Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 16:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I see myself multiple problems with the article, as it compares to other encyclopedic reference sources regarding this topic, and to my eyes they are sufficient for the article not receiving GA status at this time. A comparison to the rather substantial entry in the Anchor Bible Dictionary is I think relevant. Their article on this topic indicates from the first sentence that there were multiple sources, at least two, which have been referred to by this title. This specifically includes the work Jerome called the Gospel of the Hebrews, which has been, more or less, generally linked to the Gospel of the Nazoreans by modern scholarship, despite the lack of any real sourcing to support that. On the basis of its apparent failure to give what seems required weight to the Gospel of the Hebrews Jerome used, which he did call by that title, and which so far as I can tell most of the existing scholarship on Jerome uses, to some degree, in discussing his material on it, and the substantial discussion of the mild "controversy" on the topic in the ABD, I would have to say that the article strikes me as unbalanced and in no way giving remotely sufficient weight to a substantial area of discussion regarding it, the nature of the Jerome material. John Carter (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the Greek Gospel of the Hebrews used in Egypt. The WP:SCOPE was restricted as a result of the merge discussion archived on the talk page. As a result, the discussion of the controversy was moved to the Jewish-Christian gospels article. Please note that the ABD is already used as a source for the article (Cameron 1992) and provide specific examples of topics covered in the ABD encyclopedic article that you feel have not received sufficient weight in this article. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought I did indicate specific examples, the use of the title by Jerome. I'm sorry you apparently didn't see that, or perhaps chose to ignore them. I can see no logical reason for the material regarding the use of the term by Jerome not being covered with roughly the same weight and attention in this article as it receives in the ABD. Also, as per WP:CCC, consensus can change, and I can see no valid reason to basically exclude the material relating to Jerome from the leading reference source on this topic based on an archived merge discussion. At this point, I believe the more reasonable thing to do would be to determine if the rules of that earlier, rather dated discussion, are enough to warrant not being considered when the article is being nominated for GA. On that basis, I am posting a message at WT:X regarding what the scope of the article should be, according to the more reliable sources, and how that should be reflected in the content. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion should not affect GA, since that is mostly about the proper use of sources and formatting issues. However, a content RfC on scope can happen on the talk page at the same time, or the GA can be put on hold pending the outcome of the RfC. Ignocrates (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe it most reasonable to allow the GA reviewer to determine that, don't you? John Carter (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will leave it to Pyrotec to make that call. Ignocrates (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've held off reviewing this nomination, for various reasons not least the controversy on the the talkpage. However, I want to make one thing perfectly clear. Reviewing a wikipedia GAN nomination does not involve comparing the relevant article against a "similar" article on wikipedia or one on the Anchor Bible Dictionary and then awarding GA-status, or not, based on outcome of that comparison. The article appears to be stable, but it now has a {{tag}}, added yesterday, which is somewhat disruptive. I'm therefore going to ignore it for now, and review the article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No objections whatsoever. And no one would not acknowledge that any single independent print source is necessarily an absolute dictator of content. Regarding questions of disruption, if editors review the talk page history, which I believe they do, I think they might find that perhaps dubious behavior did not begin with that tag. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't wish to read the talkpage and make value judgements on "dubious behavior". I've reviewed quite a few Israeli and Palestinian GANs and also Northern Ireland ones (and I'm English) with far far less controversy than this one. I expect those topics to be "sensitive" (and wikipedia has protocols for articles on the Middle East). The criteria for Good Articles are to found in WP:WIAGA, so the relevant decision (mine to make) in this particular instance is whether the apparent lack of the some "information" leads to a non-compliance with clause 3(a). That is the only argument I'm going to accept, not whether a "thing" is in some highly regarded book and its not in this article. However, having made these points, you (and others) are welcome to add contributions to this review. I will consider them. I'm not a subject matter expert on the bible, so I will not be reviewing this nomination as a "bible subject matter expert". Pyrotec (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It isn't the behavior on the talk page that I think particularly relevant, but the sourced material included in it and, possibly, the history of removal of content from this page, as indicated in the talk page archives, to another article, without apparently leaving a indication of its having been here which seems to me problematic. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A few years ago I added a big block of fully-referenced material about a historical building and its surrounding land to a "village" article and a PR-guy for the developer of the (by then derelict site) property stripped out all the relevant parts and created a new article on "his new property" against his username and just added a wiklink to the "village" article. He also added spam to this new article, about his restaurant (with links to his menus) so I stripped out the spam. I was very angry about what was done (and it seems to fit with what you are summarising), but reviewing a nomination means assessing it against WP:WIAGA and none of this "history" (or apparent history) is likely to be considered. Pyrotec (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you read the quotes provided, the "history" is more or less, according to those reference sources, the primary reason the topic is known, even including the group of quotes which have more or less been identified by modern scholars under the name "Gospel of the HEbrews". In all honesty, I am myself far from sure that the article as it stands meets even basic WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, as the articles I have seen rarely if ever discuss this source separately. I realize that may be irrelevant to the GA review, which requires assuming good faith, even when, honestly, there is no reason to do so, but it is still I believe a valid concern, even if it does fall outside the scope of the GA review. John Carter (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the first part of your comment; and from the second part of those comments, I'm not sure that you understand the GAN review process. Assuming good faith is not a GA requirement, but neither is notability. GA has a requirement of verifiable sources: where I'm in a position to check sources, I verify the claims in the articles against the sources. In addition, there are arguments that flair up from time to time about the degree of checking that should be done to guard against copyright violations. So, there is some degree of checking for copyright violation. I'd suggest that a conscientiously-done GAN review is diametrically opposite to just accepting what is written is on a WP:AGF basis acceptable "as is". P.S. is "Gospel of the HEbrews" some kind of message, or is it just a fliped case with an "E" instead of "e"? Pyrotec (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a typo. And the first part was more or less referring to the fact that the "Jewish gospel" had until recently been used more or less as an umbrella term for what are now called here the Jewish-Christian gospels, according to the sources. That being the case, considering variations on this title have been until very recently used for all three or four such gospels, there is in at least all the reference sources with reference articles of any length that I've checked, and I think in most of the journal articles, some early content in them relating to the historical ambiguity of the term, and then a narrowing of focus to the one source which is today commonly referred to by this title. And thank you by the way for the clarification of what the GA process involves on the part of the GA reviewer. I myself only ever did one, kind of badly by my own acknowledgement, so it's been awhile since I checked there. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Walter Bauer (1934), which I refer to be below, and with a 1934-date I accept is old, stated that Jerome used that "label" to refer to a Jewish-Christian revision of the Gospel of Matthew and Epiphanius confused the Gospel of the Hebrews with that of the Ebionites. However, if by the end of the review I think that this clarification is both needed and is not adequately covered in the article I can raise it as a possible non-compliance with WP:WIAGA clause 3(a). In contrast, I might consider some things unnecessary and use clause 3(b); however all of that is for the future and I've not yet got there. Pyrotec (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

To return to the main point: I'm going to do a quick read of the article from start to finish and then work my way through the article, starting at the Origin and characteristics section and finishing with the WP:lead. I will be adding comments section by section, below, where necessary. I don't have access to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, so I shall not be referring to it. This is likely to take a few days, but I would like to finish it by the weekend. However, I'll not be doing any more work today on this nomination. Pyrotec (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Pyrotec, as co-nominators of this article, PiCo and I are prepared to address your comments. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Ignocrates (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm going to read it today (first time round) and then I will start to add comments during the second reading: which might be today or it might be tomorrow (it just depends on how much time I've got and how long it takes to read it). Pyrotec (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've now done that first quick read through. It was done 3rd and 4th September but I possibly misread the Lead. I "read" it as saying that the gospel existed in fragmentary form, so I (wrongly) leaped into thinking of the Nag Hammadi library and / or Dead Seas Scrolls and that lead me to asking why are this not mentioned in the article. I now know that I was wrong: I've subsequently been reading the English-translation of Walter Bauer (1934) about the Gospel(s) of the Hebrews, there were several called by that name; and discussions on what label "Hebrew" meant. I'm likely to make some comments about the lead, but as I stated above in my review I'm doing the body of the article before I do the lead. Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Bauer, Walter (1971) [1934]. Kraft, Robert A.; Krodel, Gerhard (eds.). Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. SCM Press. ISBN 978-0-8006-0055-6. (2nd German edition)

Keep in mind that Bauer's book is considered a historical work by the majority of modern scholars. He wrote before the Nag Hammadi discovery, when many scholars assumed that the Greek Gospel of Thomas was part of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Ignocrates (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Thanks for that contribution. I was working my way through one of Bart D Ehrman's sets of lecture notes a few months ago, (I have three of his courses from [1]) and he cited Bauer which was readily available to hand. He (Ehrman) also cites his own book (and DVD) Lost Christianities, which is on my "to get" list, but I don't yet have a copy of either to hand. So, I'm unlikely to quoting them much in this review. However, Ehrman is cited in Gospel of the Hebrews (Ehrman, Bart D. (2005a) [2003] & Ehrman, Bart D. (2005b) [2003]) with broken web links to www.shareislam.info. I'm not sure why that link is given, the books are viewable on Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com . Pyrotec (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware those links were dead. I have removed them, and replaced them. Ignocrates (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Origin and characteristics -

• This short single-paragraph appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA, however I may need to revise this view by the time that I get to the end of the article (note: by this I mean the Lead).
• See comments immediately prior to those on the Lead.

• Content -

• The first paragraph looks OK.

...stopping at this point. To be continued tomorrow, onwards. Pyrotec (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• The rest of this section, which was an introduction and commentary on seven fragments, was OK, but I added a few wikilinks.

• Christology -

• This section appears to be compliant.

• Reception -

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• This section appears to be compliant.

• Relationship to other texts -

• What is stated in this section, is verifiable and appears (on the basis of checks carried) to be consistent with what is given in the sources used to provide verification.
• See section below.

• Minor comment on scope -

• I'm adding a minor comment here rather than putting it in with the Origin and characteristics or Relationship to other texts sections, since I don't want to prescribe how and where it is addressed.
• This article gives some quite detailed and verifiable, by citations and notes, using a wide range of relevant reference material, information on the Gospel of the Hebrews. However, I'm aware that older material, such as Walter Bauer (1934), 2nd Edition, in its English language translation (of 1971), which states that in addition to the Gospel of the Hebrews (which this article covers in some depth) two other books were sometimes mis-described by this name. This book is referenced by Ehrman and some of this information appears in Ehrman & Plese (2011). I'm not really suggesting that much more than this is needed here. The other two books are described as Jerome (mis)-refering to a Jewish-Christian review of Matthew and Epiphananius refering to the Gospel of the Ebionites. Relationship to other texts discusses the Gospel of the Ebionites, but does not (perhaps I've missed it) say that it was sometimes (mis-)known as the Gospel of the Hebrews. I think this is also one of the points being made on the talkpage.
• I'm not a subject matter expert in any way, could this be accommodated in the article?

Yes, this can be handled by inserting two sentences, about Jerome and Epiphanius, respectively, in the Relationship to other texts section. Do you have the page numbers for this topic in Bauer (1971)? I will also check Ehrman & Plese (2011). I will make this minor change and leave it to PiCo polish up the wording later. Ignocrates (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a sentence about Jerome's use of the name Gospel of the Hebrews, and I cited Cameron (1992), i.e. the ABD, as a source. I expanded the note about Epiphanius' understanding of the gospel in his possession to include the terms "Hebrew" gospel and Gospel of the Hebrews. I prefer to leave Epiphanius' description as a note, since it has not been a source of confusion. Are you are ok with these changes? Ignocrates (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was using Bauer, Walter (1971) [1934]. Kraft, Robert A.; Krodel, Gerhard, eds. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. ISBN 0-8006-0055-X. (2nd German edition with added appendices by Georg Strecker) and I was summarising material on pages 51-53. Pyrotec (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Lead -

• This is quite a good introduction to the topic and summary of the points in the main body of the article, as it is required to do as per WP:Lead. But, I have a few very minor observations:

• I "mis-read", the first time round, what the article was saying in respect of the gospel existing only in fragments / fragmentary form, so I (wrongly) leaped into thinking of the Nag Hammadi library and / or Dead Seas Scrolls. Strictly the "gospel existing in fragments" seems to be correct, but I'd like to ask whether this could be slightly reworked / expanded without unduly changing the balance of the lead versus the main body of the article? The cause (?) of its loss is that it was regarded by the Latin church at end of the 4th century as heretical so they stopped referring to it; and presumably there are no extant Latin versions of it? Note: does it exist in Coptic? So, the "fragments" are reconstructions of bits of it from its mention prior to the 5th Century; and there is some academic agreement / disagreement over what was in it.
• What I added above is probably longer than it would take to write in summary, but is this the way forward? Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Reworded per your suggestion. It is the quotations which survive, not actual fragments. They are inferred from the quotations. Ignocrates (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Much better. I like the use of the words "...as brief quotations by the early Church Fathers which preserve fragments of the original text". Pyrotec (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have made all of the requested changes. Let me know if anything more is needed. Ignocrates (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think anything else is needed (well, appart from the "flag" to go). Thanks very much for expediting this assessment. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting and informative. I enjoyed reviewing the article and reading the associated references (books etc, were available on-line).

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   y

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. I think that it has the potential of making FAC at a future date, but for that to happen the diverge views expressed on the talk pages will need to be resolved somehow. I enjoyed reading this article, so congratulations all to the editors involved in creating this informative article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)