User talk:Ret.Prof/archive7

ARCHIVE 7 (2014)

Cut and paste move

I have no idea why you tried a cut and past move at Oral gospel traditions - I would have thought you knew that wasn't supposed to be done on Wikipedia. Anyway, feel free to propose a change in the title following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves. StAnselm (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess! Cut and past is not my forte. I hang my head in shame. Sorry. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005–06 Copa Catalunya (2nd nomination)

I noticed that you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005–06 Copa Catalunya a couple of weeks ago but not at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005–06 Copa Catalunya (2nd nomination). Did something come to light where you think that has made you change your mind? Nfitz (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Reports of my Retirement are greatly exaggerated.

Retiring Stepping back yet again? I think you should honestly ask yourself why you continue to spend time here and whether your efforts are helping or hindering the improvement of this encyclopedia. As for Peter, he has edited for a total of 5 days in the last 5 years (all since 17 Dec 2013). I don't see the analogy. Ignocrates (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Is that a fair comment? Is it an honest comment? Maybe you have me confused me with User:PiCo who posted a tag saying he was retiring...still has the tag and well you can see for yourself how many edits he has made during his "retirement". WOW I think you owe me an apology. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC) PS please re-read the underlined section above.

I have deleted the Peter Kirby link a sign of good faith. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. I struck my comment. I failed to appreciate the nuanced difference between "retiring" and "stepping back". Ignocrates (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It really really meant a lot to me. I step back from time to time to let things cool down but will never retire. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe your statement that you will never voluntarily retire. Therefore, I have decided to recuse myself indefinitely from any further involvement in the Gospel of Matthew, Oral gospel traditions, and articles related to those topics per my talk page notice. Ignocrates (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL You have a point! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Collusion

Since no one else had the decency to inform you, you should be aware that In ictu oculi reopened the proposal to merge your Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel article into the Gospel of the Hebrews, in what now appears to be a proposal for deletion. Although you were not informed, a notice was given to the original proposer, as well as several selective notices to editors who were previously in favor of deletion of the original article, here, here, and here, in what, to my mind at least, seems like a rather obvious attempt at collusion. Ignocrates (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I have followed your link and your concerns about Wikipedia:Tag team are legitimate. I have chosen to assume good faith. My protection is very much up to those bureaucrats who patrol Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Before you resume

In the spirit of collegiality, I suggest you take a look at User_talk:BruceGrubb and familiarize yourself with the details of this dispute and the cast of characters who played a role in it. Should you decide to return to editing, I fear there is a significant risk that you will be "Grubb"ed. I hope you will think carefully about how to come back with your eyes open. Ignocrates (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)... I have. The concerns that you have raised are legitimate. Also, trolling hounding, personal attacks and collusion have some merit. I just noticed User:John Carter is an Admin! In any event I have chosen to assume good faith. I am being careful in my edits. My protection is very much up to those bureaucrats who patrol Wikipedia. Thanks again to User:Nihonjoe! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Special Thanks

Thanks for dealing with the allegations that were brought against me. I looked really, really, really guilty!! If bureaucrat User:Nihonjoe had not figured out that the edit histories for Oral tradition and the historical Jesus and the Christian Oral Traditions had been tampered with, I would have been finished at Wikipedia! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

In the mentality of the 363 AD Council of Laodicea, the "mainstream" of the day decided to burn out anyone suspected of "Judaizing" the faith, and this became a central theme throughout the wonderfully progressive "Dark Ages" and through to the Spanish Inquisition. What you wrote about recent efforts makes me wonder if there isn't something to the "vestigial" theory in some people's inherited characters...! Regards, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well said. I wonder how User:Davidbena feels! A lot of evil has been done in the name of Christianity! Now back to the "Inquisition" or as it is now called Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Ignocrates

The consensus on AGK's talk page is to begin with WP:DRN and take it from there. That is probably going to be seen by ArbCom as a necessary first step on the road to arbitration anyway. Since the hoo-ha has temporarily died down, I would probably wait on this article until Dunn's new book comes out before you resume editing. I expect there will be renewed attempts to discredit Dunn and all the other major authors on the topic, as well as the topic itself. That is tactic #1 used so often in this category - undermine the editor by undermining the sources. If that fails, expect a shift to tactic #2 - poison the well by attempting to undermine your personal integrity. I have removed the article from my watch-list, so drop a note on my talk page if there are any overt attempts at deletion in the interim. Ignocrates (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Ret.Prof, if DRN is not able to mediate the expected resumption of this dispute (I suspect they will become quickly overwhelmed by the complexity), you can request editor assistance from admin Keilana as an outside mediator who has experience in dealing with complex disputes. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Re tactic #1 & tactic #2 mentioned above: Most unsettling...particularly the shift to tactic #2 - poison the well by attempting to undermine your personal integrity. Yet I am going to assume good faith. Several bureaucrats and admins are aware of the situation. It seems over the past week you, have taken a bit of a beating. It seems no good deed goes unpunished! Most unfair. Sorry Ignocrates! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. That's life in the big Wiki. The "beating" I took over this article is nothing compared to how I am used to being treated. At least I don't have anyone else sending me threatening emails (yet). I don't think outside observers of this complex dispute understand how much it is rocking the foundation of certain people's deeply-held beliefs. Ignocrates (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right. The new scholarship is unsettling for some resulting in a state of denial. It is probably why material from Ehrman and Casey is deleted so rapidly from Wikipedia. My solution has been to be kind, proceed slowly, and focus on the reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the support I have received over the past year! For a while I believed I would be banned from Wikipedia! It is my hope with the John Carter Arbitration complete that I may return to normal editing. My plan for the new year is to avoid the Hebrew Gospel Hypothesis and focus on the Oral Gospel Tradition which is far more important! There are several other articles that need to be brought up to date. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I, personally, cannot see how an article which raises the probability that there once existed a proto-Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel from which Greek translations, recensions and/or interpolations were made at some later time (based on the interpretation of early Jewish sources quoted by Jerome, Eusebius and Epiphanius) can "rock the foundation of certain people's deeply-held beliefs," seeing that the basic message is still there to be seen in the Greek texts. Jerome wrote explicitly: "Matthew, also called Levi, an apostle after having been a publican, was the first to compose a gospel of Christ in Judea in Hebrew letters and words for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. But who afterwards translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilius the martyr so diligently collected." Why then would such a scenario be considered a "let-down," Ignocrates? I am somewhat familiar with the Jewish way of thinking, and throughout all my years of Judaic studies among native Jews who speak Hebrew, it is quite conclusive that Jews made use, first and foremost, of their own script - i.e. the Chaldean script (Assyrian script) whenever writing homilies (Midrashim), or historical accounts. While it is true that I am no longer contributing articles which treat on the subject, I have still seen enough to know that the matter is disputed by scholars, and, which to me says, present the conflicting views (based on WP:NPOV) and let the people draw their own conclusions. Does knowing that the book of Daniel was first composed in an Aramaic script and later translated into Greek make it any less valid? Of course not! Davidbena (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well said. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You should realize that the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis is still a hypothesis and a priori it could be true even if there isn't any conclusive evidence behind it, but the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew is completely another matter and it is definitely WP:FRINGE. Conflating the two matters is a case of WP:COMPETENCE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the reliable sources support User:Davidbena. Did User:Tgeorgescu succeed in banning User:Davidbena?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources he quoted aren't reliable sources, they are primary sources and cannot be used to establish facts for Wikipedia. He was not banned, but he still does not want to comply with Wikipedia policies and produced original research, which was rejected by multiple, independent editors from being included in Wikipedia. I mean he even tried at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and still did not succeed with creating Wikipedia articles and I played no part in vetoing his attempts to create articles. He was told by many editors that Wikipedia does not publish original research and he should seek a peer-reviewed publication for publishing his articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES support User:Davidbena read carefully! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The writings of Papias, Jerome and Eusebius aren't reliable sources. In this case, reliable sources are the writings of historians who live by publish or perish. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That simply is not in WP:SOURCES. User:Davidbena is on solid ground. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

On the surface this dispute seems simple. I had some concerns about the following edit and requested some references. The response was "good grief" and that I was a "time waster". I went to the library and got the following references.

• Throckmorton's the Gospel Parallels pp 1-15 (All editions from 1957 to present)
• William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602
• Rochus Zuurmond, Novum Testamentum Aethiopice: The Synoptic Gospels, Franz Steiner Pub., 1989. p 31
• Sabine Baring Gould, "The lost and hostile gospels" 1874, Oxford University, Digitized 2006. p 122

I offered to provide further references if required. This would be no problem as every Biblical scholar is aware of the attestations to the early MSS (ie Matthew "wrote his Gospel in Hebrew in Palestine"). NOTE I did not revert the unsourced edit for I have voluntarily stepped back from editing this article. Of course this gave rise to even more serious time wasting allegations (ie disruptive behavior) requiring a topic ban.

However there is much more to this issue than my asking for reliable sources and I am making a formal request for Arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That is your right of course. However, please be aware that you are going for all the marbles by taking that action. Arbitration may result in a M. A. D. outcome. Ignocrates (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

All I ask for is a fair hearing. If my editing is worthy of a ban then so be it. We have had our differences but in the end you have been fair. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate your saying so. Everyone should have the opportunity to have a fair hearing. Ignocrates (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please find my detailed response to your question on my talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Anti Jewish bias

A second important issue to be addressed at Arbitration is the issue is Anti-Hebrew bias. It is true that in the 20thC the German was considered a more reputable and stable academic tradition. However, in the past few years there has been a a major shift in Christian Biblical scholarship. Leading Biblical scholars such as Ehrman, Casey, Edwards have now taken the position that Jesus was a Jew and that the historical roots of Christianity must be seen in a Jewish context. This scholarship has sparked debate for some still hold the position that Jesus was a Greek speaking Galilean whose teachings were anti-Jewish. Last year, one of the world's leading historians on Early Christianity released his latest work. James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013. argues that the assumption that Jesus was not Jewish has been a real stumbling block for Biblical scholars. If anything, more serious has been what might be called “institutional anti-Semitism, or more accurately anti-Judaism, which for so long disfigured Christian theology, including NT scholarship." The so called mainline or classic position of Ernest Renan, who wrote: "Fundamentally there was nothing Jewish about Jesus" is mistaken and encapsulates "Christianity's historic denigration of Judaism." The truth is Christianity has been anti Jewish and Christian scholarship has failed to be "Christian" in its treatment of Jews. This can be seen in the disparagement of the Hebrew Gospel which is viewed as little more than a Jewish Bastardwerk. The mainline position of 20th Century scholars bordered on antisemitism. The Deutsche Christen movement produced the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, still the standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament found in theological libraries and used by students all over the world as if it were nothing but a standard work of reference. Nor should it be imagined that such bias was isolated to scholars who fought for Nazi Germany for even Bultmann was tainted by the effect of working in a German environment in which Jewishness was so unwelcome. Google Link Nor should it be imagined that such anti-Jewish sentiment was isolated to scholars coming out of Germany. Google Link. The Jewish tradition has generally been viewed pejoratively and judged inferior by many other scholars instrumental in the formation theories regarding the Synoptic tradition. Google Link. One must take care to distinguish between Biblical Scholarship based on reliable historical evidence and “the age-long, inbred, instinctive Jew-hatred” of the West.

Roots of Theological Anti-Semitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann

Volume 20 of Studies in Jewish History and Culture, BRILL, 2009. -

Susannah Heschel, 2008

Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012.

James Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel, 2009. pp 194 - 208

Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010

This is an important issue to be worked through at arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration does not deal with content issues. See WP:ARBGUIDE. Perhaps you want WP:DRN or WP:Mediation. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Stepping Back

My solution is to step back from editing articles at Wikipedia.

Update articles

A few years ago I decided update the Christian articles re the Second Temple Period. (See bottom of talk page re diff) Since then I have come under brutal attack by a small but dedicated group of editors who totally reject the new scholarship. Things have gotten so bad that last week when I requested a reference regarding an unsourced edit their response was to propose a topic ban! Note! I did not edit the article, just queried this unsourced edit! The abuse of he last two years (whether deserved or not) has in a practical sense brought my editing to a halt.

Different Approach

I still plan to update the Christian articles of the Second Temple period with the following sources:

• James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013

• Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012.

• Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010.

• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009

as follows:

1. I will not edit Wikipedia articles. Rather I will create a proposed draft based upon reliable sources from a NPOV.
2. I will offer it for peer review.
3. Then I will work to achieve consensus.
4. Only after we have achieved consensus will I edit the actual article.

I think my approach is reasonable and hope it will bring an end to the conflict. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Way forward?

There is a conversation that mentions you at

User_talk:Hroðulf#.22Incompetent_editor_who_pushes_fringe_views.22_thread_on_ANI:_looking_for_suggestions_for_way_forward

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Bart D. Ehrman's Lecture on You-Tube

Professor, I wanted you to see this You-Tube video. Ehrman's lecture answers effectively my point that the original Gospel of Matthew may have been written in a Hebrew/Aramaic language, which is no longer extant, but having no more than the testimonies of the Church Fathers of an initial Aramaic or Hebrew text, and where the missing Aramaic or Hebrew copies ostensibly differed from the copies of copies of the Greek texts bequeathed to us and which were made from some ancient or proto text (in whatever language it was written in). Enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk0bMzaIGas Davidbena (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

David, I'm trying to set up a formal mediation (along with PiCo, I presume) in which I hope you will take part. It will be great practical experience, even if nothing else comes of it. Ignocrates (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ignocrates. While we're on this subject, allow me to paste here the message that I sent to User:Tgeorgescu. "After Dr. Ehrman mentions John Mill's momentous work in 30:54 thru 32:25, namely, the Novum Testamentum Graece wherein can be found the citations of the Church Fathers taken from an earlier source (the implication here being to the Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew), Dr. Ehrman then proceeds in 32:59 thru 34:18 to establish the fact that our current records of Greek NT texts were only 'produced from manuscripts in the mid-fourth century' CE, asserting that 'the early transmission of the text was NOT carefully controlled.' Any scholar who carefully looks at such statements with a critical demeanor and with a little acumen cannot help but deduce from them that it is highly likely that the current Greek texts (with all their inconsistencies) were derived from a Hebrew/Aramaic source which is now lost. Let me express my apologies to you, sir, for in my previous message to you, I meant to say that all this is implied by Dr. Ehrman's words, rather than stated explicitly - although in the same lecture (26:39-42) he says about the surviving copies of the N.T. that they were originally written in Greek. Obviously here, he had in mind the Greek canonical texts of the N.T. as a whole, based on the fact that there is no surviving record of the Hebrew or Aramaic." Davidbena (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation

RetProf, I've been having a discussion on User talk:Hroðulf that mentions you and you might like to see it. I say there that I like you, and it's true - I was actually in South Africa in 1994 with the UN mission, running supervision in Cape Town, and we may have overlapped. I also say there that I think you're going to end up with the rough end of the pineapple in this mediation, which is an Australian colloquialism meaning that I think your chances of vindication are slim. More on that in a moment.

First, and as I said on Hrothulf's page, I think it's appropriate for you to pick the mediator. This will mean that you won't feel someone in the "cabal" has been foisted on you. (The cabal doesn't exist, by the way, but you clearly feel it does, so...) You need to go to this page: Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and start contacting people from the list of 10 mediators on the panel. AGK and Keilana are unavailable, according to Ignocrates, who has asked me on my Talk page to do this. I imagine you can contact all 8 remaining names at the same time, but should tell them.

I made a suggestion, which no one has taken up, that the mediator should be asked to make a binding recommendation on the future behaviour of all concerned. That would open the way to formal arbitration if needed at a future date. Arbitration, as someone or other on the ANI has said, is the nuclear option, and to be avoided if at all possible.

And finally: Why on earth are you doing this to yourself? Wikipedia is a playground for persons with mild personality disorder in the autistic spectrum, it's not real. You've lived in the real world in Africa - me too, in the UN in Africa and Iraq and elsewhere. The world is full of real problems, and the final message of Matthew's gospel is not to go forth an edit Wikipedia.

Keep in touch on my Talk page. Most especially, can you please collaborate with me and Ignocrates on the wording of the request we put to the mediator (it will be a joint approach, not a hostile one seeking to apportion blame).

PiCo (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ihave a draft of the request for mediation on my talk page. I've asked Ignocrates to look at it. When he's done that we'll show it to you and you can see what you think - we want you to feel you're in control and that it's a joint approach. Even though I think you're wrong, I don't think it's nice to have witch-hunts (or fox-hunts either).PiCo (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

some markup

Hello Prof, noticed your thread at AN/I. Wish you luck in the mediation-process, it can be harrowing, but stay calm and stick to the facts, you should be okay. If it does eventually go to arbcom, it will help for you to look over their concept of a five-tiered breakdown for science: topics can be mainstream science, alternative minority science, questionable science, fringe science, and obvious blatant pseudoscience. In my book, unless the religion in question makes scientific claims, the science-oriented guideline of WP:FRINGE simply has no applicability. The folks at the FTN thread seemed to agree, except for a couple of them. Anyhoo, WP:FRINGE has a specific meaning, and for something to *be* WP:FRINGE per wikipedia standards, requires more than just the assertion of one editor. Hope this helps.

  I'm actually here for something unrelated though. In the green box of the FTN thread-summary that you posted, from back in August, there was this aside, at one point: "Ret.Prof, please do not edit your posts after people have responded to them. It makes understanding the flow of discussion difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)"[1] There is a trick to going back and making corrections, which involves some HTML markup. It's pretty straightforward. Your first attempt:

I think that would be off topic. The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ret.Prof (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2 August 2013

Your rewrite:

I think that would be off topic. The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead! Most most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section in their article devoted to the Papias tradition in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Your rewrite with some <ins> </ins> and the <s> </s> tags that show people what happened:

I think that would be off topic. The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead! Matthew was the fountainhead! Most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section in their article devoted to the Papias tradition in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ret.Prof (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2 August 2013 Updated. Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to be overly-formal here, for instance if you said speling when you actually meant spelling, you can just fix the mistake, nobody will care that you did not say speling spelling later on because nothing substantial changed. Same for grammar mistakes like saying "most most" by accident.  ;-)   But for anything beyond uncontroversial fixes, I recommend the HTML stuff (or just make a new comment that says "I forgot to say..." and put it further down the thread). Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the practical help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Misleading notices

@User:Nishidani & User:PiCo While we are waiting for the ANI to close, I have a question: For weeks and weeks you have had notices on your user page stating that you are no longer active at Wikipedia. However this appears to be more than a little misleading. Am I missing something?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've come out of the retirement for this process. Although to be honest I wasn't very good at being retired. I'll try again after. PiCo (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, even though we disagree sometimes, you add a great deal to Wikipedia! - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation 2 - draft request

RetProf - there's now a draft request for mediation on my Talk page. It's been prepared in your voice (says "I" in places), as Ignocrates and I think it's best if you make the request. (Is that ok with you?) Please have a look and make any changes you think necessary. If you wish you can ask Davidbena and even Til Eulenspeigel to take a look. Then we can fill in the details (who the other parties are, what other approaches to resolution have been made), and then we can post it. PiCo (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably best if we wait a bit to let thing cool down. See my message on Ignocrates talk page. When do you think the ANI will close?? Thanks for answering my question. - Ret.Prof (talk)

I think the ANI is closed - a whole list of people have recommended closure and mediation. Given that, I don't think waiting is an option - it would look like deliberate procrastination, possibly an attempt to avoid dispute resolution processes. Personally I'm pretty cool already, so's Ignocrates. The few people who seem warm are those who are in a perpetual state of hot-collardness anyway. My advice is to press on to an amicable, cooperative approach to formal mediation, esp. as it's something you yourself have expressed support for. PiCo (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hold back on editing the draft - Ignocrates has put up some suggestions that I need to take care of. I'll be back in touch. PiCo (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not think it is procrastination to wait until the ANI is closed. Also it is important to see what the closing Admin has to say. However, having said that, I am good to go exhausted! Thanks for the good will. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC) PS see my comments re draft request on your talk page.

One process has nothing to do with the other; they are completely independent. Ret.Prof, the quickest way for the ANI filing to end with no action is for you to stop talking/writing on that page. An admin doesn't have to close it; there is no decision to close. It will simply age off into an archive. It's time to move on. Ignocrates (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it is good to know it is over! - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the draft is now ready for you and Ignocrates to look at. If you wish you're welcome to ask advice from Davidbena or Liz or anyone. PiCo (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is has been one of the worst months I have ever spent at Wikipedia. The ANI experience is not a good one. I have been pounded to a bloody pulp and I am truly exhausted. I'm taking a break but I will be back. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes a break is just a break

Please do not go reading all sorts of stuff into my taking a break. I do not like conflict. I found the ANI brutal. I am exhausted and need a break from all the conflict. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I did not think my last day before my holiday was going to be this bad. See you all soon. I'm done for a little while. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC) PS have a good weekend!

My break has ended. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

RetProf, User talk:In ictu oculi has replied on my Talk page without making changes - I take that to mean he has none to make. I, however, have made some. I've added links to all the relevant Gospel Of Matthew talk page threads. Please have a look and see if you agree. If you're happy, please go to the mediation request filing page (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation) and file. As I said to InIctu on his Talk page, the aim is to test, through mediation, whether authentic Matthew needs to be more fully explored in the GoM article - in other words, it's a content dispute. Please be reassured that I'll only attack your arguments, not you :) and I expect you'll do the same for me. And I'll also do my best to keep any hotheads in line - mediation is a forum, not a colosseum. PiCo (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

After you file the request the mediation committee will decide whether to accept it; if they do they'll assign a mediator who will then contact everyone. People on the list can accept to be part of the process or decline - the two important ones would probably be me (it was my reversion of your edit that you objected to on Talk) and TGeorgu (because he started the ANI thread). I'm a bit unsure what happens after that, but I assume you, as filing person,will be asked to make an initial statement setting out the dispute. I went through one of these once but I've forgotten. PiCo (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

(Can I suggest you change the header of this thread to "Formal Mediation" or something? looks more considered.) PiCo (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

So here's the draft:

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Ret.Prof - filing party
2. PiCo
3. Tgeorgescu
4. In ictu oculi
5. Ignocrates
6. Eusebeus
7. Davidbena

(I've removed

1. Atethnekos
2. StAnselm
3. Ckruschke

from the list - none of them commented on the GoM Talk page, though they did on the ANI page, but if we start adding everyione who commented on ANI the list will be unmanageable. Still, # Davidbena is on the list and he didn't comment on GoM, so I can't say my logic is impeccable. Add those three if you like, or maybe message them first and ask if they want to be included.)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Gospel of Matthew (main)
2. Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (secondary)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute

1. ANI, 3 February 2014 (link)
2. Article talk page, 26 January 2014 (link)
3. Article talk page, 30 January 2014 (link)
4. Article talk page, 30 January 2014 (link)
5. Article talk page, 31 January 2014 (link)
6. Article talk page, 1 February 2014 (link)
7. Fringe theories noticeboard, 2 August 2013 (link)

Issues to be mediated

• To what extent, if at all, should the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis be represented in the Gospel of Matthew article?

(The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis is the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in Hebrew or Aramaic and later translated into, or formed the basis of, the present Gospel)

Very good work! I will file today. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Dispute

Re the Gospel of Matthew, most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Google Books However there is a dispute as to whether this is fringe?

The views of Papias were preserved by the early Christian historian, "Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." Blackwell (2010) p 301 Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect, (Casey 2010. pp 87-88) and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.” (Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101) & (Edwards 2009 pp 2-3) The historical data is both "striking and incontestable". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117)

See most up to date sources:

• David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303
• William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602
• Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101
• Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88
• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3

See also older sources

Just a note on citing sources: Make sure you cite authors, not editors or publishers (Blackwell's is a publisher, and the references to Aune and to Craig/Morlandshould be to Duling and McGrew/McGrew respectively, Aune and Craig/Morland being editors). PiCo (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Issue

Does the aforementioned scholarship on the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew fall under the category of WP:Fringe theories?

Importance

- Ret.Prof (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at the references listed above. In my humble opinion, the above "up-to-date" references with their respective pages mostly show research that is of a speculative nature, especially with regard to Eusebius' quote of Papias and what Papias may have meant by his words. I personally think that we can find better references than the ones listed. IMHO Davidbena (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good and contrary to what you have been told primary sources are admissible. - Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The question in the filing in the filing is: "To what extent, if at all, should the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis be represented in the Gospel of Matthew article?" The committee isn't being asked whether it's fringe or not, just the extent to which it should be in the article, on a scale of zero to infinity. So don't raise fringe as an issue yourself, just answer it if someone else does. What you need to do is argue that the article as it stands at present fails to give adequate coverage to the hypothesis (or is distorted, or whatever). PiCo (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

OMG You are right!!! No need for me to hang myself out to dry. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If I were you I'd say this...

Hi RetProf. You can take or leave the following, but I'm offering it just to help give the mediation debate a shape. Here's how I'd argue if I were you and addressing the question of whether the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis is adequately covered in the Gospel of Matthew article. First, since the existing coverage in the GoM article is the crux, I'd summarise that, probably in these terms: 1. Scope of the dispute

• GoM article covers authorship/formation in two places, the lead and the section "structure and content"
• In lead it says XYZ about authorship, in structure/content it repeats this (it better!) plus adds abc.
• I agree/disagree with (whichever of these bits, but cover them all).

(Those two together define the scope of the dispute)

2. Scope of the disagreement, attempts to resolve

• I disagree with (presumably with the way the Papias material in the second half of the structure/content section is handled), because (it's inadequate/biased, whatever).
• My attempts to rectify this have been reverted (by the evil PiCo, in fact - refer to the diff, which is already there in the filing)
• My attempts to debate this on the article Talk page met with no success (although in the filing, so again you can say "see above" - I wouldn't mention at this stage that you felt hounded, although you did, because that alters things from a content dispute to something more serious and not what mediation is for).
• The matter was taken to ANI where my position received some support.

(this defines the scope of the disagreement and reviews attempts to resolve it).

3. Proposed resolution

• I want to add the following to the GoM article (you need to draft something that you want to see put in the article - never give people a problem unless you also give them a solution; also, if you draft the amendment, you keep control of the argument)

(You need, somehow, to head off the argument that the HGH is already covered in the article of Hebrew Gospel hypothesis - this, and not fringyness, is what your opponents will be arguing (if they do argue fringe it'll be easy to shoot down). I don't know how you'll argue that, in fact I don't think it can be done, but please be ready to do it, both in your filing and later in the course of the debate).

Just my suggestion :) PiCo (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew as described by Papias is more accurate and solves the problem you raised - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't go in the filing o the committee, of course - it's for when you're asked to state your case. That's the point at which you need to really set the terms of the debate, which of course you've already done in the Issues section of the application - it's to be about weight, not fringe. PiCo (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Too late. I have filed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it still works :) PiCo (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

unintentional humor

I noticed in one of your recent edit summaries that you indicated that you did not want the mediation to be seen as a stepping stone to sanctions. Considering your own statement that you were withdrawing from mediation to seek arbitration, don't you think most people would consider that at least amusing, and, perhaps, hypocritical? I know that you have over the years shown a remarkably consistent tendency to indulge in exaggerated statements and a tendency to attempt to sidetrack matters, and I guess I should once again indicate to you that they are far less than productive, can be reasonably seen as violations of any number of conduct guidelines, including WP:NPA. I very, very much believe it would be in your own interests to make some sort of more clearly visible attempt to actually understand the relevant conduct guidelines, because, as I think you should know, misconduct is pretty much the only thing ArbCom deals with.John Carter (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You clearly misread my comments. By the way I thought you were banned and had retired from Wikipedia? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that your own existing comment on the mediation page, in which you stated you were intending to seek arbitration rather explicitly, could reasonably be counted as being misread. And, honestly, your own comment above shows that you as an individual are probably more prone to "misreading" than anyone else. Perhaps, maybe, you might actually make some sort of visible effort to actually verify your personal attacks/allegations before making them in the future. I have, more or less, retired from wikipedia, with the intention of devoting more attention to sister projects. Given the comparatively little activity I anticipate here in the future, I think it not unreasonable to keep the talk page message in place. Also, if you had actually paid any real attention to the results of the Ebionites 3 arbitration, you would see that I was only banned from a specific range of articles, and that Ignocrates was placed on an interaction ban as well. I realize, of course, given your history, on this page as elsewhere, that there is no particular reason to assume you yourself would necessarily bother to check such matters out before making prejudicial slurs/personal attacks on others. You have been advised several times, in several locations, to perhaps make some sort of visible effort to understand and apply all policies and guidelines, not only those which you apparently think you can use to promote your own versions. I once again suggest that you make such an effot. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)c

John, as our mediator said, we really need to chill out. Everyone needs to take a step back and relax. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Background

A few years ago, I decided that the Wikipedia articles about Christianity in the Second Temple Period needed to be updated. My area of expertise is Roman Palestine years 30 to 70. I have visited the Holy Land twice. I have also carefully studied the three great histories of that period ie. Josephus, Luke/Acts and the Church History by Eusebius. Eusebius was facinating as he had access to the great Library of Caesarea before it was destroyed. Also Jerome's Lives of Illustrious Men made for great reading, for he cataloged and evaluated all the Library documents before their destruction. Jerome and Eusebius basically preserved the Library of Caesarea for all time and along with it the roots of Christianity. It is because of them that we know that the Library of Caesarea had a copy of Matthew's "Gospel in a Hebrew dialect". It is also because of them we that there were discrepancies between the between Matthew's Hebrew Gospel and the Canonical Gospel of Matthew. It is also because of them we know that the Gospel of Matthew was NOT a Greek translation of the Hebrew Gospel. It is also because of them serious charges were brought against me at the AN/ I

My Response

I had stepped into a problem area! Since 2004, the Hebrew Gospel Tradition has been an area of serious conflict. When things got ugly I decided to handle the situation as follows:

1. Step back - I stepped back from editing to let things cool down.
2. Resume editing - I have resumed editing. WP:BRD I hope to find common ground and clearly define our areas of disagreement.
3. Mediation - I have now requested help in working through conflict areas.
4. Arbitration - Finally, if any areas of misconduct remain, I will request Arbitration.

The AN/I was never part of my plan!

Formal mediation has been requested

I have now filed for mediation. I am optimistic that we will be able to work though our scholarly disagreement because of the good will that is being shown by all parties. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 February 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI Closed

Thanks for all the help and support re the AN/I. Thank God it is over! Also a special thanks to User:PiCo for helping an exhausted editor by doing the lion's share of the work re filing for Mediation. Thanks again! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Are you recruiting - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Mediation has begun. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleting "major shift" with this message: "Ret. Prof, this seems like a pretty out there claim and one unrelated to what we're currently discussing. If you have reliable secondary sources that talk about the anti-Semitism, maybe there's a place for that somewhere, though I really doubt it would be in this article. I'm going to delete this section so we can focus on the issue at hand, OK? Andrevan@ 21:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)" Andrevan@ 21:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Atethnekos version and do so without offering a pile of links. Thanks! Andrevan@ 21:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to User:Andrevan I have agreed to his compromise. Now I am taking a well earned break! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm once again I have misread the situation. In any event I have real life stuff to attend to. I will agree to what ever you decide...you have earned my trust and respect! Thanks again. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but it's not exactly a done deal. I do think we can get there though. What it comes down to is that if there aren't reliable secondary sources that clearly say what it is you want to say, then you can't say it. Andrevan@ 23:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolution

I am truly pleased to have survived the ANI and mediation. Thanks again to our mediator as well as to all those who have advised me during this difficult time! Now that this issue has been resolved it is time for all of us to move on. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Recusing myself

I am recusing myself from editing the Gospel of Matthew article. Please don't post on my talk page anything about this topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Your "drafts"

You have several pages that say they are drafts for review. However, they aren't actually drafts because they are forks of actual articles (and include considerable copyright violation). What is the purpose of these pages? Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Internal copyright violations

This is why I referred to copyright violations. Although you can copy or move text from one or more pages into another page Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

As always I thank you for your help.

Re Proposed edits

1. The article Celsus should be edited to read as follows >>>User:Ret.Prof/Celsus
2. The article Jesus in the Talmud should be edited to read as follows >>>User:Ret.Prof/Jesus in the Talmud
3. The article Josephus on Jesus should be edited to read as follows >>>User:Ret.Prof/Josephus on Jesus

I am preparing drafts on my user page in order to try to avoid continued edit warring. Then after my proposed edits have been vetted I am planning to resume editing. They will be integrated into the aforementioned articles (NOT new articles). I believe I have complied with all Wikipedia policy regarding "proposed edits" including copyright rules. However, I will review this policy and in the meantime stop working on my proposed drafts. Thanks again for your time. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

When I was new I had no idea about this and didn't even understand the messages I was getting(which weren't this clear). Thanks. You will still have to add any changes piecemeal of course. I think you are asking a lot to expect a review of something that is partially yours, partially the work of many others. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I have found the misunderstanding. I am not proposing new articles but new edits to existing articles. Proposed edits to the existing articles are OK. I am about to resume work on my proposed edits. If I have missed anything please let me know. Thanks again for your time. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to assume there is a mistake in your saying "#The article Celsus should be edited to read as follows >>>User:Ret.Prof/Celsus" and "#The article Celsus should be edited to read as follows >>>User:Ret.Prof/Josephus on Jesus" as you propose above. Also, I believe that it would probably be the case that the entire community could take part in discussion before changes were made but welcome Courcelles' comments on that and the disposition of the draft pages afterwards. John Carter (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have requested independent oversight of your draft articles by a former arb here. Ignocrates (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Stepping back

This was a good faith effort to end the edit warring. Obviously I failed. Therefore I will be once again stepping back from Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Being kind of out of everything I don't know exactly what's happening, but I wish you the best. Summer is over before you know: get out of it what you can while you can. I'll be in the office or the classroom if you need me. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, "stepping back" is exactly the wrong thing to do. You have every right to develop draft versions of articles in your user space, as long as they are appropriately labeled as works-in-progress. I encourage you to stick with your efforts to improve the content. Whether your changes are accepted as improvements in main space is up to the community at-large. Ignocrates (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I find some of the comments starting this thread unusual. Please indicate exatly where the edit warring you say you are trying to end is taking place. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Response to email

Thank you for your query via email. I've looked at this page as you requested. The comments to you by other editors all seem in order and I'm not sure what your concerns are. Would you be able to specify specific concerns? Sunray (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunray, I think it would be better to continue your dialog with Ret.Prof by email. He seems to have approached you in confidence, and it probably should be kept that way. Ignocrates (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ret. Prof contacted me following a mediation case. I am on the Mediation Committee. It is usually not appropriate for committee members to discuss things privately with mediation participants. Therefore I chose this way to respond. Sunray (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for weighing in with an opinion. I asked Courcelles to take an independent look at this page, but that was before I realized he may be away from Wiki for an extended period of time with an illness. Ignocrates (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Btw, the three draft articles are clearly outside the scope of that formal mediation. The only thing they have in common with the subject of the mediation, and with each other, is Ret.Prof's participation as an editor and those who are opposed to his activities on Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I usually avoid private discussions of issues that may become the subjects of mediation. It is not a hard and fast rule, but when I looked at the subject matter of the query, it seemed that others (including you) had responded, providing useful information. Sunray (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re works-in-progress

Sorry to stir the pot, but the idea of creating draft documents in user space is that they are works in-progress. If there is going to be no activity on them for an extended period, i.e. "stepping back", the pages should temporarily be blanked to avoid the impression that the drafts are content forks, per WP:FORK. Opinions please. Ignocrates (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You are out of line here - userspace is granted broad discretion. While these "drafts" will certainly not replace the articles, I do think that taken individually there might be pieces which can be introduced as points of discussion, and so this can be seen as Ret. Prof's "ideal" article. I am not saying that we need to do this for Ret. Prof, but we can explain in a nice way that this isn't how the changes will come about if they do end up meeting consensus after being discussed. That doesn't mean he can't have userspace to think about and refactor those changes before proposing them on the talk page. Andrevan@ 07:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not "out of line". I made a suggestion and requested comments. I was in no way assuming bad faith; I was trying to minimize the potential for a misunderstanding. Feel free to apologize to me for your bad faith assumption that I was doing otherwise. Btw, I'm glad to see someone uninvolved taking an interest on Ret.Prof's behalf. Ignocrates (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

When people don't know how to do things here, you're supposed to help them, not bully them away and blank their pages. Andrevan@ 01:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The only comment Andrevan made which is apparently even remotely questionable is "You are out of line here," which I think few people would take as "assuming" anything. Andrevan BTW may be interested in reviewing the archived and maybe non-archived material from this page - he might find it interesting.John Carter (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mediation:To what extent, should Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew as described by Papias be represented in the Gospel of Matthew?

As to content, I believe the mediation has been helpful...particularly regarding FRINGE and RELIABLE SOURCES. However during the Mediation discussion, I was warned: Frankly, "if this continues even another few days, I am going to find the time to file an Arbcom request and solicit permanent sanction, being either a full site ban, or at least a topic ban. Ret.Prof. you need to withdraw again or we are going to arbcom this time." Although I complied, I felt it was very, very wrong. I was further advised that I was not allowed to respond such threats and other behavioral issues at Mediation.

I now agree that the time had come to finally resolve this issue and "pull this problem out by the roots." Therefore in accordance with Wikipedia Policy I am requesting Arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

After the ANI and the Mediation regarding Papias, I decided to stop editing the Gospel of Matthew or any Wikipedia articles. I chose to work on my userspace and shift my focus to different areas of interest putting the Gospel of Matthew behind me. My goal was a simply one. I would prepare some "draft edits" on several different topics. At the end of the summer I would present this work for review. Only if the proposed edits were found worthy by other editors would they be incorporated into Wikipedia articles. (I personally would no longer do any actual editing of WP Articles.) The result was even more conflict:

• I was accused of POV forking and internal copyright violations.
• I was further accused of pushing POV essays into the encyclopedia.
• There was an attempt to have my "proposed edits" deleted.

Because of the serious nature of these allegations I immediately stepped back from editing and sought advice from a a number of Bureaucrats and Admins. They indiated that attacks on me were are out of line - "userspace is granted broad discretion." diff Furthermore, it is not appropriate to "bully" them away and "blank their pages". diff Finally, NONE of the Admins or Bureaucrats believed that my userspace use was wrongful or in violation of any Wikipedia policy.

I am now convinced I am being "made an example of" and that I will be followed and harassed anywhere I go. My deficiencies as an editor have been expanded to include:

• Rudeness (Disruptive editing, Nonsensical to the point of incomprehensibility.)
• arrogance
• being woefully illogical
• Ret.Prof. is the kind of vexatious editor who drives away good editors
• long line of problematic edits
• "very dubious conduct" and refrain from making unsupported allegations which might in themselves clearly violate WP:AGF
• Self-aggrandizement
• Incompetent editor who pushes fringe
• Disruptive or Tendentious editing
• bizarre

Because of the serious nature of these allegations I requested several Bureaucrats and Admins to review my edit history to see if I had done anything to warrant being banned from Wikipedia. None of them could find any edits to justify the allegations of rudeness, vexatious editing, etc brought against me. Admin.MichaelQSchmidt looked into the situation and his response was “Your only "sin" has been to be calm and reasonable in the face of negativity." And “your edits based upon existing policy and guidelines are sound. Your stepping back from areas of drama is to be applauded.”

I now believe the time has come to request arbitration:

1. To have any user account found guilty serious wrongful behavior be banned from editing 'Jewish or Hebrew' Christianity (30 CE to 90 CE) for a period of three months.
2. Because intimidation is a key factor, it is my hope that I will not be banned. My being banned would send the wrong message to those good faith editors who would like to edit but do not want to put themselves in jeopardy.

- Ret.Prof (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Mediation diffs

Can you please remove from your ArbCom statement the quotes and diffs taken from mediation. The relevant policy says Mediation proceedings are privileged and cannot be used as evidence in an arbitration case or community user-conduct proceedings.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, you will have to remove all the quotes and diffs from mediation before the case can proceed. The whole point of formal mediation is to be able to speak freely, including critically, about problems that are getting in the way of improving article content. Editors need to have confidence that their words aren't going to be used against them later in arbitration (i.e., what you have just done). Ignocrates (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This explains a lot! All the abuse I sustained at mediation was privileged. Is there any limits to this privilege?- Ret.Prof (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a limit; it's generally left to the discretion of the mediator, who can always choose to end mediation. The reason there is a lot of tolerance for criticism in mediation is that people frequently need to blow off steam before they can settle into a process of discussing improvements to article content. You should have no problem coming up with other diffs to use in arbitration. I could find 50 diffs over the last four years without even trying. Ignocrates (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Organizing your opening statement

Ret.Prof, please be clear about what Wiki-principles you think are being violated, per WP:5P. I assume you will want to provide a background for the case that ties back to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS. Also, Roger is right that you have to be clear about what you are asking ArbCom to do. Remember, ArbCom's mandate is to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia, not to right great wrongs. Please keep these things in mind as you develop your opening statement. Ignocrates (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: arbcom

I would not have advised you to go to ArbCom. While it's true that you have been singled out by other editors in an unproductive way, this is probably not itself a clear-cut violation of policy outside of its skirting of WP:AGF. Perhaps you are aware of more damning information - I have not exhaustively reviewed your contributions - but simply engaging in a long-term, somewhat over-dramatic content dispute isn't really a matter for ArbCom on the face of it. Moreover, while some of the characterizations are excessive, you do have an idiosyncratic style which apparently rubs some the wrong way, and occasionally have needed clarification on WP:OR and WP:V when incorporating minority POVs into an article. I think if you want to get back into editing and try to harmonize better with other editors, you need to focus on being concise, clear, and have a coherent goal in your comments. Text-walling your minority POV, and long digressions into Biblical arcana, can lead to some seeing you as a disruptive editor. I have written off these quirks, based on your name Ret.Prof, as signs of an older individual with some gaps in online etiquette, and perhaps on the long-winded side due to a strong interest in the subject matter and the lecture format. The thing with the userspace fork - I think people just misunderstood your idea of proposed edits and felt that you would want to merge them back in, which is definitely a copyright problem. Regardless of whether ArbCom wants to get involved, I think we can definitely solve some of these problems through frank discussion and maybe some informal mediation. Andrevan@ 04:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Andrevan: Thanks for your impute. You are correct about text-walling and I will stop immediately! And as far as rubbing some people the wrong way...talk about understatement! Yet I do feel that Ignocrates has a point when he says I have been driven from the encyclopedia by repeated incidents of bullying.

In the end it is not about me. When I was researching these bullies I came across User:Melissadolbeer (a new user who left Wikipedia in 2005) who said "This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia." It is still on her user page. I believe editors at Wikipedia should never be made to feel this way.

More recently, I looked at the way User:Davidbena was treated during his first month at Wikipedia. Within five days of this newbie joining Wikipedia he was falsely accused accused of wrongful behavior and brought before ANI/Aug to be banned. Later, as we were about to start mediation he was again brought before the Feb/ANI again to be banned.(He withdrew from the mediation process). At Mediation I was intimidated by the following order to withdraw from the process: "Frankly, if this continues even another few days, I am going to find the time to file an Arbcom request and solicit permanent sanction, being either a full site ban, or at least a topic ban. Ret.Prof. you need to withdraw again or we are going to arbcom this time." Although I did comply, I felt it was very, very wrong. Finally...

diff1

diff2

diff3

diff4

diff5

diff6

diff7

diff8

diff9

• • diff10

diff11

Luckily you refused to be intimidated, but most of us do not have your skill (or tools). I feel something must be done. Wikipedia should be a safe place for us all. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that you're right if you believe that Wikipedia has a generalized bullying problem, which you have fallen prey to. This, like the problem with women editors/female topics, can be easily explained when you realize the majority of users, myself included not so long ago, are adolescent boys. I'm not sure how you could solve the bullying problem in general through your case. Usually ArbCom is pretty focused on the nitty gritty details of an individual case. For the diffs you linked, try to explain concisely who is violating what policy, why, and what should be done. Andrevan@ 17:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That admission begs the question "Is it better to punish adolescent boys if they are going to engage in bullying behaviour here, or extend them welcome?" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That isn't really what begging the question is. I don't have a good answer to it either. I think Wikipedia as a culture and a society is currently trying to mature such that adolescent behavior isn't so widespread or widely tolerated, but how it happens is unclear. Andrevan@ 17:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand

I said, in my statement on the RFAR page, that I didn't understand what the recent events were that had prompted you to request arbitration. I still don't understand. What you have done is to provide a link in which it appears that User:Ignocrates agrees that arbitration is the next step. (I know that Ignocrates is one of the editors who has been involved in content disputes over the early history of Christianity. Does he also think that he is being hounded and bullied by a cabal?) However, you haven't shown anything that indicates what has changed in the past month or few months. I saw a vague implication that you had been developing a draft in user space of some changes and that there was an abuse involving user space, but you don't mention that in your request for arbitration, or any recent issues. You now raise, on this talk page, complaints that you think that you were bullied in the mediation process six months ago. If you really were bullied in the mediation process (which I find to be an extreme claim requiring extreme proof), you should have raised the issue at the time, and in any case you should raise that issue now. I still don't understand whether anything has recently happened that has changed what appeared to be satisfactory resolution of the issue in mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You will have to do a much better job of stating your case than you have done if you actually expect the arbitrators to grant you any sort of relief (as opposed to declining the case, or as opposed to accepting the case and coming down on you for making wild allegations about a cabal and sock-puppets. You might at least describe what events there have been in August 2014 that have led you to request arbitration, when all of the previous discussions were months in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, when you referred to an unknown number of alternate accounts involved in the cabal, maybe you didn't realize what that meant. Maybe you only meant that you didn't know who many other editors belonged to the cabal, and didn't intend to be implying the use of what in Wikipedia are known as alternate accounts. An alternate account is another account used by the same person. There are a few legitimate reasons for the use of alternate accounts, but most uses of alternate accounts are illegitimate alternate accounts, which is sock-puppetry. If you really only meant that you hadn't identified all of the editors who belong to the cabal, rather than that they were using sock-puppets, then I suggest that you strike the words "alternate accounts" and add something more innocuous, such as "other editors". Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You really should have done a better job of organizing your arbitration request in order to explain why you are filing it now after months of inactivity, during which the issue appeared to have been resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Robert McClenon. I saw my name pop up here. The answer to your question is: No, I do not think I have been hounded and bullied by a cabal. All of my difficulties over the years were with a single editor. That problem has been solved (in theory) by implementing a mutual I-ban. With respect to the rest of your comments here, I agree. I'm as surprised by the timing of this filing as anyone. I think Ret.Prof has to demonstrate that the misconduct problems did not end with the results achieved in mediation, and he needs to show the arbs more evidence than a diff of me saying he has been repeatedly bullied. He also has to make a clear and concise statement about what he is asking the Committee to do. Saying in effect - "ban everybody who was mean to me" - simply will not do. It would be a lot simpler for the arbs to end this disruption by banning him. It was his decision to file, and now he has to see it through to the end. There will be no "stepping back" this time. Ignocrates (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, because aren't you, Ignocrates, one of the individuals named in the case, and weren't you the primary instigator of the "user page fork" concern? Andrevan@ 17:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my meaning then, and you apparently still do. I did not "instigate" anything. I was attempting to argue for a compromise by suggesting the pages be blanked (not deleted) by an admin, such that they could easily be restored with a simple revert. Since Ret.Prof was on an indeterminate break, that was one way of resolving the objections posed by others. Ignocrates (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but nobody was pushing for the pages to be deleted. You, without prompting, asked for "oversight from an arbitrator," then "stirred the pot" by asking for the pages to be "blanked as violations of WP:FORK" (your words lightly paraphrased), then asked me to apologize for calling this out of line. Either way, it is strange for Ret. Prof to use your comments, and my comments made to you, as support for the charge of bullying, totally cherry-picked out of context, so as an arbitrator I might ask him to explain that. Your interactions are colored by this comment you made to Ret. Prof in Feb: "I think you should honestly ask yourself why you continue to spend time here and whether your efforts are helping or hindering the improvement of this encyclopedia." Is that still how you feel about it? Why would he look to you for support on this? Andrevan@ 18:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If you still don't understand that I am generally supportive of Ret.Prof's efforts here, there's probably nothing more I can say to convince you. The quote you cherry-picked was probably a follow-up to this one, attempting to caution Ret.Prof about what he was in for should he choose to return to editing. What Ret.Prof needed to do from that day forward was conceptually simple: (1) use only high quality reliable sources, and (2) accurately summarize what they say. That's all he needed to do to defend his edits in front of any noticeboard. I'll leave it to you to decide if he took my advice to heart. Ignocrates (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I don't remember saying what you claim I said. Please back up that quotation with a diff. And why are you trolling through my edit logs? Just wondering. Ignocrates (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's on the top of Ret.Prof's most recent talk page archive. [2] Andrevan@ 04:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now I see the context of my statement. Now, to answer your question. If Ret.Prof can consistently do what I advised him to do - (1) use only high quality reliable sources, and (2) accurately summarize what they say - then I support his efforts to expand and improve the content of the encyclopedia. If repeated incidents occur in the future that show he is unwilling or unable to follow policies and guidelines, my comments above apply. In addition, it would be helpful if he could learn to work with others to achieve a consensus. Good luck helping him. I'm staying away as much as possible. Ignocrates (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Thanks for your sound advice! Gone is the Text-walling and I will be careful to (1) use only high quality reliable sources, and (2) accurately summarize what they say. See Gospel of Matthew. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined as withdrawn

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Misconduct in the Christianity topic case request has been declined as withdrawn. You can review the original case request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for allowing me to withdraw, as I probably would have ended up as chum in the shark tank! (It would be fair to say I owe the mediator Andrevan a great deal). I do have three questions:

1. Am I precluded from making a further request sometime in the future?
2. Carcharoth mentioned my presentation was poor. Could you offer some practical suggestions on how to improve?
3. Could you link me to some well presented requests for arbitration. Many of the other named editors have a great deal of experience in this area while I have little idea of what I am doing.

In any event, it is my sincere hope with the help of our mediator that we will be able to work things out at Christianity and arbitration can be avoided. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

I just wanted you to know, RetProf, that my comment regarding your entry on the talk page was not intended as a slight or a criticism. I thought perhaps that Fearofreprisal's later comment, being taken that way, might have been reason for you to wonder. In fact, I have noted your return to Gospel of Matthew, and know of the history that there has been there. I have also noted your efforts to deal with opposition, and have seen others' reaction to you. I don't really have much of an opinion about the content you have been trying to advocate for, and don't take any exception with you on that basis. And I grant your level of calm to be rather remarkable, and rather greater than mine. I think I am rather inclined to remember that as I edit in the future.

For now, I have also read somewhere in a mix of pages about some sort of ANI going on recently, how you have noted a negative reaction from other editors to your editing in the past, and thought I saw some comment of yours that you didn't always see why. But I had occasional negative reactions of my own when the mediation was going on. I didn't say much about that then, partly because I didn't think it would help the whole process, but also because I couldn't see how it would be of benefit to you. You just looked stressed out then, and that was the last thing anyone needed.

So, Historicity of Jesus is now having a similarly stressful time, from which I had stepped away last night for I didn't know how long - I'd wait and see. But your edit appeared, and it seemed separate from the other conflict, so I thought I'd reply to you. I had first considered doing so here on your talk page, opted otherwise, and in retrospect think that it may not have been best to be more public, for which I apologize. But what I was thinking was, there was the edit I want to talk about, and with it a rather hostile reply related to what I wanted to say to you. It seemed a reasonable choice at the time.

In any case, with my edit, I wanted to point out a few elements that I thought might help you to understand why the negative reactions occur, feeling that I understood some of that myself. Perhaps that was presumptuous of me, but I thought it might be helpful and appreciated. In the aftermath here, let me say that I rather detest bullying or other aggressive unconstructive types of editing, and have sometimes taken a pretty aggressive stance against the same because of it. But I find myself moderating recently. In addition, I think it's important to provide some sort of encouragement (or at least solace) for those who have been beat up in the past. Maybe I've felt beaten upon myself too many times. But I find my musings on all these things quite perked me up, and that's why I'm here on your talk page.

I am hopeful that your own reflections may restore some of your own sense of health here and enable you to find ways to contribute. I truly hate to see anyone knowledgeable driven away from what can be a rewarding activity. I don't really have much idea yet on whether or how much I might agree or disagree with your views. But I want you to know that I value your presence, for your own sake, for Wikipedia's, and for my own. I for one have been happiest here while really digging into something where I am learning at the same time, often from other editors. One can't always get enough of that from people with one's own frame of mind. It's a brutal and ugly world out there sometimes, not much to my liking. But for now, I'm staying, and I hope you will too. My best wishes to you for finding a path through whatever obstacles lie ahead, and may you arrive at a happier happy place in which to contribute. Evensteven (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC) correction above Evensteven (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for for the words of encouragement. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Matthew wrote in Hebrew?

I'm not very conversant with early Christianity or the Bible, but just from a linguistics perspective, isn't the language that Matthew may have written in Aramaic? See: Language of Jesus I don't think Hebrew was a spoken language in the 1st century? Andrevan@ 04:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We all agree that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Koine Greek by some unknown author(s). However Papias speaks of an earlier primitive work, that Matthew composed in a Hebrew dialect (en Hebraidi dialecto). Some scholars believe this means the Hebrew language. Others argue in favor of Aramaic. St Jerome, writing at the time of the Early Church stated Matthew composed this Gospel in Aramaic but used Hebrew script. Maybe our Hebrew expert from Israel ie Davidbena can add to this. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic. It seems like Aramaic was more widely understood by the populace than Hebrew by that time, but I guess the obvious question researchers probably look at is, what kind of things were written in Aramaic at that time, and what kind of things were still being written in Hebrew? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely right. And this is what Casey 2014 does. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Although this is a very broad topic, it can be effectively summarized in the following manner: Jews were writing, both, in Aramaic (with Hebrew script, or what is literally called "ashurit") and in Hebrew (with Hebrew script, or what is literally called "ashurit"), during the 1st and 2nd centuries. Aramaic was widely spoken in Judea and in Galilee. As for Matthew's original Gospel, the subject is widely disputed by scholars. Depending on which scholars you rely upon, some say the original text penned by Matthew was Aramaic (in the Hebrew script), excepting whenever he quoted directly from the Hebrew Bible in the Gospel, in which case he used the original Hebrew. Others say the original text penned by Matthew was Greek. I tend to follow the first opinion, as I have seen ample evidence to support that view, besides knowing the general practice of Jews during the 1st and 2nd centuries of our Common Era, which was mostly to write in Aramaic and Hebrew in the Land of Israel, rather than in Greek. Many of our ancient Aramaic/Hebrew writings are still extant and read by us today.Davidbena (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable - but is there also a perspective that he wrote in Hebrew directly? Ret.Prof is saying that Casey claims this. I haven't read it but maybe I will need to. Andrevan@ 19:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The early Greek and Latin sources from the Church Fathers (e.g. Jerome, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Origen, etc.) would all dispute that claim, since they bring down excerpts of what they term "the original Gospel of Matthew," and they purport seeing it written in the Chaldaic (Aramaic) language, but in Hebrew characters, with the one exception of the quotations from the Hebrew Bible which were not written in Aramaic but in Hebrew. This was the common practice of Jews in the Land of Israel at that time and age.Davidbena (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This view is also consistent with Papias (as I understand it), although he was sufficiently vague as to leave other possibilities open. Therein lies an opportunity for modern scholars to form differing opinions. Evensteven (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Davidbena! I carefully re read Casey 2014. On page 91 he uses the term "Aramaic" and on p 92 "a Hebrew language". I do not think he is contradicting David. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It is my solemn view that if all the testimonies were taken together and diacritically analyzed, there would be no excuse for vagueness in Papias' words. For example, if we were to take the statement made by Jerome in De Viris inlustribus (III, ed. C. A. Bernoulli): "…It is to be noted that where the evangelist (Matthew) whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord and saviour quotes the testimonies of the old Scriptures, he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two [quotations] exist: 'Out of Egypt have I called my son' and 'For he shall be called a Nazarene'," and then simply make comparisons by looking at the Proof-Texts in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint, and then compare the same with the current Greek text of Matthew's Gospel, the conclusion to be drawn from it all is that the present Greek copy of Matthew's Gospel has gone through several recensions and/or interpolations.

According to Jerome, the substance of the Hebrew Bible quoted by Matthew (in his Aramaic Gospel) was different from the Septuagint.

• A) Let us look, for example, at the proof-text of Isaiah 7:14 quoted in Matthew 1:23, and compare the same with Jerome's statement.

1) In Isaiah 7:14, the Septuagint writes: parthenos (virgin) for the woman described in that verse. The Masoretic Text, on the other hand, uses the Hebrew word העלמה, which word has the unequivocal meaning of "young woman." (Yonathan b. Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel the elder and one who made an Aramaic translation of the prophets before Christianity, also gives the Aramaic equivalent of עולמתא , or "young woman," for the same Hebrew word used in that verse).

2) Isaiah 7:14 is a verse quoted by Matthew (ibid.). Jerome, looking for harmony with the Septuagint (Isaiah) found not the word "virgin" in Matthew's original Gospel, but the word "young woman," just as it was written in the Hebrew scriptures. However, when Matthew's Aramaic Gospel was later translated into the Greek language, the Greek translator of Matthew's Gospel restored the word parthenos (virgin) that had been used in the Septuagint.

• B) Now let us look at the proof-text of Hosea 11:1 quoted in Matthew 2:15 and compare the same with Jerome's statement.

1) In Hosea 11:1, the Septuagint writes: kai ex Aigyptou metekalesa ta tekna aytou ("…and from out of Egypt I called back his children"). The Masoretic Text, on the other hand, has written there instead: וממצרים קראתי לבני (And from Egypt I have called my son).

2) Hosea 11:1 is a verse quoted by Matthew (ibid.). Jerome, looking for harmony with the Septuagint (Hosea) found not the word "children" in Matthew's original Gospel, but the word "son," just as it was written in the Hebrew scriptures. For the Hebrew words used by Matthew were: וממצרים קראתי לבני. However, when Matthew's original Aramaic Gospel was later translated into the Greek language, the Greek translator of Matthew's Gospel gave an accurate rendering of the Hebrew verse according to the MT, writing huion mou for "my son." Notwithstanding, the Septuagint remained different from Matthew's original Hebrew text, a thing noted by Jerome.

• C) Now let us look at the proof-text of Jeremiah 31:6 quoted in Matthew 2:23 and compare the same with Jerome's statement.

1) In Jeremiah 31:6, the Septuagint writes: "For it is the day of calling of ones pleading" – Gr. …kleseos apologoymenon. The Masoretic Text, on the other hand, has written there instead: כי יש יום קראו נצרים בהר אפרים. ("For there shall be a day that the watchmen – notzrim – shall call upon the mount Ephraim"). The Hebrew in the MT has written here the word notzrim, which can be explained as "watchmen" or which can also be applied to "those surviving." However, by way of an exegesis on the word (a thing common in Jewish writings), it can also be used in the sense of "the inhabitants of Nazareth." Meaning, there would come a day in mount Ephraim that men would be called notzrim, the word now applied to Christians, being as it were a derivative taken from Jesus of Nazareth.

2) Jeremiah 31:6 is a verse quoted by Matthew (ibid.). Jerome, looking for harmony with the Septuagint (Jeremiah) found not the word "of ones pleading" in Matthew's original Gospel, but the words "He shall be called a Nazarene," just as the verse was expounded from the Hebrew verse according to the MT. When Matthew's Aramaic Gospel was later translated into the Greek language, the Greek translator of Matthew's Gospel remained faithful to the exegesis, copying the verse as he had seen it explained in Matthew's Aramaic Gospel, writing "Nazoraios" (Nazarene) for what he saw there as notzrim. Even so, it is only an exegesis on the Hebrew verse, or at best a loose translation. (It should be noted here that Targum Yonathan b. Uzziel proves that the verse in the MT had not changed, translating: "For there are length of days and abundance of good that shall come upon the righteous who keep – notzrim – the Law of old.")

• D) Now let us look at the proof-text of Isaiah 42:4 quoted in Matthew 12:21 and compare the same with Jerome's statement.

1) In Isaiah 42:4, the Septuagint writes: kai epi to onomati ethne elpiousin (And upon his name nations shall hope). The Masoretic Text, on the other hand, has written there instead: ולתורתו איים ייחלו ("… and the isles shall hope for his Law”). While the Septuagint writes "hope in his NAME," the Hebrew version of the MT has written there "hope in his LAW."

2) Isaiah 42:4 is a verse quoted by Matthew (ibid.). Jerome, looking for harmony with the Septuagint (Isaiah) found not the word "name" (Gr. onomati) in Matthew's original Gospel, but rather the word "Law" (Heb. תורה). When Matthew's Aramaic Gospel was later translated into the Greek language, the Greek translator of Matthew's Gospel restored the word onomati (name) that had been used in the Septuagint. Jerome's testimony, however, still stands, viz., that Matthew used a Hebrew text which differed from the Septuagint.

Jerome's testimony proves without question that the Masoretic Text (MT) has remained unchanged throughout the years, and was the same version used by Matthew and Jesus' following.Davidbena (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Extremely helpful! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Davidbena:Rabban Gamaliel, Let us turn to the end of the Gospel, where it is written "I came not to take away from the Law of Moses, nor to add to the Law of Moses." What do you make of it? - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof:, since the judge addressing Rabban Gamaliel was a non-Jewish, Christian philosopher, it can be assumed that he was quoting from the Greek translation of Matthew's Gospel, or else paraphrasing the gist of the matter, with which the judge would have been familiar. Since, however, those who redacted the Babylonian Talmud wrote mostly in Aramaic, the entire episode is being transposed in Aramaic for our Jewish readers of the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 116a-b), and which was written several centuries later after Rabban Gamaliel. Perhaps the redactors of the Talmud copied the account from an earlier Aramaic text. Whatever the case, this does not negate the fact that the original text of Matthew was composed in Aramaic which may or may not have been worded slightly differently. In any rate, when Jesus spoke those words, he had also spoken them in Aramaic. The Talmudic rendition is translated to us as follows: "I have not come to take away from the Law [of Moses], neither have I come to add to the Law [of Moses]." The Greek Text of the same quotation in Matthew 5:17 has: "Think not that I have come to depose (Gr. καταλὺσαι) the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to depose, but to fulfill (Gr. πληρώσαι)." = לא תהון סבורין דאנא אתיתי למיפחת מן אורייתא. (I have written what the Aramaic would have looked like, based on the first clause of the Greek Text of Matthew's Gospel, "Think not that I have come to depose the Law [of Moses]").Davidbena (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof, I have edited my previous post, and now it reads more correctly.Davidbena (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

DRN; Gospel of Matthew

A request for assistance has been filed at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard on the dispute at Talk:Gospel of_Matthew in which you are mentioned. This notification is to invite your participation. PiCo (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Link: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Gospel_of_Matthew

The above good-faith DRN notice has a bad link and is missing important instructions. Please see DRN notice below. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Gospel of Matthew. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Davidbena: What date would you support for the writing of the Gospel of Matthew? - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea, other than perhaps late 1st century CE. That is, the Aramaic version. As for the Greek Gospel, it would have been shortly afterwards.Davidbena (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Tags

@Ignocrates: Don't you think that posting tags that say you are on a break when you are not, is dishonest, disruptive and just a little bit creepy? - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC) PS Talk pages are important!

Have your fun while you still can. When the content part of this dispute is over, you are going to arbitration. There won't be any running away from this one. Ignocrates (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong! Your tags really are confusing. Sorry I upset you. However your remarks about arbitration are really, really out of line! - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ignocrates: Thanks for striking the remark. Let's work in good faith to resolve our differences. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ignocrates: Thanks also for striking the tag and the explanation on your talk page. I can now relate to what you say! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

DRN: Date of the Gospel of Matthew

@Ignocrates: This diff is really, really NOT appropriate. Yes I know I "wimped out" at Mediation when threatened with arbitration BUT not this time. Trying to get the upper hand at DRN with these tactics is wrong! I believe the 50ce date should be included and will argue for it in good faith. Please do likewise! In other word please lay off the threats and personal attacks! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You filed an arbitration case against me and other editors. Was that "appropriate"? Was that a demonstration of your "good faith"? Just wondering. Ignocrates (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you suggest that I do just that??? Didn't you support the request???? When you changed your mind and felt request was not a good idea did I not comply and withdraw the request??? Let us work to sort out the 50 CE date issue in good faith. Then if issues remain I will support your request for arb. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry to file a case. It's time consuming and a lot of work. Your allegation of "trying to get the upper hand at DRN with these tactics" is misplaced. There is a long-term behavioral issue here that needs to be fixed. I believe I have the ability to fix it. That's all. Ignocrates (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Threats and personal attacks have no place at DNR. Now let's focus on content in good faith. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Real life stuff

Now I have some real life stuff to attend to . . . but will be back shortly! Please let us work together in good faith. Cheers. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration

Ignocrates has notified me that he will be taking me to Arbitration to be banned from Wikipedia this coming Monday. Therefore I will be preparing my "defense" over the next week. During that time I can be best reached by email. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please review the above exchange. Nothing is happening on Monday, nor are you being banned from Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. In the past your threats regarding Arbitration have been meant to be disruptive. Still preparation for arbitration is a lot of work and I need to be ready! See you in a week! - Ret.Prof (talk)

Look at it this way. You filed for arbitration against me first. You had the opportunity to make your case and you muffed it. I'm giving you a second chance to do a better job of it. Ignocrates (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Could we please set the talk of arbitration aside until the DRN case is closed? We are all human and have human emotions, and I am concerned that this might -- consciously or unconsciously -- cause someone to dig in their heels instead of compromising on the content dispute. When dealing with arbcom, it is a real advantage to be able to say that you reached an agreement on the article content before coming to them. Just as DRN never addresses behavior issues, Arbcom never addresses content issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely right. We should keep going. Ignocrates (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Prof, please come back and see if we can finish this mediation. It seems to be going quite well. Nothing will happen with this arbitration matter till the DRN is done. PiCo (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I will support whatever you decide. I was pleased with the way the content discussion was going. Now I really have to prepare for what is coming at me. If you don't think that is necessary then review my last pathetic effort before the arbitration committee. LOL Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Behavior issues

This is a very different situation. A small group of editors have been harassing me wherever I go. It has brought my editing to a stand still. I found these...diff diff diff etc.. while trying to work out a dispute in good faith to be out of line. Still, I have to take them seriously and prepare.

Taking a break

Please do not make comments on my talk page until notice of Arb is posted. I can be reached by email. Thanks to all those who have been quietly advising me. I would not still be here without your help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I am now prepared. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice against Andrevan

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting a block. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I am sorry I lost my cool. I really thought we had all worked things out. Then to see you bring a second ANI against Andrevan truly upset me. I have regained my composure. Sorry again! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Time to let go and move on

@Ignocrates: Thanks to the hard work of our mediator all the issues between us have been resolved! Yet you seem to be still holding a grudge??? It is truly time to let go. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Andrevan's actions drove PiCo into retirement, and I know they almost drove me into retirement. The witch-hunt at SPI was unconscionable. All of this happened because of you; you and your unceasing carping about being victimized by "a group of user accounts". The allegation at ANI that I am somehow opposed to authors who support the use of Jewish-Christian sources makes me want to puke. Who do you suppose wrote the Gospel of the Ebionites and co-authored the Gospel of the Hebrews articles? I just got over 3 years of other people impugning my (supposed) religious beliefs, and I got to do it all over again. Thanks a lot. Ignocrates (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I really do not think the mediator drove anybody into retirement!! Nor was there a "witch-hunt"! You clearly misunderstood my position re Jewish-Christian sources. Your work on the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Hebrews was excellent! I never impugned your religious beliefs!! Why you brought such a frivolous ANI against our mediator I will never understand...but I do not need to. Now, it is truly time to let go and move on. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The diffs I presented at ANI, and the quotations contained in them, speak for themselves. Those are the facts of what happened, not my opinion of what happened. If you consider casting aspersions in that way to be frivolous, we have an incompatible set of ethical values. If that's the case, the less time I spend interacting with you the better. Therefore, please stop following me around Wikipedia and commenting on all my posts before the intended recipient has a chance to respond. Ignocrates (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I truly believe Andrevan has done nothing to warrant an ANI. If that means we have "an incompatible set of ethical values", so be it. He has earned my respect and deserves to be applauded for the good work he does at Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as your statement that I am following you around Wikipedia, I looked at my edit history and that is clearly wrong! As far as your statement: "If that's the case, the less time I spend interacting with you the better." Agreed. Please leave me alone! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Content

I am pleased at the consensus that we have been able to reach over the past year. It has been very productive. Indeed, as I review my edit history, it appears that all outstanding issues have been dealt with fairly. A special thanks to the Mediator and Moderator.

Ignocrates, PiCo, Eusebeus All retired! No arbitration???? I did not see this coming. Hope it was nothing I said?? PiCo did say something I think we all should ponder. ...And try to remember, behind every funny user-name there's a real and quite possibly vulnerable human being. Anyway my plan is to work on proposed edits (see User Page) and stay away from conflict, particularly the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. As far as I am concerned, it is time to move on! - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Now back to my proposed edits

Now that ANI against our Mediator has failed (thankfully!!) it is time to get back to work. I am preparing some proposed edits that I plan to put forward in January. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of helping you express yourself here, your proposed edits deviate too sharply from the consensus mainspace articles so as to be considered POV forks by some. I think you should focus on the diff in broad strokes as to how your version expresses missing pieces and lay them out in that way. Does this make sense? Andrevan@ 22:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing should "deviate" nor am I planning to delete any material. My goal is merely to update and try to make the material more readable. Having said that, your input would be most helpful. You have no bias on the topic. I have now completed my proposed edits re Celsus. Could you:

1. Read Celsus
2. Then read User:Ret.Prof/Celsus which is how I believe the article should read. Is there an improvement re clarity? Am I good to go on NPOV and Reliable Sources. If I get your approval (and a few others) I will start merging my edits by consensus into the Celsus article in January.

Thanks again for your help. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Diff utility

I have just looked at the diff utility. Thanks! If you do not find any major faults in my proposed edits, I think I will use it to build consensus when introducing my proposed edits to the main article in Jan. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What I meant by that is that the changes you make to the article need to start with the current article text, and then change one piece at a time with some justification and discussion on each case. In many cases, if the changes are non-controversial, it will be a simple edit with summary explaining. You can't just rewrite an article from scratch as here. Statements like "It is unlikely that Jesus was as nefarious as Celsus alleges." need a direct source, also. But all in all your draft is predicated on a flawed idea of the editing process. Andrevan@ 04:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Then I will stop. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)