Talk:Authentic Matthew

message: Jerome, in his Commentary on Matthew writes "In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew, the man . . ."
It has been pointed out to me that this is a poor translation. More recent publications  read as follows: "In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Original Gospel of Matthew, the man . . ."
I am willing to concede the point. --Melissadolbeer 06:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already merged before even being put up for VFD the first time. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not merged now.  Do you that agree it should be? --Peter Kirby 10:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If he is right, then there is only one Hebrew Gospel and that would mean Authentic Matthew is the Gospel of the Hebrews. Care to comment Peter. You can probably see where I am going.--Poorman 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not sure where you are going.  Please let me know where you are going with this. --Peter Kirby 05:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that the references from Jerome and the other patristic writers suggest that the title of this work was commonly the Gospel of the Hebrews, and, moreover, this is certainly the title current among scholars today. What are your thoughts about merging the contents of this article into Gospel of the Hebrews? --Peter Kirby 07:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I might get into trouble with my wife Melissa, but you have won me over!--Poorman 07:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for your good will and good judgment.  I will get to work on writing a draft of Gospel of the Hebrews that includes the merged material. --Peter Kirby 08:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authentic Matthew 

message: That is, the text that Jerome says many consider to be the original one of Matthew is the same as the "Gospel of the Hebrews," is it not?
I found the Latin text. "In evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraeni et Ebionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum, homo iste qui aridam habet manum caementarius scribitur istius modi vocibus auxilium precans: Caementarius eram, manibus victum quaeritans. precor te, Iesu, ut mihi restituas sanitatem, ne turpiter mendicem cibos." Translation: "In the gospel which the Nazoraeans and Ebionites use, which we recently translated from Hebrew speech into Greek, and which is called by many the authentic [gospel] of Matthew, this man who has the dry hand is written to be a mason, praying for help with words of this kind: I was a mason, seeking a livelihood with my hands. I pray, Jesus, that you restore health to me, lest I disgracefully beg food." I do not believe that Matthaei authenticum is presented as a title but rather as an assertion, i.e., that Jerome reports that many people believe this to the original text written by Matthew.  This text is commonly known by scholars as the "Gospel of the Hebrews" (evangelium quod Hebraeorum in Jerome, On Isaiah, preface to book 18 and Jerome, on Isaiah 4, commentary on Isaiah 11:2; Hebraico evangelio secundum Matthaeum in Jerome, commentary on Psalm 135; evangelio quod iuxta Hebraeos scriptum in On Isaiah 11, commentary on Isaiah 40:9; evangelio quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos in On Matthew 1, commentary on Matthew 6:11; Evangelium quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos in On Famous Men 2). My first preference is to merge this page with Gospel of the Hebrews, since Gospel of the Hebrews is the term used in English-language scholarship.  Thoughts? --Peter Kirby 07:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already merged before even being put up for VFD the first time. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not merged now.  Do you that agree it should be? --Peter Kirby 10:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If he is right, then there is only one Hebrew Gospel and that would mean Authentic Matthew is the Gospel of the Hebrews. Care to comment Peter. You can probably see where I am going.--Poorman 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not sure where you are going.  Please let me know where you are going with this. --Peter Kirby 05:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that the references from Jerome and the other patristic writers suggest that the title of this work was commonly the Gospel of the Hebrews, and, moreover, this is certainly the title current among scholars today. What are your thoughts about merging the contents of this article into Gospel of the Hebrews? --Peter Kirby 07:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I might get into trouble with my wife Melissa, but you have won me over!--Poorman 07:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for your good will and good judgment.  I will get to work on writing a draft of Gospel of the Hebrews that includes the merged material. --Peter Kirby 08:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matthaei Authenticum = Evangelium quod Hebraeorum, n'est ce pas? 

message: In the meantime, whatever happens to the article, there are currently two versions, which of them is more suitable
*Version 1 - Melissadolbeer
*Version 2 - After Version 1 has been somewhat culled by Acjelen I respectfully disagree. It was an attempt to find common ground by removing the contest sections. It was also the Authentic Matthew that survived the Vfd...Cleaned, NPOVed, and Wikified!
#
*Version 3 - Wikified, cleaned up, and NPOVed versionEven Melissa and I would have to vote against it. In good faith, is this little more than a straw man?
If the article survives, then one of these needs to be chosen. Likewise one needs to be chosen in the meantime during discussion of more permanent issues.
;Version 1 (Melissadolbeer - Original)
#
;Version 2 (Acjelen - Original after culling) I respectfully disagree. It was an attempt to find common ground by removing the contest sections. It was also the Authentic Matthew that survived the Vfd...Cleaned, NPOVed, and Wikified!
#
;Version 3 (Cleaned, NPOVed, and Wikified)This is little more than a stub. Even Melissa and I would have to vote against it. In good faith, is this little more than a straw man?
#~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Issue 

message: In all the Vfd debates this was a major reason for deletion.
*"The article has been reviewed by an editor (not me) who has a doctorate (PhD) in the study of the New Testament, and been said to be unsalvagable original research by that editor." ed Ril
*Wikipedia:No original research  Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published
Would the following from a Church History written by Eusebius which has been published in many languages fail the wiki test simply because it is old.
They (the Apostles) were led to write only under the pressure of necessity. Matthew, who had first preached the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going to other nations, committed the Gospel to writing in his native language. Therefore he supplied the written word to make up for the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent.--Poorman 06:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Dmcdevit·t 07:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)  Therefore go slowly and in good faith.--Poorman 07:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vfd Result 

message: I have also posted this on Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews.  Having secured the agreement of Doc and Poorman, I will be working on merging in what material can be kept from Authentic Matthew into Gospel of the Hebrews.  The reason for the merge is that "Gospel of the Hebrews" is the only term current in contemporary English-language scholarship and that "authentic Matthew" is not a title but a description, the title being given by Jerome elsewhere as "Gospel of the Hebrews" (Evangelium quod Hebraeorum).  I will take care to cite sources and remain NPOV.  Please see the work in progress at User:Peter Kirby/Gospel of the Hebrews and comment here.  Thank you for your attention. --Peter Kirby 08:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will be merging the material, with your comments and help 

message: I checked several of the references and found about what I was expecting. Brown's Introduction to the New Testament on page 209-10 reads:
:The canonical Gospel exists in Greek – was Papias referring to a Semitic original from which it was translated? Three different observations point us in that direction. In antiquity there was a Jewish gospel probably in Aramaic used by Palestinian Christians and associated by the Church Fathers with Nazarean (or Nazorean) Jewish Christians, especially in the Aleppo area of Syria. References to this gospel related it closely to Matt; Jerome claimed that he translated it into Greek and at times he treats it almost as if it were the Semitic original behind Matt. … The vast majority of scholars, however, contend that the Gospel we know as Matt was composed originally in Greek and is not a translation of a Semitic original.
Brown here is quite clearly talking about the theories already well covered in the Gospel of the Hebrews article. He nowhere uses the phrase "Authentic Matthew" or "Matthaei authenticum." In  The Birth of the Messiah Brown does not even mention Jerome's authentic Matthew statement, and nowhere mentions a theory of an "Authentic Matthew." He does go into a detailed discussion of Aramaic primacy, but again only links these theories to the notion of a Gospel of the Hebrews.
I then went to Howard's The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text. The primitive text in question is a fourteenth century Hebrew version of Matthew by Shem-Tob. Howard's thesis is that this version is not a translation from the Greek or Latin, but rather a copy of an original Hebrew version of Matthew that had been passed down through the centuries. On page 197 he does compare this text to Jerome's writings:
:Jerome makes reference to a Hebrew Matthew and to a Gospel according to the Hebrews in such a way as to be unclear as to whether these are one and the same. … Jerome writes: “In the Gospel…which is called the authentic text of Matthew by a good many”… There are many other references in Jerome and elsewhere but further citation of these would be of little benefit. The fact is that the quotations from the so-called Hebrew Matthew, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazoreans, the Gospel of the Ebionites, or the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles mentioned in early church writings, yield little evidence of relationship to Shem-Tob’s Matthew.
Howard mentions a comprehensive list of five different names that have been used to describe primitive Matthews, and Authentic Matthew is not one of them. Based on these references I think that merging and redirecting is the right course. - SimonP 14:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
No big surprises there for me, well done. --Doc (?) 15:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference check

message: Anyone interested in whether this article should be recreated should see Constantine Conspiracy, User:MeBee/Matthaei Authenticum, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantine Conspiracy. Clinkophonist 22:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article recreation