Talk:Authentic Gospel of Matthew

message: Born 298 years after the crucifixion, Jerome is reputed to be one of the great scholars of the Church.  
Since the 8th century he was considered to be a Father of the Church and Pius XII found him to be an indisputable witness to the mind of the Church in dealing with the Word of God.
Literary scholars agree that he is our greatest source of information regarding the the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. 
Jerome explains that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew letters for Hebrew Christians.  The library in Caesarea acquired the original work, of which Jerome knew or might even have seen.  Yet it was the Nazarene community of Beroea that gave him a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews.
Jerome translated this copy from Hebrew into Greek and thought of GHeb as being authoritative.  However, it must be noted that Roman Catholics and Protestants view Jerome’s works very differently.
Roman Catholics view him as if he were some kind of SAINT (quite literally), while many of the Protestant writers have called his work into question.  Some Protestants not only maintain that Jerome’s works reflect a lack of scholarly intellect, but go so far as to say they show a lack of Christian integrity.  It is maintained that he falsified information and that he even lied about translating the Gospel of the Hebrews into Greek.
The historical evidence shows that Jerome enjoyed a good reputation among his contemporaries, had a superior intellect, a Christian education and a deep commitment to the scholarly truth. Today, the writings of Jerome are generally considered to be authoritative.
GHeb-39
The phrase “our bread of the morrow” indicated that this fragment had Hebrew origins, or possibly even Syriac.  It further illustrates that Jerome believes that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the "authentic" Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.   It is ‘highly probable’ that it was part of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew because of GHeb 47.    
GHeb-40 
This fragment was written in Hebrew script.  Since Epiphanius states that only the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, Biblical scholars would place this in the ‘probable’ category.
GHeb-41 
Probable.
GHeb-42 
‘Highly probable’, as the Gospel of the Hebrews is cited.  (See discussion on “bodiless demon” in GHeb 4.)
GHeb 43 and 44
It is ‘highly probable’ that these excerpts were part of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.  Jerome says that this is his source and he is dealing with a problem that arises from the Hebrew language.  More importantly, he spends considerable effort to explain away a female Holy Spirit.  This indicates that both he and the reader recognize the authority of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
To Jerome, a female Holy Spirit, a Jesus with two mothers (Mary and the Holy Spirit), and the concept of the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary making her with child are clearly disturbing.  Yet Jerome feels he cannot dismiss the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as spurious.
GHeb-45
‘Highly probable’ – The Gospel is cited.
GHeb-46
‘Highly probable’ – GHeb cited as source. 
It should be noted that GHeb 46, 48, 57 and 58 all attest that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was translated from Hebrew into Greek.
GHeb-47
‘Highly probable’ as the Gospel is cited by Jerome.
GHeb-48
See GHeb-46, above.  It is also important to note Jerome maintained this Gospel is “authentic” Matthew.
GHeb-49 
Epiphanius maintains that only Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew.  This excerpt seems to confirm this fact.  Thus, it is ‘probable’ GHeb-49 is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
GHeb-50
‘Possible’.
GHeb-51
‘Highly probable,’ as Jerome cites this as his source.
GHeb-52
‘Possible.’  No gospel is actually cited by Jerome, but see GHeb-53.
GHeb-53
‘Probable,’ if one accepts that only one Gospel was composed in Hebrew letters.
GHeb-54
‘Probable,’ if there is only one Hebrew Gospel.
GHeb-55
‘Highly probable.’  This citation clears up many problems.  It affirms that the Gospel in Hebrew script is indeed the Gospel of the Hebrews.  It also states that this Gospel was written by Matthew.  It further states that there is a transcript of the Gospel of the Hebrews in the library at Caesarea as well as at the Nazarene community.  It is clear that although Jerome and others refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews as Authentic Matthew, the Hebrew Gospel, etc., that they have only the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in mind.
Jerome mentions that the Gospel of the Hebrews is sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles.  This is not the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, which has nothing to do with the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
GHeb-56
‘Highly probable,’ for the Gospel is cited as the source.  
GHeb-57
‘Highly probable.’  This confirms that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew script, for the Hebrew Christians.
NB: Here it should be noted that much confusion has been caused by the term “Jewish Christian” which is an oxymoron.  Judaism is a religion that accepts the Old Testament but does not accept Jesus.  Christianity is a religion that accepts the Old Testament and Jesus.  Hebrew, on the other hand refers to one’s language, culture, even ethnic origin.  Thus, there are Hebrew Gospels, Hebrew Christians and Hebrew Jews, but never Jewish Christians nor Jewish Gospels.  Sloppy semantics seem to be a major source of difficulty.
A second error of semantics takes place when GHeb 57 is translated as “permitted me to copy it.” Some scholars then argue that there is no evidence Jerome went to the Nazarene community to copy it, thus the conclusion is inevitable that it was not the Nazarenes who communicated knowledge of this gospel to him.
Sloppy semantics makes it sound as if Jerome was only given permission to go there personally.  Actually, the permission was broader than that.  Here it is important to go to the original text and study it carefully.      
GHeb-58
See GHeb-46.
GHeb-59
‘Possible.’  .
*Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Four Gospels : A Study of Origins.  - He shows that Canonical Matthew was "probably" NOT written by Matthew in Hebrew.
*P. Parker, The Gospel Before Mark - He raises the "possiblity" that their was an Authentic Gospel of Matthew . Thus he provides a meeting of the minds between old and modern writers.
*R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah.  - After reading Brown one comes to the conclusion the this Wiki-article is a true and objective reflection of what we know of the Authentic Gospel of Matthew spoken of by the Church Fathers.
--Poorman 04:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerome 

message: The links are very helpful -- 132.206.33.148 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A great article

message: With the recent merging templates, I believe it would be best to merge all the Jewish-Christian Gospels together into this article (including authentic Matthew). There is a lot of repeated content, often very POV and fringe. Putting the articles together will help achieve a neutral and helpful article. --Ari (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as a general reader, that would make reading easier.. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles do need work but they are distinct topics that should not be merged. They are on my "to do list" - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I have decapitalized "authentic" in English and Latin which better seems to reflect the intent of in quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum. As a little request it would be interesting to see in the refs views of whether plerisque is a generalism or whether plerisque refers to Nazareni et Ebionitae. Best regards.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again you have a good point. As far a the merge is concerned you have won me over. I am going to be bold and redirect. If get into trouble... well it won't have been the first time. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging 

message: I merged this article in good faith. I now see I "was played" (See Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof and Talk:Gospel of Matthew) Obviously the only way to delete an article is with an AfD. Sorry - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring Authentic Gospel of Matthew after merge 

message: I checked WP Policy and you are correct. I will not merge the POV fork,  but post an AfD. As to the other points -  Please see talk at the Gospel of the Hebrews Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Point # 3

message: * I found this AfD 2005 inconcluded and this Not sure what to make of them. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You might also note that Authentic gospel of matthew is currently a redirect to Jewish-Christian Gospels, which seems kind of strange considering (I think) it is probably best a redirect to this page. Alternately, maybe it should be deleted, as most people (I think) capitalize the "M" in "Matthew." John Carter (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for deletion

message: * This article was merged here, at the time based on consensus on the Talk pagem then then restored, but merged content left on Gospel of the Hebrews without consensus. As it is the simplest cleanest way to deal with this is simply revert the restore. All in all the way we've got here is clearly a bit of a mess, but the result should be to leave properly titled/written/referenced articles which would resemble what a normal encyclopedia would have:
* (1) fragments of a 3rdC Nazarene text preserved in Jerome.
* (2) 3x 14thC rabbinical Hebrew texts of Matthew
* (3) the hypotheses of James R. Edwards (2010) etc. which seem notable enough for one article.
In ictu oculi (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodo, then we'll leave this as it is for a few days, see if anyone else comments, and if not re-revert. Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article already merged Oct 2010 with consensus, then restored/duplicated March 2011 without consensus