhelmed by the topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew Gospel

There is a theory started by Jerome that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is the Authentic Gospel of Matthew and it was an eyewitness account of the life and teachings of a Jewish rabbi named Jesus. This Gospel was discarded by the Church as Christianity moved away from its Jewish roots and developed the Gentile doctrines of the Virgin Birth etc. I am now reading through the massive amount of material on this topic which includes:

1. ^ First Clement,
2. ^ Didache,
3. ^ Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans
4. ^ Polycarp to the Philippians
5. ^ Barnabas,
6. ^ Justin, Dialogue,
7. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies
8. ^ Tertullian, On Prayer 26
9. ^ Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
10. ^ Origen,
11. ^ Eusebius, Theophany on Matthew
12. ^ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
13. ^ Didymus, Commentary on Psalm
14. ^ Epiphanius, Panarion
15. ^ Jerome, On Psalm 135
16. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah
17. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel
18. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Micah
19. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
20. ^ Jerome’s Letter to Damascus 20 on Matthew 21.9
21. ^ Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia
22. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians
23. ^ Jerome, Against Pelagius
24. ^ Jerome, On Illustrious Men,
25. ^ Pick Bernhard, Paralipomena: Remains of Gospels and Sayings of Christ BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009 p.31
26. ^ Sabine Baring-gould, The Lost And Hostile Gospels, Nabu Press, 2010. p 122 - 129
27. ^ Waite Burlingame, History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred, BiblioBazaarPub, 2009. p 278
28. ^ Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005. pp 111 - 134
29. ^ "Artifact Record Details: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932: Letter, Thaius to Tigrius (Fragment)". Spurlock Museum at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2001. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/search/details.php?a=1914.21.0010. Retrieved 30 May 2007. "Artifact of the Month: Letter from Thaius to Tirius, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932". Spurlock Museum. 2002. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/collections/artifact/oxyrhynchus.html. Retrieved 30 May 2007.
30. ^ S. Kent Brown comments on the text of Oxyrhynchus 840 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 1000
31. ^ Discourse on Maria Theotokos by Cyril 12A
32. ^ Grabe, Johann Ernst - Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Seculi Post Christum natum
33. ^ Kitto, John - A cyclopædia of Biblical literature.
34. ^ von Harnack, Adolf - Texte und untersuchungen zur geschichte der
35. ^ Weber, Christian Friedrich - Neue Untersuchung über das Alter und Ansehen des Evangeliums.
36. ^ Boyce, William Binnington - The higher criticism and the Bible.
37. ^ Archibald Hamilton Charteris, Johannes Kirchhofer - Canonicity: a collection of early testimonies :to the canonical books of the New Testament.
38. ^Handmann, Rudolf - Das Hebräer-Evangelium.
39. ^ Nicholson, Edward Byron - The Gospel According to the Hebrews.
40. ^Pierson Parker - A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews".
41. ^ Farmer, William - The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
42. ^Walter Richard Cassels - Supernatural Religion.
43. ^Edwards, J.R. - The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition.

I must confess to being somewhat overwhelmed, but I have access to a great Seminary library as well as access to libraries across America via inter library loans etc. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have spent some time reading about the language issue. Although there is agreement that the Gospel of the Hebrews existed in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, there is major scholarly disagreement about the language of composition. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edits:

Language of the Gospel

Scholarship generally held that the Gospel of the Hebrews was probably written in Greek. However some recent scholarship has seriously challenged this position. It has been argued that the historical evidence strongly supports the gospel being composed in Hebrew. Eleven ancient witnesses specify that this Gospel was written in Hebrew letters including:

• Epiphanius - They too accept Matthew's gospel, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the "Gospel of the Hebrews", for in truth Matthew alone in the New Testament expounded and declared the gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script.

• Origen - The very first gospel to be written was by Matthew, once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ. Matthew published it for the converts from Judaism and composed it in Hebrew letters.

• Jerome - In the "Gospel of the Hebrews", written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes ...

One possible reason for the confusion, were the Greek and Latin translations circulating in Ancient times. As modern scholars have no extant text to study, it is difficult to work back to the original language of composition. The following show that there were two different Greek translations and one Latin translation.

• Jerome wrote, And whoever accepts the Gospel circulating under the title "Gospel of the Hebrews" which we most recently translated.

• Jerome also said, In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call the Authentic Gospel of Matthew ...

• Jerome also said, The "Gospel called of the Hebrews", recently translated by me into Greek and Latin ... Also, In this last he bore witness to the Gospel which I have recently translated.

• Jerome explained, Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it.

In any event, the scholarly dispute is far from being resolved, thus the original language of composition of the Gospel of the Hebrews remains uncertain.

Language such as "almost all scholars agree .... and others believe ...." is confusing. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I am still having trouble with the "Reflist" can you fix? - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed my "Reflist" by archiving earlier discussions. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If nobody has any serious concerns I will add my proposed edit tomorrow. Thanks for the help Michael. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ret.Prof, I have a couple of concerns:

"It has been argued that the historical evidence strongly supports the gospel being composed in Hebrew."

Which scholars argue this?

Also which translation are the quotes from Jerome taken from?

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I will put my proposed edits on hold until we get consensus. Please do the same. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) -PS- I do not see any problem with your edits, but others may. We do not want to repeat the sorry history of this article

Merge

I have been reading through the material on the Gospel of the Hebrews as well as the Jewish Gospels. The resulting merged article would be too long and too confused to be viable. However you are right about the overlap. I think the best way to deal with the problem is to remove some of the overlap without (provoking an edit war). Probably easier said than done. Thanks for taking the time to work in this difficult area. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably, see comment on

Main page: Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels

In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of References

Re:[this deletion] Ret.Prof, I'm afraid I have to ask why did you delete all the added references, correct publication years, etc? Shouldn't Wikipedia readers have the right to know that many of the Google-booked cheap reprints being used repeatedly as references in these articles are over 100 years old? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you have too say. I suspect that you will have no trouble getting consensus for adding dates. You already have me on board for adding dates. But please be patient and let us work together. I am supportive of your work. All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC) PS I have purchased some of the reprints and they are not cheap.

Ret.Prof. My time is valuable, when I spend 3 hours correcting laughably bad references I do not expect someone, no matter how much of an enthusiast they are on the given subject to think their enthusiasm gives them the right to do wholesale deletes. If you have an improvement for of the references, then please do what other uses do and edit Thank you In ictu oculi (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have temporarily stopped editing

I have temporarily stopped editing as, edit war has again resumed. Ictu oculi is breach of WP:3RR, is again making dramatic statements ie "laughably bad references" and deleted my comment about Consenus. Ret.Prof (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If I was the one making wholesale deletes of other editors contributions, and I failed to give a reason, or answer a question as to why, I would not cry "edit war" when the other editor then restored the edits I had failed to give a reason for my bulk deletion. I still see no factual reason for your large delete so it is restored. Feel free to do as other editors and edit.

As regards deleting your comment about consensus, I did not, please compare here I merely removed your == line between my question. A question which remains. Why do did you delete 3 hours of clean up of the references?

Anyway, the field is yours; I have six days work ahead. Please do not delete any more factual data from references. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I may have overreacted. I had just finished reading "the unedited talk page". Sorry - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, please carry on editing as before. Good job on the merge. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A Proposal

I suggest the way we should approach this difficult topic and write a NPOV article is:

1. Fully and fairly present the scholarship of "the Church and conservative scholars" but fully referenced.
2. Then present why "critical scholars" believes this position is not supported by the evidence.
3. Any other referenced scholarship should be added.
4. Try to find sources that fairly present all views. Take a broader, fuller view.

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. As this topic is so very difficult, I think it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source and a Google Link. Also references should be varied ie old, new, conservative, liberal, etc in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also keeping good humour and not editing material until after consensus is reached is important.

• As there are many, many issues that are interrelated to the Hebrew Gospel and the Jewish Gospels we take them one at a time.

• When consensus is reached, we publish our edit and move on to the next topic.

• We find an unbiased Admin. to help us though the rough patches.

• I would suggest AndrewC. He has sorted me out several times but always in polite and professional manner. He has a knowledge of the topic and is one of the best Admins at Wikipedia. This would also discourage a return of the "sock puppets".

• Proposed agenda

1) Problems with references ie "laughable bad ref",

2) Language of composition,

3) Paralipomena,

4) Gheb numbering.

I hope this proposal addresses your concerns. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

restored text reverted by 200.55.128.88 (talk)

Cannot see any reason for this revert. The Gospel does not even mention the virgin birth. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof you have this which was a previous reversion here by User talk:200.55.128.88. On what grounds did you revert this? The content as left is now incorrect and unsourced. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted disruptive edit

Please stop your disruptive editing and work toward building consensus on the talk page. Your continued edit warring is not helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

RetProf. This is not edit warring, since these are not your edits, -- unless you weren't signed in -- and you are not in a position to issue warnings. As it stands this article is primarily OR, NPOV, and mainstream academic content is deeply buried or obscured. This article requires OR and NPOV labels at the absolute minimum. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

text you have restored It is controversial because it casts doubt upon the Virgin Birth and other teachings of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. It is also said to be written by Matthew (Authentic Gospel of Matthew or Latin: Matthaei Authenticum) and is the only one of the Jewish Gospels to be included in the Early Church Catalogs. It is subject to heated and ongoing scholarly debate.[3][4] [5][6] text you have deleted Irenaeus states that some of the Ebionites produced their own Gospel from Gospel of Matthew, deleting the virgin birth. The surviving fragments of the "Gospel of the Hebrews" do not include, but also do not challenge, the Virgin Birth.

Okay, is what you restored true? Please discuss In ictu oculi (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem very agitated. Your tag spam, comments and edits are inappropriate. In fact you are scaring me a little. Please calm down. This is a difficult topic and we should work together to build consensus. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Please first propose your edits on the talk page as all of us are now doing. Generally you do good work but today has not been one of your better days. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof, please read the above.

I'm not remotely agitated. I'm not the one rushing around deleting references to modern scholarship. You're clearly dead set on having your/Nicholson's/Edward's view as the only view on these articles and it's time to find some more objective editors to contribute. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Some non-enthusiast mainstream editors are needed here to allow that e.g. the mainstream Schneemelcher numbering system and majority point of view needs to take precedence over Melissa from the Bangkok internet cafe and other enthusiastic OR NPOV contributions:

• Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels
• Talk:Gospel of the Nazarenes
• Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites
• Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews

In ictu oculi (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to "out" the identity of a an editor because you do not like her numbering is very inappropriate. It is not my intention to upset you. Maybe we should take a break and cool down a little Also, you forgot to sign your comment. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Am I "upset" that 4 hours work gets reversed by yourself for no given reason? No, I just am asking you to explain your deletions. Re the originator of the invented GHeb numbering, I felt it worth checking history to establish that such was the result of past controversy on the page, not the own contribution of any of the current editors, before I wasted my time proposing that a known academic numbering be used. Re. "my" POV, I actually don't have a POV, or didn't, until coming across these pages I was vaguely under the impression that GHeb GE GN were more or less the same book. It was only correcting the dates on these Bibliobazaar sources which made me aware of the gap between what editors on these 4 articles have been doing and what Schneemelcher etc. say. The list below is overweight with fringe 19thC sources incorrectly dated, and sources that don't support Edwards' (2009) POV, which he is perfectly entitled to, but his own publisher describes as "controversial". But that said, fine, I have no problem with Edwards' view being given 80% or 90% of the article if that's what it takes, but the majority academic view and sources should be allowed a mention.... not so unreasonable you'd think? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not just Nicholson and Edwards but all of the following that go against your POV.

• First Clement,
• Didache,
• Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans
• Polycarp to the Philippians
• Barnabas,
• Justin, Dialogue,
• Irenaeus, Against Heresies
• Tertullian, On Prayer 26
• Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
• Origen,
• Eusebius, Theophany on Matthew
• Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
• Didymus, Commentary on Psalm
• Epiphanius, Panarion
• Jerome, On Psalm 135
• Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah
• Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel
• Jerome, Commentary on Micah
• Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
• Jerome’s Letter to Damascus 20 on Matthew 21.9
• Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia
• Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians
• Jerome, Against Pelagius
• Jerome, On Illustrious Men,
• Pick Bernhard, Paralipomena: Remains of Gospels and Sayings of Christ BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009
• Sabine Baring-gould, The Lost And Hostile Gospels, Nabu Press, 2010.
• Waite Burlingame, History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred, BiblioBazaarPub, 2009. p 278
• Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005.
• "Artifact Record Details: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932: Letter, Thaius to Tigrius (Fragment)". Spurlock Museum at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2001. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/search/details.php?a=1914.21.0010. Retrieved 30 May 2007. "Artifact of the Month: Letter from Thaius to Tirius, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932". Spurlock Museum. 2002. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/collections/artifact/oxyrhynchus.html. Retrieved 30 May 2007.
• S. Kent Brown comments on the text of Oxyrhynchus 840 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5,
• Discourse on Maria Theotokos by Cyril 12A
• Grabe, Johann Ernst - Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Seculi Post Christum natum
• Kitto, John - A cyclopædia of Biblical literature.
• von Harnack, Adolf - Texte und untersuchungen zur geschichte der
• Weber, Christian Friedrich - Neue Untersuchung über das Alter und Ansehen des Evangeliums.
• Boyce, William Binnington - The higher criticism and the Bible.
• Archibald Hamilton Charteris, Johannes Kirchhofer - Canonicity: a collection of early testimonies :to the canonical books of the New Testament.
• Handmann, Rudolf - Das Hebräer-Evangelium.
• Pick, Bernhard. The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005
• Nicholson, Edward Byron - The Gospel According to the Hebrews.
• Pierson Parker - A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews".
• Farmer, William - The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
• Schoemaker, W. R. - The Gospel According to the Hebrews. The University of Chicago Press.
• Walter Richard Cassels - Supernatural Religion.
• Edwards, J.R. - The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition, 2009.
• Casey, Maurice - Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, 2010

The work of these scholars over the years can be summed up as follows:

1. Occam's razor

In a topic where there are many strange ideas ranging from "Jesus as alien being" to "Jesus as a mythical God", Occam's razor states the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one. In other words, Jesus was probably a 'Jewish' rabbi and one of his followers wrote some 'stuff' about him in the 'local dialect'.

2. Hebrew Gospel Tradition 75/12

The simplest explanation is also supported by the historical evidence. 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

3. Gospel of the Ebionites 0/0

During the formative years of Early Christianity 0 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Gospel of the Ebionites in circulation. Also it is listed in 0 ancient catalogs. Indeed there is no historical evidence from either Christian or non Christian sources that the Ebionites ever composed a gospel. The Church Fathers all state that the Ebionites only used one gospel which was composed by Matthew in Hebrew and was referred to by "most people" as the Authentic Gospel of Matthew or less frequently the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Therefore Schneemelcher's "imaginary" Gospel of the Ebionites is a non existent gospel or as Edwards politely puts it a scholarly neologism

Schneemelcher's "numbering" has also been weighed, measured and found wanting for the following reasons.

1. It is based on scholarly neologisms
2. Schneemelcher numbers are incomplete as he only cites the "fragments" as opposed to the more extensive Hebrew "paralipomena".

Finally, I may have been a little hard Schneemelcher, as

• Wilson who translated the 1959 work into English did a poor job.
• His book was not meant to be a study of this topic but a broad survey of the non canonical gospels, of which his entry on this topic only consisted of a few pages.
• Schneemelcher himself admits the weakness of his position when he says, "Thus the number of Jewish Gospels -- whether there be one, two or three such gospels -- is uncertain, the identification of the several fragments is also uncertain and, finally the character and the relationship to one another of the several Jewish gospels is uncertain." Google Link

Therefore I strongly oppose any change to the present numbering. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the above - although I appreciate your sincerity and also the subject clearly means more to you than myself - is largely OR. The standard academic numbering should be used, not some invented system reflecting some unpublished individual's pet theory. Wikipedia isn't a blog, and if someone wants their theories on a blog, then they should get a blog. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Compromise

I do agree that it would be a mistake to renew the old edit war between User:-Ril- and User:Melissadolbeer of six years ago (or for that matter six months ago). Therefore I am going to delete the numbering that you object to. From now on let us work for consensus in good faith! I would suggest reading Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth to gain an interesting perspective of the challenges that confront us. Truly wishing you all the best in your editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello RetProf. The above appears to be a duplicated comment related to Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels so I have replied to the above there. As regards here deletions of mainstream academic sources are still holding. Why? Why should Wikipedia readers not be allowed to read what the standard works on the New Testament Apocrypha say? Specifically, why cannot this be said:

Modern scholarship, following the standard edition, Schneemelcher New Testament Apocrypha Vol.I,Vol.1 generally ascribes the title Gospel of the Hebrews to one of three sub-sets of citations and fragments called the Jewish-Christian Gospels. The Gospel of the Hebrews subset consists of seven verses (conventionally numbered GHeb-1 to GHeb-7) The other two sub-sets are called the Gospel of the Nazoreans, consisting of citations and marginal notes by Jerome and others (GN-1 to GN-36) and the Gospel of the Ebionites, consisting of seven citations by Epiphanius (GE-1 to GE-7)

I cannot see any reason to delete this. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I should also say that I have zero interest in getting involved in an "edit war", this isn't even an interesting subject. It is just in passing evident that the articles represent minority/fringe views, not what is found in the standard works on the actual texts.In ictu oculi (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting our proposed edits on the talk page would be good. Then after good natured and hopefully scholarly debate, we reach consensus and post edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Then by all means please go ahead. Start here:

Modern scholarship, following the standard edition, Schneemelcher New Testament Apocrypha Vol.I,Vol.1 generally ascribes the title Gospel of the Hebrews to one of three sub-sets of citations and fragments called the Jewish-Christian Gospels. The Gospel of the Hebrews subset consists of seven verses (conventionally numbered GHeb-1 to GHeb-7) The other two sub-sets are called the Gospel of the Nazoreans, consisting of citations and marginal notes by Jerome and others (GN-1 to GN-36) and the Gospel of the Ebionites, consisting of seven citations by Epiphanius (GE-1 to GE-7)

What is the problem with anything in this paragraph? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear RetProf. What is the problem with anything in this paragraph? Wikipedia readers should be able to see clearly what Gospel of the Hebrews means in modern SBL type works. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually have several concerns. However, it will take a day or so for me to search for reliable source to back up my position. Could you help me by finding a reliable source that asserts Schneemelcher is the "standard edition", or that his is the "standard academic numbering" and clarify what standard means. Also a link useful. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ret Prof

With respect I think you should first restore your deletions, and then go and do study to justify them. Re your questions:

Schneemelcher's standard ...... well don't you own a copy? Doesn't everyone editing these pages?

GHeb 2, 3, 4 etc.Robert Joseph Miller - 1994, Joy Palachuvattil - 2002, Craig A. Evans - 1996 Aquila H. I. Lee - 2005 Robert Walter Funk - 1985 & 1998- etc. These are all SBL authors. Not to mention journals... Wheras Melissa of Bangkok's numbering was purely his/her own invention. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)