Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

New merge tag

Citing "I'm going to wait a few more days for comments" is no substitute for notifying. The issue is not so much a merge issue however, the real issue is the recreation, after deletion, of what can only be described as a large chunk of POV by Ret.Prof at the merge from article. The solution perhaps would be simply to re-delete the from article, as if there is any sourced content it would already be here. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I left a message on User talk:Calliopejen1 who added the merge tag. Talk Revision as of 18:55, 15 November 2012 (edit) (another new article on this subject. not sure if it's a POV fork or what)

By the look of it just a passing editor with no axe to grind but common sense..

The 1st deletion of the fork was October 2010. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

An AfD is a completely different issue than a proposal to merge. Btw, why is it that you couldn't be bothered to respond for two months, and instead, you waited until I closed the discussion? Ignocrates (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

One could ask the same sort of question regarding how someone who might be seen as himself perhaps having a possible POV issue regarding the subject commented on the topic in support, apparently did nothing to indicate to anyone that the discussion was taking place, and then, despite having himself been one of only two people involved in the discussion, saw fit to close it themselves. However, such possible attempts at insinuating misconduct on the parts of others involve really in no way contribute anything to the discussion of the topic of this section itself, and can not unreasonably be seen as a possible attempt at misdirection from the major subject under discussion, that other article itself.

I also have to agree that, with all due respect to the editors involved, the article suggested to be merged into this one possesses several rather obvious problems in such areas as saying "scholars agree" without specific citations to support such statements, which probably should not be made in wikipedia's voice anyway, containing whole sections which have little if anything to do with the subject directly, and, in general, not doing a very good job at all of actually discussing the topic of the article itself. That article, as it stands, is really, rather a bit of a mess. I also have some serious questions regarding whether it meets basic notability criteria, and, unfortunately, the rather difficult, one might even say haphazard, construction of that article does nothing to make it any easier to determine whether it does or not. So, on that basis, I can see how it might be possible to think that deletion would be a reasonable option, given the difficulty one has with that article determining what content and sources actually directly relate to the topic itself. I believe it would be, under the circumstances, quite reasonable to add notices to the talk pages of the Bible and Christianity WikiProjects, and possibly others as well, to get a broader discussion of this matter which does not seem to have occurred yet John Carter (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

As I stated on Doug's talk page, I took no position either for or against a merge or deletion, so stop putting words in my mouth. "No Merge" was simply maintaining the status quo. Ignocrates (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that the past is water under the bridge, can we have a clear set of reasons why these two gospels are close enough or distant enough to deserve separate pages or not. That needs clarification via WP:RS in any case, regardless of the merge tag. History2007 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, if the proposal to merge is to be made, it would be very helpful if the "Discuss" link in the merge tag linked directly to the area in which the discussion is taking place, given that the talk page as it stands seems to have only one section regarding the possible merge, which has already been marked as closed. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yo can just fix it I guess, and mention it on the relev proj page as well. History2007 (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I could, but I think it would make sense if we knew whether IIO thought this section would be the discussion regarding the proposed merge, or whether he wants to start it as a separate section, or whether he wants to just reopen the discussion above. And I think he is probably the best person to do that. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi John,

Looking a WP:MERGE procedurally there are 2 options. Given that the discussion was just Ovadyah and RetProf, and they didn't even notify the pass-by copyeditor User talk:Calliopejen1 who added the merge tag, there's a case for reopening the discussion, but one could just as easily add "Merge Proposal 2" or "Merge Proposal Reopened" to the banner. Whatever Ovadyah likes out of those 3 options is fine by me. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested in an open and transparent process here. You can tag it anyway you like. Ignocrates (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Going beyond the procedural nicety. What if anything in Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel is not either duplication of Gospel of the Hebrews or OR/Fringe? What in that article is substantial sourced enough to be merged? This is the lead. If we remove what is unsourced and unsourceable, the lead, I believe, would look like this:

The Hebrew Gospel, sometimes called the Gospel according to the Hebrews but more commonly referred to as Matthaei Authenticum, or the Authentic Gospel of Matthew, is a lost gospel preserved within the writings of the Church Fathers. This non-canonical gospel gives an account of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. It details his story from the events of his baptism to his resurrection. Although scholars agree that the gospels found in the New Testament were composed in Koine Greek, many now argue that there was a gospel written in Hebrew behind the canonical Gospels. The Hebrew Gospel tradition is both controversial and the subject of ongoing scholarly debate.

As far as James R. Edwards, who is not widely taken seriously, he considers that the unique elements of Gospel of Luke ("Special Luke", see graphic in Wikipedia article Synoptic Gospels and L source) can be explained by Luke having used a Hebrew source, which Edwards identifies as a lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. How does that support the existence of this Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article? And for comparison, what article do we go to in, say, the Anchor Bible Dictionary or another reference source with manifold articles to act as parallel to Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on your own comments only, I would have to say that, so far as I can tell, the inclusion of Edwards, and only Edwards, would in no way justify a separate article on a theory which is, apparently, virtually unique to him. If other sources discuss that theory at some length, even if only to refute it?, then that might provide the basis for an article, provided that the content accurately reflects the discussion in academic journals or other sources which discuss it. Even then, though, unless other individuals have taken up the theory on their own, I would have very serious trouble believing that the content might not better be placed in an article on either the specific books Edwards proposes the theories in, or perhaps the article on the author himself. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not totally unique. There have been occasional attempts to fit the Gospel of the Hebrews as an origin of Luke or Matthew before, but the mainstream view is already in the Gospel of the Hebrews article I think. In any case a review of Edward's book http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/7382_8043.pdf doesn't show his theory covering all that is in the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Your response raises questions regarding possible SYNTH then in any event, unless those other attempts somehow directly relate to this one. Perhaps the best way to go might be to start a request for comment on the subject of how to deal with that article, leaving messages not only on the Christianity, Bible, and Judaism projects, but also the Fringe theories noticeboard, RS noticeboard, and whichever deals directly with SYNTH issues. John Carter (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That as well. Problem No.1 though WP:DUPLICATE There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope. The Gospel of the Hebrews is only 7 loose verses. Does it really need 2x articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't quite a duplicate, at least theoretically. Having said that, it really does at this point look very much like a POV fork to lend credibility to a theory which has received little attention, and, apparently, even less support. But the application of FRINGE and WEIGHT is probably the biggest issue, and that is probably what most needs addressing. Personally, I doubt these apparently disparate theories merit more than a bit of a passing mention in the main article, and no separate article, but I would very much welcome having the input of people from the FT noticeboard, and possibly elsewhere, as I indicated, so that, if nothing else, individuals who choose to disagree about the outcome cannot ascribe it to alleged bias of a rather small group of others. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

John, good point, no its more than just duplicate, there are several things in the Fork going on at once. Not familiar with FT noticeboard, but if you think beneficial, and if you think that the difference between lost pre-synoptic traditions and the Gospel of the Hebrews actually being those lost pre-synoptic traditions isn't too obscure for FT noticeboard then please, yes, write a short note there. Full support. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You can of course try FTN, but have you seen the mess there? As of Dec 2012 WMF has had a coordinated charm offensive of TV appearances, Op-ed pieces etc. that has attracted every lunatic on earth (and some not on earth). There is an article which says you can heal yourself by pressing your head... They are busy over there... Some are pressing their heads... History2007 (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the original "Authentic Matthew" deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authentic Matthew (inconcluded) way back in 2005. Then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canonical gospels Oct 2011. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, utter confusion in all the past discussions. I think most people will find it hard to go through all the past history of these pages, so it would be best to just focus on what there is now and forget the past. Your main tweet that "this is just 7 loose verses and does not deserve 7 years of discussion" is the key point in my view. History2007 (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR and reverts

An IP has done a couple of reverts now. So let discussion begin. Does this table appear in any of the sources cited, or is it obtained by combining them? If it is a combination, it is WP:SYNTHESIS, of course. And given that there are 3 sources, it is not in any one of them, of course. Hence it has been synthesized from the three sources. History2007 (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Having multiple sources does not imply synthesis. A very large number of statements in Wikipedia are attributed to multiple sources. (edit by IP in Oregon)

No. The only link they had was to a non WP:RS website which claimed those sources as their own jambalaya. That is an absolute no-no. That was why you were reverted by multiple editors. History2007 (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

We had multiple sources. "Source" is not identical to "link." The sources are reliable. Please pay attention to what is being said to you. (edit by IP in Oregon)

Moi? Pay attention? What is the full title of Throckmorton's book used as a source? It is "Gospel parallels: a synopsis of the first three Gospels". Throckmorton only deals with 3 gospels. The table had more than 3 columns (one of which is John), so other items went beyond Throckmorton which does not address John. Or am I not paying attention? And a non-RS website that claims that is no good anyway. Enough said. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right. The problem is your honesty, not your attention. The given sources are: "The material in the chart is from Gospel Parallels by B. H. Throckmorton, The Five Gospels by R. W. Funk, The Gospel According to the Hebrews by Nicholson (1879) and The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition by J. R. Edwards." (edit by IP in Oregon)

You are wrong of course. Trust me, you will not get far on this. Trust me on that. History2007 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS unfortunately. The table, no matter how creative, belongs is a sandbox. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking back I see that the table was added by RetProf in 2010 so it has been there some time, but all the same it has been tagged as OR for some time. An earlier, unrelated, listing of unrelated reconstruction of a lost Gospel by Melissadollbeer was in article from 2005 to 2010ish. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In order to say it is synthesis, you you need to have read the sources. THere is no way to maintain that the material is not in the sources when you haven't read the sources. Have you read the sources? THe link is not the sources. The sources are cited, and most of them are reliable. Some, like RW Funk, are used in Jesus articles all over Wikiedia--no links at all. 24.21.144.62 (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, get a life. Funk's book is about 5 gospels, the 5th being Thomas not this one. And Edwards does not include this chart for sure. Nicholson is too old to use anyway, but also does not include the table. And of course Throckmorton does not either. The table is synthesis. Period. You are wasting your time and mine. History2007 (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As per History2007 - p528 of Funk et al's The Five Gospels' (and the title refers to G.Thomas if anything) does in passing make one citation from Jerome of the Gospel of the Nazarenes, but there is of course no such table. What would be appropriate at this point is to take it to a sandbox. Which is still accessible to everyone. But that fifth column here is WP:SYNTHESIS In ictu oculi (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's idiotic. A table of claims that are in fact made in sources is not "synthesis" merely because no one source includes the table. Such a table is a way of presenting sourced claims, not a synthesis. You might as well insist that a paragraph summarizing information from a variety of sources is "synthesis" and therefore we aren't allowed to summarize a variety of sources. Before you come off as self-righteous with comments like "ah, get a life" bother to learn the meaning of the policies you're throwing around. You are obviously religiously biased here. Get a life. 24.21.144.62 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not following all of the concerns herein expressed.

WP:SYNTHESIS says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." History2007, can you give us an example conclusion that is stated or implied (in the table of the nameless editor), that are not (or may not be) in any of the sources. tahc ^chat 21:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

God, I wish I had never looked at this page. But since you are a very nice guy I will answer this one. Take the row on Forgiveness: it relates Matthew and Luke to the last column, and says that it is assumed in John, but it is all primary sourced and not in any of the sources at one go. Take the row on Miracles, where did the "more credible" assertion come from? Take the row on Jesus' theology, labelled as "1st century liberal Judaism"... Is that so? Which source said that? Do all sources agree on that? It is all synthesis. And one IP can eat up time on it for ever... I will stop now, and not answer any more. You guys decide it. History2007 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you PLEASE answer the question? How do you know this:

• Take the row on Forgiveness: it relates Matthew and Luke to the last column, and says that it is assumed in John, but it is all primary sourced and not in any of the sources at one go.
• Take the row on Jesus' theology, labelled as "1st century liberal Judaism"... Is that so? Which source said that? So, what are you saying? That you know no source said that? Or that you don't know which (if any) source said that?

You seem unable to grasp that it is not synthesis just because you haven't read the sources and don't know what they say.

[User:140.211.82.5]] (User talk:140.211.82.5) 22:56, 14 January 2013‎

There is no requirent for us to commpletely prove an apparent WP:SYNTHESIS. The nameless editor does not even bother to claim these example conclusions are not synthesis. If he wants his edits to be taken seriously, he should tells which claims come from which sources. If would also help his crediblity if he gave quotes and page numbers-- or even use a login. Otherwise it seems most likely that the table has many claims without a sources. tahc ^chat 05:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As per Tahc I think the way forward for this is for the originator of the table (I'm not sure that RetProf actually originated it as there was already a merge of "Authentic Matthew" theory once here) should first take the table to a sandbox for editing, then go down column 5, which is purporting to be supported by The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition by J. R. Edwards and give some page numbers from J. R. Edwards that this is actually claimed. When it is sourced then it can be judged whether it is (as it appears from Funk) WP:SYNTHESIS or not. The onus here is on the creator of the table. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that would be enough to make the chart acceptable. Too much of it is dubious. Take the very first box, there it says that the central theme of the three Synoptic gospels is to love God with heart and mind etc. There's a footnote, but when you follow it, the ref says: "In the Synoptic Gospels this is the "Greatest" Commandment" that sums up all of the "Law and the Prophets". Well says who? There's no source (and a quote from the gospels themselves can't demonstrate that this is actually the central theme). I think the whole chart has to be scrapped. PiCo (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Pico here. Among other things, unless such a chart included material that was universally accepted, we'd be doing our readers a disservice by presenting something that would look as though it was fact when it wasn't. There really shouldn't be any need for further discussion, there's a clear consensus that at least as it stands it doesn't belong, and replacing it again would be edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge, leave as is or AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge with the title Gospel of the Hebrews. A a re-tag & consolidation with other, related articles is to be agreed on by those involved after the first merge operation has completed. All parties have expressed unhappiness with the quality of almost all related articles except Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. Serious cleanup and removal of WP:OR is expected as consolidation takes place. History2007 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

---

There's been broader discussion now. Perhaps we can do a headcount to get an idea on whether merge/leave/AfD Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel is the best option? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

from Jewish Christian Gospels:

None of these gospels survives today, but attempts have been made to reconstruct them from references in the Church Fathers. The reconstructed texts of the gospels are usually categorized under New Testament Apocrypha. The standard edition of Schneemelcher arranges the texts as follows:

1) The Gospel of the Nazarenes ("GN") – GN 1 to GN 23 are mainly from Jerome; GN 24 to GN 36 are from medieval sources.
2) The Gospel of the Ebionites ("GE") – 7 quotations by Epiphanius.

3) The Gospel of the Hebrews ("GH") – 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, plus GH 2-7 quotations by Jerome.

• Question. I can't say merge or leave or delete until I know whether there's a subject here. If the HG is indeed a subject of scholarly study, then there's no reason the article shouldn't stay. But if the HG is in fact identical with Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel (I see hints that it might be), then it should be merged. On a different note, the sources used in this article are mostly outdated - I think the article, if it stays, needs to use sources published in the last 20 years or so, to take account of advances in scholarship. PiCo (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems the recent deleted-undeleted fork Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel is mainly a fork of Gospel of the Hebrews, this longstanding article. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies matters. I'll put my comment below.PiCo (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, it is a fork of a competing article, the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, written by In ictu oculi. Both of these articles are about a hypothetical original Hebrew text. Funny how that was never mentioned. Ignocrates (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That umbrella article covers the whole gamut of every theory from Lessing, onwards, in which James R. Edwards gets 7 lines. Wheras the article we're discussing here, Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel again starts with The Hebrew Gospel, sometimes called the Gospel according to the Hebrews... which is this, here. Also the giant comparisons table placed here is duplicated there. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As you say, Hebrew Gospel hypothesis is an umbrella article, of which the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel should probably be considered a subset. The question of whether it is notable enough to have its own article relative to the umbrella article is what we should be discussing. The use of a similar table in both articles was unfortunate, and it has rightly been removed here. Ignocrates (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. This is all very interesting. To have a discussion regarding whether to merge, leave as is or open a discussion about whether or not to delete the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article, the first thing would be to remove the spurious Merge tags until that has been decided as the way to go. The second thing might be to take this general investigative discussion about what to do with that article to that article's Talk page. At the very least, a pointer on that Talk page to this section would be appropriate.

From what I've read about these articles, my present thought would be to merge into this article anything from Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel that is different, useful and, if necessary, well-sourced. Then delete the rest. In a much less complex world, that would be the best way to go. Since this is a complex issue it has to be discussed further. I think it was the right thing to do to close the most recent Merge discussion, because as can be seen in this investigation, a deletion or partial merge might be more appropriate. To leave the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article just as it is now is not an option, in my opinion. Definitely get rid of the Merge tags. And perhaps move this inquiry to the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel talk page. If it is decided that {{Merge to}}/{{Merge from}} tags, or perhaps {{Move portions}}/{{Move portions from}} tags are to be used, the discussion could then return to this Talk page. Just my take. – Paine (Climax!)  06:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Merge As the Hebrew Gospel and Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel are one and the same, there can't be two articles. This article seems to be the better of the two, so I think it should be the basic one and any useful material from Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel can be added. That said, this is still a badly sourced and badly written article and needs a lot of work. PiCo (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC).

Sorry PiCo, but they are not at all the same. If you read the history section of Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel#Historical evidence, the article cites Papias as evidence, not this gospel. The similarity in names is just a red herring. Ignocrates (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Merge and delete much of the unsourced items floating around. After much fanfare, the synthesis table above went away but there is still more like that, specially in the other page. As stated above, "this is just 7 loose verses" and does not need two separate pages. Just needs to be in one place (i.e. this page) and have WP:RS sources. History2007 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Come on you guys, take the time to actually read the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article. It has nothing to do with a greek text written in Egypt, presumably in Alexandria, for Greek-speaking Jews. Ignocrates (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates, the lede of Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article starts The Hebrew Gospel, sometimes called the Gospel according to the Hebrews... In ictu oculi (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but the body of the text clearly describes something different. Clarifying the name is a much easier fix than deleting the entire article. Unless, of course, the whole point is to delete the article Ignocrates (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The thing is Ignocrates, we have already had previous giant "Authentic Matthew" essays created and merged into the article on these 7 loose verses here, Melissadollbeers from 2005 and then again since. What is so terrible about Ret Prof simply taking it back, again, to the sandbox? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to reply on your user talk page ( see My concern) because the question of what to do is broader than what we are discussing here. Ignocrates (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. I'm not well-informed enough to add much of anything, but I added the merge tag way back when because the articles appeared to be about the same subject and because the contents of Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel seemed to be content previously deleted from this article. It looked to me (at first glance) that Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel was likely contributed by an editor who believed his POV was not being sufficiently accounted for in this article, after "losing" discussions on this talk page. This is not my area of interest or expertise, so I don't want to do a ton of research to hone my views further now, though I am glad others are discussing this... Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

But your uninvolved analysis is correct: 1. The articles are on the same subject and 2. Some of the content there had been previously zapped here. History2007 (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, as far as past history. However, merging a bunch of hypothetical mumbo-jumbo into an article about a real and well-known text that was considered to be disputed (not heretical) until late in the 4th century is the worst possible outcome. If anything, all of that trash should be purged from this article. What is new, since the last edit war, is the umbrella article In ictu oculi created to handle all the hypothetical musings of modern scholars. Ignocrates (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so that other article is a goner. If there is junk in this article it also needs to go - obviously. What is the other umbrella article? History2007 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. Imho, a very well-written article. As far as saving any of the content, let's close the discussion here and move the tags to that article. I would hold off on an AfD for now, until the tags are moved and people have a chance to discuss whether any of the content should be moved to the HGh article. Ignocrates (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

But you are not advocating the survival of Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel. Right? If so, let that get out of the way. History2007 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. I am not advocating for the survival of Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel. Ignocrates (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so on the merging of Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel into here, a form of heated agreement is emerging now. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you want to close this merge discussion? Since In ictu oculi opened the discussion, someone else should close it. Considering the beating I took last time, I will leave it to someone else. Ignocrates (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Close with what conclusion? A merge decision? It may be a little too fast. Tahc was editing but has not commented yet, so we will have to see, etc. After a few days that may just happen, given that no one has opposed a merge. But I can not do the merge or anything like that. I am really not into working on this topic. History2007 (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• No Merge and Re-tag: as far as this article is concerned. Merging into this article would simply undo all the hard work that was done to get rid of the spurious material. In that context, I don't understand the two previous votes to merge, unless they were intended to suggest a merge somewhere else. Ignocrates (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that makes it clear. You oppose a merge of Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel into here, Pico, myself and In ictu oculi support it. And Paine Ellsworth seems to be tentatively for some type of merge of that somewhere. Now we will wait and see what else happens. But in any case, once Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel and this page merge together, there is nothing to stop further merges elsewhere in any case. History2007 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's right. Merging back into this article makes no sense to me. I'm all for a proposal to merge into the HGh article, or a subsequent AfD if that discussion goes nowhere. Ignocrates (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so let us wait for further input here. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed my vote for procedural reasons to avoid a protracted debate over the merits of a merge, as long as we are clear that what is to be merged is the name Gospel of the Hebrews and any specific content related to that Greek gospel. The remaining material, including but not limited to a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel or an Aramaic Gospel, should be immediately re-tagged for a possible merge into the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis or Gospel of the Nazoraeans, respectively. By no means will I support using a merge as a back-door form of deletion to eliminate the discussion that would normally take place during an AfD. Ignocrates (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

After the merge, you can just re-tag it yourself. History2007 (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I will, thanks. I think we are largely in agreement. Ignocrates (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Another question Is the article Two-source hypothesis correct in saying that the Gospel of the Hebrews (or a similar title) was proposed by Streeter to explain the M material in Matthew? If so, then there should certainly be an article on that - but this particular article doesn't quite seem to go in that direction.PiCo (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

PiCo, that is not right. Streeter did speculate that there was a Jewish-Christian source unique to Matthew, thus the M source, but I don't recall him ever explicitly identifying that source as the GH. On the contrary, the GH has at times been identified with the L source, by Pierson Parker for example, but a scholarly consensus on the L source even existing has collapsed in the last 10 years. Ignocrates (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I got the idea from this sentence in Two-source hypothesis: "In 1924 B. H. Streeter refined the Two Document Hypothesis into the Four Document Hypothesis based on the possibility of a Jewish M source (see the Gospel according to the Hebrews)."PiCo (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe after this current discussion it might be useful to move on to a cleanup of this whole set of articles. PiCo (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, there are far-flung, unrelated and contradictory claims all over the place. They need to be centralized in a few articles, and cleaned up. Then I may actually read them. As a user, they seem so haphazard that apart from the umbrella article, I do not trust the statements in any of them. History2007 (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I reread the section you mentioned. I believe the link to the GH article was intended to provide an illustrative example of a Jewish-Christian text, but it creates more confusion than clarity by implying a relationship to the M source that is not there. Ignocrates (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that there is no opposition to a merge to speak of, how about closing this by mutual agreement as a merge decision. But we need a volunteer to do the work of merging them - myself absolutely excluded. So if no one objects I will close it tomorrow, provided a volunteer steps forward before then to do the work after the close. And they can all/some get re-tagged after that for further consolidation and clean up. History2007 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I will volunteer to clean it up with In ictu oculi, or at least one other person, but I'm not going to attempt it by myself. While we have the momentum, I think we should also work on improving this article and attempt to make a silk purse out of what is currently a sows ear. Ignocrates (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you guys should figure out how to partition the tasks, who gets paid what, etc. I will just wait until tomorrow then close it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I added the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article section headers to that talk page, and I am leaving relevant comments there. I won't bring anything to this talk page unless it involves content which may be useful for improving this article. I'm not doing anything momentous, just getting organized pending closure of this merge discussion. Ignocrates (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Wow! This turned out better than I thought. Having re-read the articles again as well as the discussion...

1. The First approach is to merge: by taking all the material from the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel, the Authentic Gospel of Matthew the Gospel of the Hebrews etc. and merging it into one giant mega article, since this is a complex topic and a POV fork. There are certainly some good points raised above.
2. The Second approach is not to merge: and leave two articles i.e. Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel & Gospel of the Hebrews. It is important to note that because the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel was in circulation among the Hebrews, on occasion it was referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews. Yet it is not the same as the Syncretistic Gospel of the Hebrews. First the syncretistic gospel was not circulated among the Hebrews but rather Greek-speaking Jewish Christians. Secondly, it was composed in Greek. Futhermore it presents traditions of Jesus' preexistence, his coming into the world, a mighty Power in Heaven named Michael and the Power which came into the world called Mary (which had Christ in its womb for only seven months). These accounts of Jesus' preexistence, etc. are abbreviated mythological narratives. They presuppose a myth of the descent of divine Wisdom, embodying herself definitively in a representative of the human race for the revelation and redemption of humankind. Such a myth was widespread in the Greco-Roman world and underlies many of the earliest christological formulations of believers in Jesus. The Syncretistic Gospel of the Hebrews has no connection with other Jewish-Christian gospels and displays no kinship with Matthew. It is instructive to note that most of the extant fragments come from quotations in the writings of persons who lived in Alexandria, Egypt as opposed to Jerusalem. Finally, it was composed long after the time of Matthew. (See the Syncretistic Gospel of the Hebrews and the Hebrew (Aramaic)Gospel
3. The Third approach is Merge and Re-tag: What is to be merged is the name Gospel of the Hebrews and any specific content related to that Greek gospel. The remaining material, including but not limited to a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel or an Aramaic Gospel, should be immediately re-tagged for a possible merge into the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. It is further agreed this is not a back-door form of deletion of the material from Ray Pritz, Peter Lebrecht Schmidt, Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, James Edwards, James Tabor and Jeffrey J. Bütz (that there was an early Semitic source composed in a Hebrew dialect behind the Synoptic Gospels). - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Merge and Re-Tag: I think we have consensus! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

Just a note that as things proceed you guys should watch out for self-publihers such as Authorhouse, so Marie S. Burns, The Divine Harmony, AuthorHouse, 2005 is not RS and needs to be replaced. Not that I know the topic, but I know the self-pubs, by memory now. History2007 (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to be ruthless about eliminating marginal sources and pretend I am helping to build an FA-quality article. Ignocrates (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to the article

Hey Ret. Prof, I noticed you made some major changes to the article today. What is the source of the new material, and where are you going to put the material you removed? Ignocrates (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I dreaming or did you self-revert? What was your intention in changing it back? Ignocrates (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead - first para

The first para of the lead currently reads as follows (but don't be surprised if it no longer reads this way when you look - it seems to change rapidly):

"The Gospel of the Hebrews ([τὸ καθ' Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)), commonly shortened from the Gospel according to the Hebrews is a hypothesized lost gospel, preserved in the writings of the of Cyril of Jerusalem and other Church Fathers. This non-canonical gospel gave a 'syncretistic account' of the life of Jesus(ref is Ron Cameron, "The Other Gospels: Non-canonical Gospel Texts",1982, pages=83–86 ) Most scholars agree it was composed in Greek and therfore it is not related to Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel.(ref Marie S. Burns, The Divine Harmony, AuthorHouse, 2005. p 341<)"

Cameron looks like a reliable source, not sure about Burns, but others can decide. What I really want to say is that the Cameron book can be put to better use: on page 83 he gives a very useful definition of the GoH that we could use as our entire first para. It says (and I'm just extracting the main points) that GoH is syncretistic, Jewish-Christian, composed in Greek, and contains traditions of .... In other words, it covers the same material as Burns, but may be a more reliable source and is certainly a more convenient one, since everything is on one page. Just a suggestion. PiCo (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the self published source - undid edit - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Cameron is fine to use as a source. A little dated perhaps (1980s), but otherwise ok. Go with Cameron over Burns. The main traditional sources are Schneemelcher and Klijn. They form the backbone of the scholarly perspective of the 1970s. Ignocrates (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Background section

Imo, the whole background section should be excised from this article and go somewhere else (not sure where yet). For example, the Ebionites have nothing whatever to do with a Greek text used in Egypt. If fact, we have no idea who was using the text. Presumably, they were Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jewish-Christians, but Clement and Origen don't tell us. Everything else is the "fertile imaginations of modern scholars", as Ret.Prof likes to put it. Same thing with the Nazoraeans, who spoke Aramaic and used the so-called Gospel of the Nazoraeans. Why are they in here? Ignocrates (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the background section. I also removed this para from the lead (the 2nd para) - material from it can be re-added later if it's thought necessary - and re-wrote the first para as per the preceding thread. In particular I removed the mention of a connection to the Gospel of Matthew.

The removed para: "The Gospel of the Hebrews belongs to a class of Jewish-Christian gospels used by various Jewish Christian groups, and declared heretical by other members of the early Christianity. The traditional and majority view of critical scholarship has been that there are at least two and possibly three such Jewish-Christian gospels. While none survive today, attempts have been made to reconstruct them from references in the Church Fathers. The major source for the Hebrew Gospel is the testimony of the 4th century scholar Jerome, who asked various communities to provide him with gospels in their possession, and received a copy of an otherwise unknown gospel from a Nazarene group while he was at Chalcis between 373 and 376. Jerome records that it was regarded by many of the Nazarenes and Ebionites as the original version of Matthew."PiCo (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Pico, good call - though we might want to retrieve part of the lead later. Your scythe approach is what we need here. At the moment this article doesn't look anything like the Anchor CDROM article (which I'm tempted to cut and paste to Talk, but copyright forbids).

Prior to your edits above I went through and (1) de-cite-formatted all bunched refs, (2) reduced to Author-Title-Year-Page all Google search paste refs, (3) exterminated Arthur Lillie for silliness.. I think everything non-mega-notable prior to 1940 will need to go the same way, which means E. B. Nicholson, and W. R. Schoemaker for example, (4) brought Jerome and Eusebius out of ref/ref into text with brackets per WP:PSTS. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Content section

I removed this para from the Content section:

"According to James Hasting's Encyclopædia of religion and ethics (1914) the presentation in the Gospel of the Hebrews is lifelike, Jewish, and primitive, sometimes bordering on the grotesque and drawing near to the apocalyptic texts. The gospel does not bear the marks of having been constructed to inculcate any particular theological tenets, with the exception its Jewish view as to the origin and nature of Christ. It is, in the main, a simple historical narrative whose purpose seems to have been to preserve the living, evangelical tradition for present and future use. "

Hastings is very old - 1914. I prefer newer sources to avoid getting caught out by changes in scholarly conclusions over the years. More important, the statements seem to me highly questionable and subjective: "lifelike, Jewish and primitive" doesn't really describe the gospel, it gives us this reader's reaction to it. "The gospel does not bear the marks of having been constructed to inculcate any particular theological tenets ... It is, in the main, a simple historical narrative..." This is untrue, as the gospel serves to emphasise the role of James and presumably the theological views of those churches that followed his tradition, and to promote such theological views as the pre-existence of Christ and the role of Holy Wisdom. It's better dropped, i my opinion. What's needed in a chapter on Content is a brief statement to the effect that the gospel is preserved in a number of quoted fragments.PiCo (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done. We can do better than Hastings. All of this old crap should go. Encyclopedic summaries might be ok in the Lead but that's about it. Ignocrates (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted material on editions and translations

I deleted this material:

"Critical editions of the Gospel of the Hebrews vary, but there is general agreement among modern scholars that seven quotations from Patristic sources are from a distinct Gospel of the Hebrews, although two of these are ambiguous.[18] Hans Waitz (1937)[19] provides a list of the major German scholars who up to that date divide the Jewish-Christian Gospels into different traditions, though Waitz himself argues for only two Gospels.[20] There is now a tendency to reduce the traditional division of the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazarenes and Gospel of the Ebionites to two Gospels,[21] though Klauck (2003)[22] notes that against this hypothesis, the material includes "three extra-canonical narratives of the baptism of Jesus which vary to such an extent that they cannot come from one or even two gospels alone."

It looks like good material in itself, but it seems to me to be talking about a whole range of gospels, not just this one.As such, it belongs in a more general article. PiCo (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This section brings up the important point about how many gospels are really there. The traditional view is three gospels via Schneemelcher and older sources. The more modern view, beginning with Klijn in the 70s, is that the GE is a separate text from the other two. The current controversy is whether the GH and GN are really just translational variants of the same text or if the differences are more fundamental. We should find a home for this type of content somewhere, possibly the Jewish-Christian Gospels article, but not here. Ignocrates (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The place for that chunk is in Jewish Christian Gospels which should be a well written umbrella article pulling together all the generic material about (1) Gospel of the Nazarenes, (2) Gospel of the Ebionites, (3) Gospel of the Hebrews. Unfortunately however Jewish Christian Gospels has been subject to as much OR and Fringe editing as the 3 sub-umbrella articles, so it may be that Hans Waitz and Hans-Josef Klauck who should be there, aren't. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It was vaguely there already, but not with such detail/sources, so I merged/moved the paragraph there. The umbrella articles is the place, not here. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Other related appearing/disappearing/reappearing articles

Tangentially related, I came across this page blank January 2012, on consensus implented by Huon which was one of the several article creations/deletions/reincarnations in this area, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canonical gospels, and Authentic Matthew (the 9 lives of an article on Wikipedia). This same rather Da Vinci codish material keeps on coming back. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ret.Prof recently wrote an article on Christian Oral Tradition, so if any of this older material is to be recovered, it should probably go there. Ignocrates (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a new article, isn't it just a reincarnation in June 2012 of the same content as was deleted by Huon in the link above January 2012? This is part of the problem. We've been this before of searching through RetProf, or before that other original-Gospel article creation authors before, a painful merge sees 10% of it making it through the source hurdle, and then after 6 months, 'pop', the deleted article is back again as a "new" article in another large paste. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirected, we don't have two articles on the same topic - which is clearly what happened as material was copied and pasted from an older version of the original (which as it was unattributed is a copyright violation in any case. Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Told him about the copyvio issue and that he has to look at any other copy/paste he did and attribute it, and that this is not a good way to avoid a consensus decision. Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. RetProf, you also shouldn't delete other editors comments from Talk page. Or have you done some kind of manual archive? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sections "Patristic sources" and "Modern scholarship"

I don't want to touch these two sections because they're huge. No doubt there's good material in them. But they seem to have little if anything to do with the Gospel of the Hebrews. They seem to be an argument over the connection of this gospel to the Gospel of Matthew, and I gather the consensus is that there is no connection. Please let's discuss this. PiCo (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest cutting and pasting all of the subsections on the Hebrew Gospel Hypothesis and Allegations of deliberate suppression on the talk page of the Talk:Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel in a reverse merge as a place-holder for now. The modern scholarship section of this article should emphasize the latest thinking about this specific gospel. Ignocrates (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, onto the Talk there is a good temporary virgin sandbox. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We will need to bring back some of this Patristic source material eventually. An article that begins and ends with a list of sayings devoid of any context is a terrible idea. It is important for the reader to know how these sayings were used. For example, material originating from Clement and Origen should be given a lot of weight because they were primary witnesses. What, exactly, did they say and why did they say it? Presumably, most of their quotations were for polemical purposes, but not necessarily all of them. Context matters. Ignocrates (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I parked all of that content on a wip page to segregate it from the talk page discussion. This is intended to be temporary measure. If anyone has a problem with this change, let me know and I will fix it. Ignocrates (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As is that wip page is an article in mainspace visible to Google. Needs to move below a talk page really, e.g. Talk:Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel/progress, etc. History2007 (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I will move the content to the wip talk page instead. Same result in the end. The entire wip page will be deleted when we are done. Ignocrates (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel/wip Done. Ignocrates (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Bodiless demon: is this from the same Hebrew Gospel?

This subsection puzzles me. It quotes a certain Ignatius of Antioch as quoting from the Hebrew Gospel, yet the quoted passage isn't included in Vielhauer and Ogg as given by Cameron, nor do V&H quote anything like the "bodiless demon" phrase mentioned in the last line - is this from the GH or not?

The Gospel of the Hebrews states that when the Risen Lord came to those with Peter, Jesus said to them, “Take hold of me, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon.”[10](Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans) Jerome also points out that the Apostles thought the resurrected Jesus to be a spirit, for in the Gospel of the Hebrews Jesus says that he is not a “A bodiless demon” (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah)[11]

Elucidation please. PiCo (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a source in front of me, but we need to capture this Patristic testimony in a secondary reference. It implies the gospel was in existence in the first decade of the 2nd century. Ignocrates (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I now understand that this Ignatius material is not now regarded as being from Gos. Heb. PiCo (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Schneemelcher pp.143-144 has the critical text and analysis: here. For a refutation of Vielhauer & Strecker and a contrarian perspective, see Edwards pp. 50-54 here. Per Vielhauer & Strecker, Origen attributed the saying to the Teaching of Peter. He was much closer to the source than Jerome, so maybe we should leave it at that. Ignocrates (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately I was reading quickly in several books and can't remember where I read what, but whoever it was they said that there are problems with Jerome's identification of the "demon" passage. Hastings seems to be arguing a case, which is fine, but makes him difficult to use for a general encyclopedia. PiCo (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

An additional difficulty with Jerome is that he is positively using the Gospel of the Nazoraeans to write his commentary on Isaiah, along with a commentary on Isaiah by the Nazoraeans that he obtained through Apollinaris of Laodicea. To attribute the passage to the GH known to Origen would require that you believe he is holding both gospel texts in front of him, but he is too stupid to recognize they are different. Ignocrates (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel/wip

I've reviewed the material (pasted from the earlier version of this article) on Talk:Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel/wip, but none of it seems specific to this gospel - it's of more general interest to the topic of Jewish Christian gospels in general. It does raise the question of why the Gos. Heb. was lost, and that might well be worth covering - I'll look again at that later. Right now I've finished clearing out material and am now expanding the article again, currently on the question of its characteristic theology and community - is there anything else anyone can suggest? PiCo (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I would create a section on Patristic testimony that lists all mentions of the gospel in chronological order. The testimony of the Church Fathers is heavily influenced by those that came before them, e.g. Jerome probably does not have a copy of the GH. He is reading the excerpts from Origen's homilies and adapting them to his own purposes. I would also create a separate section on the distinctive features of the theology. That is what will be of most interest to the reader. For example, it might be useful to point out, through reliable sources, that this gospel provides some of the earliest evidence of a "Three Powers in Heaven" Christology, which may have influenced the development of orthodoxy. Another aspect to develop is the docetic nature of the text, where Jesus is literally the "Man from Heaven". This is a representative type of "Son of Man" Christology, where Christ is seen as a divine power who comes into the world to reverse the Fall of Man by vanquishing the divine power of Satan. Ignocrates (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

All beyond my powers, unfortunately, and also my interest is rapidly waning. Please feel free to take this article further. I couldn't find anything in the other merge article worth putting here, by the way. I'd like to hang up my keyboard at this point. Cheers :) PiCo (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

PiCo, see you've done a good clear out. Hanging up the board for a bit is well deserved. But add to your watchlist please. FWIW I didn't get any GB hits for "three powers in heaven" in relation to these seven verse fragments. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Fragment 1 does mention a "power" and names it as Michael; I thought it meant the angel of that name, but one of our sources (the one with the difficult name, Schneer-something) says it might mean the Holy Spirit for reasons that I didn't quite grasp. Follow the reference at the end of the para giving explanations of the fragment.PiCo (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The "three powers in heaven" thing is just a name I gave the concept of Jesus as the Word, God his Father, and the Holy Spirit as his Mother (Wisdom) all being divinities. Ignocrates (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm finished going through the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article and screening for credible academic non-OR non-POV non-duplicate content. The article is now gutted and more or less a stub. There were a few places where the sources were so jumbled that I decided to leave it for later to sort out. PiCo is right that there is nothing left that is usable, as far as a merge into the GH article. As far as I'm concerned, the content merge into the GH article is done, but someone else should look to be sure and take off the merge tags specific to this article. Ignocrates (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Two more points and then I need to move on: (1) Oskar Skarsaune in Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007) p. 248, mentions Didymus the Blind as a source for the GH, in addition to Clement and Origen, (2) while the GE has been recognized as a distinct text from the GH and GN since Klijn proposed it in 1970, and no one has seriously challenged this view since then, the same cannot be said for the relationship between the GH and GN. Rather, as pointed out by Skarsaune on pp. 245-246, the scholarly consensus has collapsed. We should look at what even more recent sources have to a say and be careful about assigning a certainty to the placement of these sayings as if it were an obvious fact. Ignocrates (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll come back and look at this. PiCo (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

GH and Matthew

I changed a passage from Cameron so that it now reads: "It displays no connection with other Jewish-Christian gospels such as the Gospel of Matthew.(sfn|Cameron|1982|p=85). I want to ask if I'm misrepresenting both the facts and Cameron. The reason I wanted it this way is because I want to go on and discuss the relationship between this gospel and Matthew, and between Jewish Christianity and the orthodox variety. I want to say that Matthew is a Jewish Christian gospel. I have sources for that, but I need to explain to readers just what Jewish Christianity was. This is going to be a little difficult - I think ordinary readers will not be quite ready to accept that the author of Matthew wasn't quite as orthodox as they might think. PiCo (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The question becomes of the existence of scholarly consensus per WP:RS/AC as usual. So is the statement that Matthew is a Jewish Christian gospel accepted by the majority of scholars, a minority or a tiny minority? I do not know. But that characterization needs sources, of course, as usual because it will be questioned sooner or later. And much of this is tied up in Markan priority, etc. which is another noodle soup in its own right. So it is non trivial, and I have no idea what the majority of scholars hold. History2007 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It is an overstatement to say that Matthew is a Jewish-Christian gospel as a completed text, but you could mention that it relies on Jewish-Christian sources (M source). Certainly, the Gospel of Mark, which forms the narrative backbone of Matthew via Markan priority, is not Jewish-Christian. However, explaining all this gets too deep into the weeds of source criticism for this article. Ignocrates (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I now have a mention, taken from Duling, of Matthew as the gospel of a sect that clung to Jewish law. I needed something about Matthew because one of the sources (Cameron?) mentioned out of the blue that GH bore no resemblance to it, or something like that. The question then arises, why single out Matthew? I've tried to pitch the article to the intelligent, but non-specialist, general reader. A place to come for the basics, not the details. Please feel free to take it further if you like to put the time in. PiCo (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The three best reference sources I can think of for this are the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, and, primarily because it is the most recent, the 2009 Zondervan Encyclopedia. I'll try to check up on each of them in the next few days. There is a very real question regarding how Jewish Christian a lot of the early Christians and Christian documents are or were, and I think it probably should be covered at some length somewhere. But I would feel a lot more comfortable if I had some print or other source whose article's scope and title we could use as a first stage rough template. John Carter (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Eerdman's has a very useful entry on Jewish Christianity, but unfortunately I can't get access to the whole article, nor to the crucial final section that would tell me who wrote it. I fear that, like the Gospels themselves, it's anonymous. PiCo (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This provides a good summary that can be used to write the lead section (not the body), and it includes Elliot (1993) as an important reference. Ignocrates (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel

I'm going to rewrite Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel, but rename it HAGospel of Matthew, as I believe the intention of the original author was to write about the hypothetical Aramaic/Hebrew gospel behind Greek Matthew. PiCo (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Jewish-Christian gospels

I rewrote Jewish-Christian gospels, it was easier to do and more important. Please look and tell me if you have problems with it.PiCo (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an immense improvement. The historical section should probably go back in some form, following the summaries you created for the individual gospels. That section details how the thinking of scholars has changed over time about whether there were three distinct gospels or fewer. We pulled that content out of the specific gospel articles (quite rightly), so we may want to cover it in more detail in the general J-C article.

Matthew, or Authentic Matthew, or Hebrew Matthew, or hypothetical Hebrew Matthew, has finally been purged from the J-C article and should not return as any part of that content. Ignocrates (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure what you mean by the "historical" section - can you explain?PiCo (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical is probably not the right word. I was trying to describe how scholars have changed their thinking about this problem over time. The perspectives can roughly be divided into Klijn (1970s), including those prior, and post-Klijn, which I would call traditional and recent scholarship, respectively. Klijn made the overt statement that he was positive there were three distinct sources. That seemingly ironclad consensus has gradually crumbled over time to the point where there is no consensus. That's what I meant. Ignocrates (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Additions to the bibliography

I've added Howard's article on the GoH from Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible (thanks Ignocrates); couldn't add the Anchor Bible Dictionary as it's not available in google books (I have to restrict myself to available google books); and I looked at Zondervan but didn't think it all that useful, but as you (John Carter?) recommend it I'll look at again more closely.

Any other recommendations? These books can be used in rewriting other articles as well.PiCo (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I would check to see if Ehrman has anything useful to add. He did his Ph.D. dissertation on Didymus the Blind. Ignocrates (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw your addition of Bart Ehrman's new The Apocryphal Gospels:Texts and Translations to the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis talk page. What a great book. The summary of the current status of scholarship (2011) on the Jewish-Christian gospels is spot on, pp.197-200. The section on the Gospel of the Hebrews, pp.216-221 is very well written and includes a quotation from Didymus the Blind. Note that the seven sayings attributed to the GH by Ehrman only partially match the seven in the article. The source of the confusion, as always, is Jerome. Ignocrates (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Jerome catches a break this time. The main difference is that Ehrman omits the first saying (V1) attested by Cyril of Jerusalem. Ehrman numbers the material attested by Didymus the Blind as a saying, but Vielhauer also includes that material in a discussion as an eighth saying. Otherwise, the two authors only differ in the order of the sayings. This is very close agreement over a span of 40 years for these two authors. Ignocrates (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Klauck, Hans-Josef (2004). The Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction. T&T Clark, New York. ISBN 978-0567083906. Klauck is another excellent source with an additional attribution to Didymus the Blind. Note the question mark by GNaz, questioning whether this gospel even exists as an independent gospel. Ignocrates (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

PiCo, you used Ehrman (2003) as a reference for Saying 1, but Ehrman doesn't include that saying in his sub-chapter on the Gospel of the Hebrews on pp.15-16. Also, I'm going to replace your Google link with a pdf I found online. Ignocrates (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI. I found a sub-page Peter Kirby (creator of Early Christian Writings.org) put together on the Gospel of the Hebrews, apparently intending to develop it into an article. The page has many complete quotations which might be of interest. User:Peter Kirby/Gospel of the Hebrews. Ignocrates (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrap up merge proposal

This proposal to merge was a great success in the sense that it resulted in significant improvements to both the Jewish-Christian Gospels and Gospel of the Hebrews articles. Imo, they are the best they have ever been. Now, we need to finish up whatever we intend to do with the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis article and decide on the ultimate fate of the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article. Accordingly, I started a discussion on the Talk:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis#AfD or stub page to wrap this up. Please respond there. Ignocrates (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Forward progress

I made some updates, hopefully improvements, to the article. I moved PiCo's section on Origins to the top of the body to use as an intro. The content is still a little squishy, as far as what should be in that section, but it's close enough for now. I'm going to expand the Content section by adding summaries of two more pericopes. Both are found in Vielhauer, and Ehrman has one of them listed as a saying. Ignocrates (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Now, I will go through the scholarly literature to report on the distinctive features of the text in the context of what inferences may be made about the Greek-speaking Jewish-Christian community that used it. New sections on Christology and/or Jewish Wisdom tradition come to mind here, but that depends on what I find. Another aspect that could be mentioned is how the Church Fathers used the text. Was their purpose primarily supplemental, i.e. a source of additional information to support their exegesis? Was it ever polemical? This information can give us a more complete picture of the reception of the text in antiquity. Ignocrates (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Can someone supply the name of the author for the article on Apocryphal Gospels in the ISBE reference? Bromiley will do for now as a placeholder, but he is the editor, not the author. Ignocrates (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the missing author for the ISBE, all the references used so far check out and are complete. Ignocrates (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I verified the author, topic title, and pages at the university library. Ignocrates (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Lapham has an interesting discussion on the Christology of the GH, where he ties the wisdom chain-saying in fragment 4 to the baptismal theophany in fragment 2 (pp.160-1). Kloppenborg ties these two sayings together in a similar manner (p.428). Lapham posits that the baptismal pericope can be seen as adoptionist as well as docetic. Interestingly (my OR now), this is similar to the theology of Cerinthus (who was originally from Alexandria) who preached that Jesus was an ordinary human who took on the powers of the pre-existent Christ. Ignocrates (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I started a new section called Reception to report on how the GH was quoted to support the exegesis of the Church Fathers. The idea is to answer the "what" question in the Composition section and the "why" question here. It turns out that all of the citations are made to bolster theological arguments. None of them serve a polemical purpose. Compare that to Epiphanius and the GE where the entire purpose is polemical. Interesting stuff. I have relied on Klijn so far, but I will bring in other sources as I go through them. Ignocrates (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I added some examples in notes of how Clement, Origen, and Jerome used the gospel quotations in the context of their commentaries. Ignocrates (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you guys seem to be more interested in mocking my requests for suggestions than making any actual suggestions,

I'm going to work on the new sections of the article in my user-space. I will continue to work on incremental improvements to the current article content here. Ignocrates (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I finished the Reception section up through the closing of the canon. The next step is to say something about Pseudo-Cyril. I will discuss the Cyril content in the talk section below and wrap up progress on the Reception section there. Ignocrates (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Cyril of Jerusalem

I am in the process of finishing up the Reception section, and I was working offline on the content for Cyril of Jerusalem when I noticed a problem. Vielhauer & Strecker only included the first part of the quotation attributed to Cyril. The complete quotation by Wallis Budge is on Wikisource Gospel of the Hebrews as follows:

It is written in the Gospel of the Hebrews that when Christ wished to come upon the earth to men the Good Father called a mighty power in the heavens which was called Michael, and committed Christ to the care thereof. And the power came down into the world, and it was called Mary, and [Christ] was in her womb for seven months. Afterwards she gave birth to Him, and He increased in stature, and He chose the Apostles, who preached Him in every place. He fulfilled the appointed time that was decreed for Him. And the Jews became envious of Him, they hated Him, they changed the custom of their Law, and they rose up against Him and laid a trap and caught Him, and they delivered Him to the governor, and he gave Him to them to crucify Him. And after they had raised Him up on the Cross the Father took Him up into heaven unto Himself.

Note that the missing part of the quotation contains an important sentence that I have highlighted in bold. The part that was omitted by Vielhauer & Strecker can be read as saying that upon crucifixion Jesus rose directly up to heaven. This is the same resurrection scene depicted in the Quran, and it is completely incongruous with a post-resurrection appearance to James. Note Budge's commentary, reproduced by Peter Kirby at the bottom of an alternate web page of the Gospel of the Hebrews:

"No more is told of the Gospel, which, whatever it may have been, was certainly not the book we have been dealing with, but a writing of pronouncedly heretical (Docetic?) views. The last sentence of the monk's account of Christ, which I did not quote in full just now, is perhaps worth recording. After they had raised him up on the cross, the Father took him up into heaven unto himself. This, with its omission of all mention of the resurrection, might be construed as heretical: on the other hand, it may be merely a case of extreme compression of the narrative."

So, any suggestions as to how to handle this new information would be appreciated. Ignocrates (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Vielhauer had Doubts! The other person who had Doubts with a D was one of Paul Pennyfeather's colleagues at that appalling school, Little Wallop in the Valley - the poor man's Doubts were so serious they led him to give up the Church and go in for school-teaching instead, despite his bishop telling him that it was perfectly acceptable for a Church of England curate to not believe in anything much). V's doubts were more restricted - he doubted that Cyril was even talking about the GH. You already have this i a note. I'd move that note up to the text, as part of the entry for that quote, maybe in brackets. No, it doesn't sit with a post-resurrection appearance to James, but if you underline V's doubts you might have that covered.

As for people to review, there's In Octu, and History2007might be able to suggest some more people. Frankly, this is very abstruse material, and I doubt that more than two or three people on Wikipedia would be knowledgeable. I'm not - I happen to come from a professional background where mastering material about which one is completely ignorant on Monday and writing an authoritative-sounding paper on it on Tuesday is a way of life. I hesitate to tell you what profession that is,you'd be shocked. PiCo (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a govt job? :) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Worse - the foreign service (Australian version). Cocktails and coups, learn five foreign languages and forget four and a half, tell ministers one thing and journalists quite another... Have you read Lawrence Durrell's Antrobus stories? Great stuff, and so true to life as I've known it. PiCo (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't ask more people. This was literally a last-minute thing before I went to bed. I think leaving it the way it is misleads the reader. I'm for including the whole "quotation" and letting the reader decide. It's obvious when you look at the entire passage in context that it's a summary, not a quotation. Recent scholarship indicates this document was composed in the 6th century (I can provide refs). It is referred to in the literature as Pseudo-Cyril for a reason. In ictu oculi, govt jobs aside, any thoughts on which way to go? Ignocrates (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think a workable compromise on the Cyril problem is to retain the current version of fragment 1 and add the complete "quotation" in a note along with Budge's analysis. That way a discerning reader can see both versions and decide for themselves. Ignocrates (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Done, as far as Content section. Ignocrates (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that covers the basics for Pseudo-Cyril as far as the Reception section. Klijn gets deep into the details of how the author probably relied on Epiphanius' Panarion 30.1,3 and 31.2.1 (p.136), but I don't think we need to include all that analysis. I'm checking out a possible mention of the GH by Bede that is quoted by Klijn in Latin (p.23). Ignocrates (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I added some content about Bede based on both Edwards and Klijn and relied on Edwards for the English translation. I would say the Reception section is done, at least for this draft. Ignocrates (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm going to work on the new sections in my user space and paste the draft versions into the article as I finish them. That will be less disruptive for people trying to read the article. Ignocrates (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

References format

I find the references format quite disruptive to reading. What about standardizing it, with lower-alpha notes followed by Sfn references?

—Lgfcd (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm agnostic to using a lower-alpha notes format. I like using leading sfn references rather than following, so as to not require reading the entire note to find a citation. My advice is to wait on these formatting issues until peer review and address them at that time. Ignocrates (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I noticed you have only been editing for 6 months. You can't take it upon yourself to reformat an entire article that other editors are working on without establishing a consensus. For example, there is absolutely no reason to create spaces within sfn citations. I'm going to undo all of it, and you can propose your changes on the talk page. See WP:CITEVAR Ignocrates (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I have re-incorporated most of the changes to the references, which were helpful. I left the masks off repeated author names for now because the references are not final. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

New Testament Apocrypha 7th German Edition

• Frey, Jörg (2012). "Die Fragmente des Hebräerevangeliums". In Markschies, Christoph; Schröter, Jens (eds.). Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung: I. Band - Evangelien und Verwandtes (in German) (7 ed.). Mohr Siebeck. pp. 593–606. ISBN 978-3-16-149951-7.

I added the 7th edition of the New Testament Apocrypha (in German) to Further Reading. Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha (2nd ed.) is current up through the 6th German edition. This article depends upon Schneemelcher as the critical text (also the Gospel of the Ebionites article), so this is not a small deal. For example, the Judaikon readings from the marginal notes of manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew are included in brackets in the Gospel of the Nazoraeans. Ignocrates (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Could someone with a reading knowledge of German review and verify the list of fragments contained in the GHeb according to the 7th German edition of the New Testament Apocrypha (2012)? That would be most helpful. Ignocrates (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Relationship of GH to other texts

I added the first paragraph of a new section describing the relationship of the GH to the other two Jewish-Christian gospels. I started with an emphasis on how the Church Fathers used the texts; then I brought in the analyses of modern scholars. I presented the 3GH as a consensus, but a consensus which is being reexamined (without going into a lot of details). I think that is a reasonable way to present the material. Ignocrates (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The second paragraph is going to be about texts other than the J-C gospels. It will have something about the Teachings of Silvanus and I'm not sure what else yet, possibly the Corpus Hermetica. I need to write the Christology section next and look at the primary sources before I finish this one. Ignocrates (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I concluded my research on the Teachings of Silvanus, and any other Egyptian texts that might be related to GHeb. The short answer is that there are none. Silvanus is the only one that comes close. It has a (small-g) gnostic-platonistic wisdom theology similar to Clement of Alexandria, and the tradition may have its roots in the Jewish wisdom school of Philo, according to scholar Birger Pearson. However, no scholars I know of are willing to make the leap of transitive logic required to connect GHeb and Silvanus within the same wisdom tradition. Consequently, I'm going to consider the Relationship section to be complete, at least at this stage of improving the article. Ignocrates (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Christology section

I added part of the new Christology section to the main article. The first paragraph summarizes the influence of Jewish Wisdom traditions on the gospel. The next paragraph will summarize the influence of other traditions. Ignocrates (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the second paragraph; it summarizes the similarity between the gospel wisdom sayings and Alexandrian Hermeticism. I may expand the section a bit more as I review the literature, but I think the basic contents are now in place. Ignocrates (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Alexandrian Jewish Christianity section

I should be receiving the last source I need to write this section shortly. Ignocrates (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I finished my review of Alexandrian Christianity, and I concluded this would be a very difficult section to write. The current thinking as I understand it, which is mostly the scholarship of Birger Pearson, is that there were at least 6 Jewish sects in first-century CE Egypt, including several (big-G) Jewish-Gnostic schools, and that various forms of Christianity evolved directly from those sects after it was introduced from Palestine. Pearson envisions Gnosticism (rejection of the Creator, rejection of the Law, rejection of the World) as originating from a wisdom school of Jewish intellectuals in the first-century BCE. The key to understanding the Jewish origin of Gnosticism, according to Pearson, lies in a radical reinterpretation of the salvation history of Israel, characterized by the belief that YWHW did not keep his covenant promise to his chosen people Israel - not because Israel was unworthy, but because the promise itself was a lie. Salvation was to be found instead in the "rest" achieved by the divine spark of the human soul upon reunion with the Unknown Redeemer. Gnostic Christianity originated as a syncretistic offshoot of this Jewish sect, in which the Unknown Redeemer became personified as the divine Christ. It's all very fascinating; however, none of it connects directly to the Gospel of the Hebrews, other than Pearson opining that GHeb should not be considered (big-G) Gnostic in any sense. Klijn offers a few speculations on the faith community that used the gospel based on the text itself, but it's very thin gruel. Consequently, I'm going to skip this section for now, until I'm better informed about early Egyptian Christianity. Ignocrates (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion topics for internal review

1. Demote fragment 1: I think we should consider moving fragment 1 into a footnote that says its assignment to the Gospel of the Hebrews is questionable. We say in the article that "there is general agreement about the seven quotations cited in the widely used critical edition of Philipp Vielhauer, translated by George Ogg", but that is not true in the case of fragment 1. Here is a brief summary of the literature: Cameron (1982), Cameron (1992), Metzger (1988), and Kloppenborg (1994) accept fragment 1 without reservations. Vielhauer & Strecker (1991) list it, but they regard the fragment as questionable (see p.150). Klijn (1992) rejects the assignment, and Elliot (1991) omits it from the list of fragments in his critical edition. I can't find any publications that include it as part of the Gospel of the Hebrews after 1994. Surely it can't be true that there is a "general agreement" if no one has agreed in the last 19 years. Ignocrates (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to WP:BEBOLD soon and demote fragment 1 as I indicated above. If anyone has their knickers in a knot, I will self-revert and we can talk about it here. Ignocrates (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I made the change. I would rather explain why the original fragment 1 is demoted to a footnote than explain, having recognized the post-Vielhaur & Strecker consensus, why we are still keeping it in the main body. I'm going to wait a few days for comments before I make further changes to the article. Ignocrates (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the body of the article is now good enough for government work. There may be a few small tweaks here and there yet. I'm going to spend the next day or so polishing up the lead to make sure it accurately summarizes the content in the body. Ignocrates (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The current second paragraph of the lead is close enough for horseshoes (otherwise known as peer review). I'm going to expand the current first paragraph into a summary of the who, what, when, and where aspects of composition and content of the text and add a sentence or two describing the distinctive features of the text itself. There should be a separate new paragraph describing the Church Fathers that used the text and the way in which they used it. Ignocrates (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The new paragraph describing how the Church Fathers used the text has been added to the lead. Ignocrates (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Rather than spend more time noodling on the first paragraph of the lead, I'm going to submit the article to peer review. The lead can be polished along with other changes suggested by the reviewers. Ignocrates (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer review is now open. Please make suggestions for further improvements to the article there. Ignocrates (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a "distinctive features" subsection to the first paragraph of the lead, as I indicated above. The two distinctive features are the Christology and first resurrection appearance to James. I still need to work up the Christology summary to put in here; I will finish that shortly. I swapped Cameron (1992) as an encyclopedic source for Yamauchi (1979). As I was going through the content checking references, I realized the content originally came from Cameron (1982) rather than Yamauchi (1979), so this attribution makes more sense. Ignocrates (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I inserted a summary of the distinctive Christology of the gospel. Para1 of the lead still needs to have a clearer separation of the composition (gospel text as a whole) from the content (internal features of the text) and a more complete description of the content. Ignocrates (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I finished my rewrite of the lead. I'm sure the wording can and will be improved over time. Jerome's mention of a "Hebrew gospel" was unsupported by any of the references in the lead, so I removed it. That factoid is probably best left for the body anyway, assuming a secondary source can be found. The various traditions about Jesus now immediately precede the distinctive features in a logical flow that moves from general to specific information about the text. Ignocrates (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates, what exactly does "Demote fragment 1" say, for which it is disputed by the aforementioned scholars if it actually belonged to the Gospel of the Hebrews? I would like to be filled-in on this topic, since I do not have access to the source. Davidbena (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to hurry my answer, but briefly, Vielhauer regarded the origin of the first fragment in the list as disputed in the 1957 3rd German addition of the New Testament Apocrypha. This was subsequently translated into the 1963 1st English edition and reprinted in the 1991 2nd English edition. Klijn reaffirmed all of Vielhauer's assignments of fragments attributed to the three Jewish-Christian gospels in his 1992 book except this one, which he regarded as not belonging to any Jewish-Christian gospel and possibly belonging to the Gospel of Peter. Most of this information is in the footnotes with references. After 1994, as I explained above, I can't find any author of a reliable secondary source that includes it. The question is this: should we stay true to Vielhauer's list and keep it, including Vielhauer's caution in a note, or exclude it as Klijn did because it is misleading to keep it. I took it out initially, but I decided to put it back and have a RfC on this question later. Ignocrates (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Peer review

I'm going to address the suggestions made in peer review so far and incorporate them into the article. It might take me a few days to catch up. At least one more editor is expected to contribute what I hope will be a comprehensive review. Ignocrates (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

An important question was raised in peer review. Brianboulton pointed out that George Ogg's English translation of the GHeb quotations uses very archaic language. I don't see anything in Schneelelcher's 2nd edition of NT Apocrypha (1991) that suggests anything other than an original translation by Ogg. I will check Schneemelcher's 1st edition of NT Apocrypha (1963) to see if there is any more information about George Ogg and sources he may have used in translation. Does anyone else have information about this? Ignocrates (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As I was reviewing Vielhauer & Strecker again, I realized that all the inferences about the pre-existence and incarnation of Jesus are due to the saying attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem that I removed from the main body and subordinated to a footnote. Consequently, any information in the article about Jesus' pre-existence and incarnation also needs to be moved to the same footnote. Does anyone have a problem with doing this? If so, please speak up now. We can have an RfC on this if needed. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, I would have thought this is important enough to be in the main article - even as, with almost everything, it is secondary evidence. The idea that Jesus didn't exist before he was born is quite unusual of early Christology even by the 3rd Century, therefore the fact that Cyril states it is worth being in the main text. Whether or not Cyril was right in his comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Point noted. I feel uneasy about how to proceed, which is why I asked for your expert advice. I think the most open and fair way to proceed is to restore the original version and have an RfC on this question. I would rather include more information than less and let the reader decide, assuming the information provided is not misleading. Ignocrates (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Progress so far: 1) I added quotation 1 of V&S back to the article for now pending the outcome of the RfC. 2) I included Schneemelcher's 1st edition of the NT Apocrypha as the English translation of the critical text because George Ogg's translation is identical in the 1st and 2nd editions. I verified that Ogg chose to use very archaic language for his original translation of the critical 3rd German edition. 3) I verified the exact wording of all 7 quotations and the summaries, and I confirmed their sources. Ignocrates (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we have a disambiguation page?

It seems to me that it's possible for this page to be confused with the Epistle to the Hebrews, should we have a disambiguation page for that? MtulliusC 23:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The current disambiguation page is Hebrew Gospel. Ignocrates (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

GAN

I have co-nominated this article for WP:GAN along with User:PiCo. You can help to improve the article during the review process or leave suggestions for further improvement here. Ignocrates (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

His user page says he is no longer active. I guess that needs to be updated? Newjerseyliz (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

PiCo indicated he still wants to be involved in GAN. I don't know what his plans are after that. Pyrotec says he will review the article, but it may take a week or two as he is currently tied up with other reviews. Ignocrates (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Modification of Existing Article "Gospel of the Hebrews"

I would like to suggest a modification of the present article entitled Gospel of the Hebrews, without erasing existing texts. This will only be a small addition. Where the text currently says: “The Gospel of the Hebrews is classified as one of the three Jewish–Christian gospels by modern scholars, along with the Gospel of the Nazoraeans and the Gospel of the Ebionites,” it is being advised to add “although it is speculated by some scholars whether or not these were all one and the same book, or individual compositions.” This addition will include a reference, [10]

[10] See: Kijn, “Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects,” pp. 24-27.

Because of this modification, it will be necessary to add "also" in the succeeding line: "The relationship between the Jewish–Christian gospels and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel remains a speculation."

It should now read, "The relationship between the Jewish–Christian gospels and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel also remains a speculation."

Off the record, and in accordance with directives in WP:OR, “This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages,” it is easy to see how someone reading these testimonies on a superficial level can be led into thinking that there were two or three gospels used by the early Jewish following of Jesus when, in actuality, there was only one Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew. Anyone who examines these testimonies with a critical demeanor can't help but come up with the same conclusion. For one obvious reason: Both, the Ebionites and the Nazoraeans made use of the same Gospel, as we learn in Jerome (Commentariorum in Mattheum Libri IV, ch.12, vs.13, ed. D.Hurst): "…In the Gospel which the Nazoraeans and the Ebionites use which we translated recently from Hebrew to Greek and which is called the authentic text of Matthew by a good many, etc."

You can see, then, why some might call this Gospel, "the Gospel of the Ebionites," or conversely, "the Gospel of the Nazoraeans," since it alone was used collectively by both groups. They - being Jewish - made use of a text written in the Aramaic language! Elsewhere, Jerome writes (Dialogus adversus Pelagianos, in: Migne, Patr. Lat. 23, Parisiis 1883, III, 2): "From the Gospel 'According to the Hebrews.' In the Gospel 'According to the Hebrews,' which was written in the Chaldaic and Syriac language but with Hebrew letters, and is used up to the present day by the Nazoraeans, I mean that according to the Apostles, or, as many maintain, according to Matthew, which Gospel is also available in the Library of Caesarea, etc." Here, again, the Nazoraeans were using the same Gospel mentioned earlier, only the Gospel used by them had its own appellation. It was called "According to the Hebrews," which same name is repeated by the Church Fathers in other places as well when describing the Gospel written by Matthew. In short, all of these titles are used to describe the one and the same book.

If anyone is interested that I cite more proofs to this effect, I shall be happy to do so. Davidbena (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena, I will take a look at this in the context of the other changes PiCo proposed above. In the future, please build your arguments around reliable secondary sources, e.g., "According to reliable secondary source A, Jerome mentioned (fill in the blank) in primary source B, and this is how the author of reliable source A interprets Jerome's remarks (complete citation with page numbers provided)". Thanks for the suggestion. Ignocrates (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Warning - Davidbena Jerome is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, you are not here to preach or convert others to your belief in Aramaic Matthew. This "offer" is exactly the kind of Talk page edit you are being asked not to make. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, here, I was just making a suggestion. It is not absolutely crucial. Anyway, as for Jerome being a "Primary Source," were you saying this as a means to obviate his claims? Just curious. There are other ways of circumventing having to use a "Primary Source," such as by quoting the literary work of co-authors Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri, 2010 p. 18, who mention Jerome in this regard in a footnote. I am NOT being insistent, but only trying to show you the other side. You can take it or leave it. No hard feelings. According to the rules of WP:NPOV, we ought to present a neutral stand where scholars are divided about a certain issue. Davidbena (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to all editors

Although editors on Wikipedia should not, as a rule, use Primary Sources, there is still a provision for its use occasionally, as we find in WP:PSTS, which rule states explicitly: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The wording here makes it clear that it is still permissible to use "Primary Sources" if the situation calls for it. HAPPY EDITING! Davidbena (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of reminders, I hope this recent incident reminds the veteran editors on this page why we decided to restrict the scope of the article during the merge discussion. Ignocrates (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Thought the people watching this page might like to know that there is currently a request for arbitration related to this topic at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#John Carter. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)